S.S.

Jacob Luckenbach and Associated

Mystery Oil Spills
FINAL
Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/
Environmental Assessment

November 1, 2006
Prepared by:
California Department of Fish and Game
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
 S.S. Jacob Luckenbach and Associated Mystery Oil Spills

FINAL

Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment

November 1, 2006

Suggested Citation
Luckenbach Trustee Council. 2006. S.S. Jacob Luckenbach and Associated Mystery Oil
Spills Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment.
Prepared by California Department of Fish and Game, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park
Service.
 FACT SHEET
Final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan / Environmental
Assessment for the S.S. Jacob Luckenbach
and Associated Mystery Oil Spills
Trustee Agencies: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, California Department of Fish and Game
Abstract: Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA), the Natural Resource Trustee
Agencies (Trustees) present a damage assessment/restoration plan/environmental
assessment for natural resources injured during multiple oil spills that occurred off the coast
of San Francisco, California, from 1990 to December 2003. The oil spills affected seabirds
and marine mammals, including federally endangered Brown Pelicans and federally
threatened Snowy Plovers, Marbled Murrelets, and Sea Otters. The Trustees have
selected 14 restoration projects to restore the injured resources. The projects generally
encompass the following:
i) Reduce human disturbance to seabird and waterfowl nesting habitat along the
central California coast, at northern California lakes, at Kokechik Flats, Alaska, and
on islands off Baja California, Mexico:
ii) Eradicate non-native predators from seabird nesting habitats at the Farallon
Islands, California and the Queen Charlotte Islands, Canada, and protect nesting
seabirds from non-native predators in New Zealand;
iii) Acquire and/or restore and enhance seabird and shorebird nesting habitat at
Reading Rock in Humboldt County, Point Reyes, Año Nuevo Island, and the Santa
Cruz Mountains, California;
iv) Manage and reduce corvid populations at Point Reyes to benefit nesting seabirds
and in the Santa Cruz Mountains to benefit Marbled Murrelets;
v) Conduct education and outreach programs to reduce human and livestock effluent
and their associated pathogens that are impacting Sea Otters in Monterey Bay.

The Trustees also present their environmental assessment on the selected projects under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).

Contact Person: Steve Hampton

California Department of Fish and Game
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
1700 K Street
Sacramento CA 95814
Fax: 916-324-8829, Email: [email protected]
Copies: Copies of the Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan/Environment
Assessment are available from Steve Hampton at the above address. Copies are
also available online at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/index.html
Executive Summary
On July 14, 1953, the freighter S.S. Jacob Luckenbach collided with another vessel and
sank in the Gulf of the Farallones. As it decayed on the ocean floor, it leaked oil and
became the source of many oil spills, primarily during large winter storms when currents
rocked the vessel. Major oiling events have occurred every few winters since at least
1973-74. It was not until January 2002 that these “mystery spills” were linked to the
Luckenbach. These spills manifested themselves in the appearance of oiled seabirds on
beaches from Bodega Bay to Monterey Bay. Oil chemistry analysis has confirmed the
presence of Luckenbach oil on dead birds for every winter since 1992-93 (the earliest
date for which samples are available).

A smaller percentage of the oiled wildlife has been attributed to other mystery oil spills
besides the Luckenbach. These other mystery spills are likely the result of unreported
discharges at sea from various vessels because oil fingerprinting suggests the oil came
from a wide variety of sources (see Hampton et al. 2003a). This document also
addresses injuries from those spills. In compliance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990
(OPA), this document focuses on injuries that occurred after August 1990. It includes
oiling events through December 2003.

The owners of the Luckenbach are no longer viable, and the sources of the other spills are
unknown. However, OPA authorizes the use of the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
(OSLTF) for the payment of claims for uncompensated costs associated with oil removal
and for natural resource damages assessment, restoration, and compensation in cases
where there is no financially viable responsible party or in mystery spill cases. The
OSLTF is managed by the United States Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center
(NPFC).

In the summer of 2002, the NPFC spent approximately $20 million removing oil from the
Luckenbach. The NPFC may also pay for restoration projects to restore the natural
resources impacted by such a spill. A claim to the OSLTF for natural resource damages
assessment and restoration dollars must be made to the NPFC by the appropriate natural
resources Trustee agencies. In this case, the Trustees for injured natural resources are the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) (the
Trustees). As a designated Trustee, each of these agencies is authorized to act on behalf
of the public under state and/or federal law to assess and recover natural resource
damages and to plan and implement actions to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the
equivalent of the affected natural resources injured as a result of a discharge of oil.

Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (DARP)/Environmental Assessment (EA)

Prior to submitting a claim for restoration funds, the Trustees must prepare a draft
Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan (DARP) for public review and comment. The
Trustees did that on February 28, 2006 and accepted public comment thru April 14. This
document is the final DARP, an amended version of the draft DARP after consideration

i
of public comments. In compliance with NPFC guidelines, this document describes the
injuries resulting from the spills and the restoration projects intended to address the
injuries. It also provides the rationale for the size and scope of each restoration project.
This document is also intended to serve as an Environmental Assessment (EA) under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and, therefore, is called a DARP/EA.
Additional environmental compliance may be required for some of the selected projects
described herein, if selected and prior to actual implementation. This will be determined
once detailed engineering design work or operational plans are developed for those
projects.

The Trustees cooperatively developed the draft and final DARP/EA. With the
completion of this final DARP/EA, the Trustees will submit a claim to the NPFC to fund
these preferred restoration projects.

What was injured?

The major documented injuries were impacts to birds and a few Sea Otters. Impacts to
shoreline habitats, cultural resources, and the water column were minimal. Likewise,
there were no beach closures and no significant impact to recreational beach use. Most of
the birds were oiled while foraging at sea, but a small number were oiled by tarballs on
beaches. Oiled birds came ashore from Salmon Creek (north of Bodega) to Point Lobos
(south of Carmel). During the period of spills covered by this plan (August 1990 thru
December 2003), over 51,000 birds and 8 Sea Otters are estimated to have been killed.

Although over 50 species of birds were impacted, the species impacted in the greatest
numbers were Common Murres, Red Phalaropes, Northern Fulmars, Rhinoceros Auklets,
Cassin’s Auklets, and Western Grebes. Four federally- and state-listed species, the
Brown Pelican, Western Snowy Plover, Marbled Murrelet, and California Sea Otter, were
impacted as well. Additionally, Ashy Storm-Petrels were impacted in significant
numbers relative to their population size.

What restoration projects will compensate for these injuries?

The Trustees have selected 14 restoration projects that are designed to address the various
species injured by the spills. These projects differ based on the species they address.
Nevertheless, all are designed to restore and replace bird and otter populations through
restorative on-the-ground actions. Furthermore, several of the projects address multiple
species. The projects were selected based upon the biological needs of the species. For
nearly all species, this meant focusing restoration on their breeding grounds, where they
face various threats. For some migratory species, the breeding grounds may be far from
the area of the spills (e.g. northern California lakes, Alaska, British Columbia, Baja
California, and New Zealand). Where feasible restoration project alternatives existed
within the spill area, those projects were given priority. Section 1.3 provides short
summaries of the preferred projects; section 4.2.2 lists the criteria used in project
selection; and section 4.3 lists all projects considered (by species group) and provides
detailed information on the projects and scaling information regarding the size of each
project. The total cost of all the selected projects is approximately $21 million (in 2007
present value terms).

ii
What changes were made as a result of the public comments?
All of the written public comments are presented in Appendix O. They are summarized
in Appenidix N, as well as Trustee replies to each point. The major changes between the
draft DARP and this final DARP are that one project was added (Shearwater Colony
Protection at Taiaroa Head, New Zealand) and all of the project budgets have been re-
estimated and now include estimated overhead charges.

iii
ABBREVIATIONS

ATV All-Terrain Vehicle

BLM Bureau of Land Management
CBNMS Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CWA Clean Water Act
CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act
DARP Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan
DOI United States Department of the Interior
EA Environmental Assessment
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact
FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
GGNRA Golden Gate National Recreation Area
GFNMS Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
MBNMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NMSA National Marine Sanctuaries Act
NPFC National Pollution Funds Center
NPS National Park Service
NRDA Natural Resource Damage Assessment
NWR National Wildlife Refuge
OPA Oil Pollution Act of 1990
OSLTF Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
PISCO Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans
PRBO PRBO Conservation Science (formerly Point Reyes Bird Observatory)
PRNS Point Reyes National Seashore
REA Resource Equivalency Analysis
USCG United States Coast Guard
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

iv
BIRD SPECIES’ COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES

Yellow-eyed Penguin (Megadyptes antipodes) Sanderling (Calidris alba)

Little Blue Penguin (Eudyptula minor) Red-necked Phalarope (Phalaropus lobatus)
Brant (Branta bernicla) Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicaria)
Greater Scaup (Aythya marila) Bonaparte’s Gull (Larus philadelphia)
Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis) Heermann’s Gull (Larus heermanni)
Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) Mew Gull (Larus [canus] brachyrynchus)
White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca) Ring-billed Gull (Larus delawarensis)
Black Scoter (Melanitta nigra) California Gull (Larus californicus)
Bufflehead (Bucephala albeola) Herring Gull (Larus [argentatus] smithsonianus)
Red-breasted Merganser (Mergus serrator) Western Gull (Larus occidentalis)
Ruddy Duck (Oxyura jamaicensis) Glaucous-winged Gull (Larus glaucescens)
Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata) Glaucous Gull (Larus hyperboreus)
Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica) Red-billed Gull (Larus novaehollandiae)
Common Loon (Gavia immer) Black-legged Kittiwake (Rissa tridactyla)
Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) Least Tern (Sterna antillarum browni)
Horned Grebe (Podiceps auritus) Common Murre (Uria aalge)
Red-necked Grebe (Podiceps grisegena) Pigeon Guillemot (Cepphas columba)
Eared Grebe (Podiceps nigricollis) Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
Western Grebe (Aechmorphorus occidentalis) Xantus's Murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus)
Clark’s Grebe (Aechmorphorus clarkii) Ancient Murrelet (Synthliboramphus antiquus)
Short-tailed Albatross (Diomedea albatrus) Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus)
Northern Royal Albatross (Diomedea sanfordi) Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata)
Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis) Horned Puffin (Fratercula corniculata)
Pink-footed Shearwater (Puffinus creatopus) Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia)
Sooty Shearwater (Puffinus griseus) Common Raven (Corvus corax)
Short-tailed Shearwater (Puffinus tenuirostris)
Black-vented Shearwater (Puffinus opisthomelas)
Leach’s Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa)
Ashy Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa)
Black Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma melania)
Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis
californicus)
Brandt’s Cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus)
Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus)
Pelagic Cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus)
Spotted Shag (Stictocarbo punctatus)
Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum)
American Coot (Fulica americana)
Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)

v
Table of Contents
Chapter Page
Executive Summary i

1.0 Introduction and Purpose 3

1.1 Overview of the Incident
1.2 Summary of Natural Resource Injuries
1.3 Summary of Final Selected Restoration Projects

2.0 Environment Affected by the Spills 15

2.1 Physical Environment
2.2 Biological Environment
2.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species
2.3 Archeological and Cultural Resources
2.4 Recreational Services

3.0 Coordination and Compliance 28

3.1 Federal and State Trustee Agencies
3.2 Coordination
3.2.1 Coordination Among the Trustees
3.2.2 Coordination with the NPFC
3.2.3 Coordination with the Public
3.3 Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies
3.3.1 The Oil Pollution Act
3.3.2 The National Environmental Policy Act
3.3.3 Other Federal and State Laws, Regulations and Policies
3.3.3.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies
3.3.3.2 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies
3.3.3.3 Other Potentially Applicable Statutes and Regulations

4.0 Injury Quantification and Restoration Planning 42

4.1 Overview of Data Collection and Studies
4.2 Injury and Damages Assessment
4.2.1 Damage Assessment Methods
4.2.1.1 Estimation of Numbers of Animals Impacted
4.2.1.2 Restoration Categories
4.2.1.3 Quantification of Damages
4.2.2 Restoration Project Selection Criteria
4.3 Injury Quantification and Restoration Alternatives
4.3.1 Waterfowl
4.3.2 Loons
4.3.3 Grebes
4.3.4 Procellarids
4.3.5 Brown Pelicans, Cormorants, and Gulls
4.3.6 Snowy Plovers

1
 4.3.7 Other Shorebirds
4.3.8 Common Murres
4.3.9 Marbled Murrelets
4.3.10 Other Alcids
4.3.11 Sea Otters
4.4 “No Action” Alternative
4.5 Cumulative Impacts

5.0 References 140

6.0 Preparers 155

7.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted 156

8.0 Appendices
Appendix A: Resource Equivalency Analysis
Appendix B: Bird Mortality Summary
Appendix C: Methods for Calculating Lost Bird-Years
Appendix D: Loon/Kokechik Flats REA Details
Appendix E: Grebe/Colony Protection REA Details
Appendix F: Procellarid/Farallon Islands and Taiaroa Head REA Details
Appendix G: Pelican, Cormorant, and Cassin’s Auklet/Baja California Islands
REA Details
Appendix H: Snowy Plover/Point Reyes REA Details
Appendix I: Common Murre REA Details
Appendix J: Marbled Murrelet REA Details
Appendix K: Ancient Murrelet/Queen Charlotte Islands REA Details
Appendix L: Rhinoceros Auklet/Año Nuevo Island REA Details
Appendix M: Sea Otter/Public Education REA Details
Appendix N: Summary of Public Comments and Trustee Replies
Appendix O: Public Comments
Appendix P: NEPA Compliance Documents

2
1.0 Introduction and Purpose

This final Damage Assessment and Restoration Plan and Environmental Assessment
(DARP/EA) has been prepared by state and federal natural resource Trustees responsible
for restoring natural resources1 and resource services2 injured by releases of oil from the
S.S. Jacob Luckenbach and other mystery spills occurring in the same vicinity, from
Bodega Bay to Monterey Bay, between August 1990 and December 2003 (the spills).
This document provides details regarding the injuries and their quantification, restoration
planning, and the final selected restoration projects to address the injuries. The purpose
of restoration is to make the environment and the public whole for injuries resulting from
the spills by implementing restoration actions that return injured natural resources and
services to baseline conditions and compensate for interim losses.

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service (NPS),
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) are
Trustees for the natural resources injured by the spill. As a designated Trustee, each
agency is authorized to act on behalf of the public under state and/or federal law to assess
and recover natural resource damages and to plan and implement actions to restore,
rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the equivalent of the affected natural resources injured as
a result of a discharge of oil. For purposes of coordination and compliance with OPA
and NEPA, the USFWS is designated as the lead federal Trustee.

There is no viable responsible party (RP) in this case. The owner of the
S.S. Jacob Luckenbach, the Luckenbach Steamship Company, no longer exists.
However, OPA authorizes the use of the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF),
managed by the United States Coast Guard’s National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for
the payment of claims for uncompensated costs associated with removal and natural
resource damage assessment, restoration, and compensation in cases where there is no RP
or in mystery spill cases.3

1
Natural resources are defined under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) as "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water,
groundwater, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by,
appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States, any State or local government or Indian tribe,
or any foreign government.
2
Services (or natural resources services) means the functions performed by a natural resource for the
benefit of another natural resource and/or the public.
3
The OSLTF receives funds from four primary sources: (1) an oil tax (five cents a barrel on domestically
produced or imported oil collected from the oil industry; this is suspended when the fund reaches $1 billion
but may be reinstated if the fund falls below this amount); (2) interest on fund principal; (3) cost recovery
from responsible parties (The parties responsible for oil spills are liable for costs and damages. All monies
recovered go either back to replenish the Fund or to the U.S. Treasury); and (4) penalties (including civil
penalties assessed to the responsible parties).

3
The Trustees have prepared this final DARP/EA to inform the public about the natural
resource damage assessment and restoration planning efforts that have been conducted
following the spill. This document also integrates NEPA requirements. . Nevertheless,
some of the selected projects may require additional environmental compliance prior to
actual implementation. This decision will be made after engineering designs or
operational plans are developed for those projects. .

The Trustees released a draft DARP/EA on February 28, 2006 and received public
comments thru April 14. After considering those comments, the Trustees have amended
the draft DARP/EA and prepared this final DARP/EA. With the completion of this final
DARP/EA, the Trustees will make a claim to the NPFC, requesting funds to implement
the preferred projects. If the NPFC grants the Trustees’ request, the Trustees will be
obligated to spend the funds only on the specified projects, and will be required to return
any extra funds remaining after implementation to the NFPC.

1.1 Overview of the Incident

Since the 1970s, the central California coast has been plagued with recurring mystery oil
spills (Nur et al. 1997). These spills usually shared the following characteristics: (1) they
occurred in winter and were associated with large storms; (2) they manifested themselves
in the appearance of oiled seabirds, primarily Common Murres, on beaches from Bodega
Bay to Monterey Bay; and (3) very little oil was ever seen on the beaches or in the water.
Finally, in early 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard and various responding agencies determined
that the S.S. Jacob Luckenbach, a vessel that sunk in 1953, was responsible for most of
the oiled birds. This 469-foot freighter, carrying railroad parts to South Korea, collided
with its sister ship, the S.S. Hawaiian Pilot, and sank in 178 feet of water, approximately
17 miles west-southwest of San Francisco in the Gulf of the Farallones.

Figure 1: Location of the S.S. Jacob Luckenbach

4
In the summer of 2002, the U.S. Coast Guard, using approximately $20 million from the
OSLTF, conducted oil removal operations. These efforts relied upon divers breathing
mixed gas and living in a pressurized chamber for up to a month. They used vacuum
hoses to pump oil from the vessel to a barge stationed on the surface. During these
operations, approximately 100,000 gallons of oil were removed (McCleneghan 2003).
Because the oil was located in over 30 different compartments on the vessel, complete oil
removal was difficult, and approximately 29,000 gallons that were not removable remain
onboard. The remaining holes in the vessel were sealed at the completion of the response
actions. It is estimated that over 300,000 gallons of oil were released from the
Luckenbach over time.

Although how long the Luckenbach has been releasing oil is not known, major oiling
events have been documented, mostly during the winter, since at least 1973. The major
events thought to be associated with the Luckenbach are described in Table 1.

Table 1: Major Oiling Events Likely Associated with the Luckenbach

OILING EPISODE COMMENTS

Winter 1973-4 100+ live oiled birds collected by the public
Winter 1981-2 218 oiled birds observed on Southeast Farallon Island
August 1983 500 live oiled birds collected by the public
Winter 1989-90 243 oiled birds observed on Southeast Farallon Island
Winter 1990-91 195 live oiled birds collected by the public; 127 oiled birds observed on
Southeast Farallon Island
Winter 1992-93 46 oiled birds observed on Southeast Farallon Island
Winter 1995-96 <100 birds collected by the public at Point Reyes National Seashore
Winter 1997-98
2,964 birds collected by the public and Trustee response
(Pt. Reyes Tarball Incidents)
Winter 2001-02
1,921 birds collected by the public and Trustee response
(San Mateo Mystery Spill)
Summer 2002
257 birds collected by the public and Trustee response
Luckenbach oil removal
Winter 2002-03 546 birds collected by the public and Trustee response

Note that, under OPA, the Trustees will be addressing injuries incurred only after August
1990. Oil fingerprinting linked many of the earlier mystery spills to the Luckenbach. As
part of their damage assessment, the Trustees relied on existing oil chemistry analyses, as
well as 77 additional sample analyses that focused on samples collected at times and
locations not sufficiently analyzed earlier. Oiled feather samples and tarballs are
routinely collected from oiled birds and beaches found during regularly scheduled
shoreline surveys, although not all are analyzed. Samples from beachcast birds exist for
all of the episodes listed in Table 1 starting with winter 1992-93. Matches to the
Luckenbach oil have been found for all of these major episodes.

In addition to the major episodes listed in Table 1, a small number of oiled birds and
tarballs have been found each year, throughout summer and winter. Luckenbach oil has
been detected on at least a few oiled birds every winter since 1992. However,
Luckenbach oil has been found in lower amounts on birds and beaches in summer (not

5
including 2002, when oil removal operations resulted in some oil releases and oiled
birds). Oil that did not match the Luckenbach was compared with other oils with known
fingerprints. This includes Monterey Formation oil, which occurs both naturally in
California from oil seeps (mostly in southern California) and from anthropogenic crude
oil extraction and transport. Oil could not always be matched with known sources, but
any oil in this region that is not Monterey Formation would have to be anthropogenic in
origin, such as from an unreported release from a vessel. Table 2 presents the results of
the oil chemistry analysis for oiled feather samples collected during various spill episodes
and seasons.

Table 2: Oiled Feather Sample Chemistry Analysis Results, 1992-2003

# OF MATCH TO MATCH TO OTHER

PERIOD
SAMPLES LUCKENBACH MONTEREY SOURCE
Winter 1992-93 16 81% 13% 6%
Winter 1997-98 67 93% 0% 7%
Winter 2001-02 49 73% 0% 27%
Winter 2002-03 11 100% 0% 0%
Sub-total for major spill
143 85% 1% 14%
episodes

Other winters
71 32% 14% 54%
(1993 thru 2001)
Summers
23 13% 13% 74%
(1994 thru 2001)
Notes: Monterey refers to Monterey Formation oil. Winter is defined as November thru mid-May,
corresponding to oiled bird events. Summers are mid-May thru October (not including 2002, when oil
removal operations caused known releases).

The results demonstrate that oil matching the Luckenbach oil is strongly correlated with
the major oiled bird episodes, accounting for 85 percent of the 143 samples analyzed.
Natural seep oil is only likely to be responsible for, at most, 1 percent of the oiled birds,
because Monterey Formation oil may also be transported by vessels. Tarball samples
were much less likely to match the Luckenbach oil.

During all summers and winters without major oiled bird episodes, the smaller numbers
of birds collected were predominately impacted by oil from other anthropogenic sources.
This included Alaska North Slope and Basra (Iraq) crude oils, as well as other
unidentified oils. Three additional feather samples were analyzed from summer 2002,
during the oil spill removal operations. As expected, all three matched the Luckenbach
oil.

Hampton et al. (2003b) describes how Luckenbach oiling events were strongly correlated
with strong winter storms that generate very large swells (greater than 22 feet). Storms of
this magnitude occur every few years during the winter months. Experience during the oil
removal operations suggests that strong swells lead to strong undersea currents near the
vessel, which washes oil out through various openings.

6
In the summer of 1998, following the 1997-98 spills (the Pt. Reyes Tarball Incidents), the
Trustees, with the National Park Service (NPS) acting as the federal Lead Administrative
Trustee, requested $333,145.62 from the NPFC to initiate an assessment of natural
resource damages. On August 3, 1998, the request was granted. That natural resource
damage assessment (NRDA) focused only on injuries that occurred from November 1997
through February 1998. A report on the results of that investigation was completed in
July 2003 (see Carter and Golightly, eds. 2003). The bird mortality estimated in that
analysis has been revised and incorporated in this document.

As a result of continuing oil spills between 2001 and 2003, and the discovery of the
Luckenbach as the source for much of the oil, the Trustees conducted further NRDA
work. The Trustees opted not to pursue restoration immediately for the 1997-98 Point
Reyes Mystery Tarball spills, but rather to wait and, combining those injuries with those
associated with other spills, pursue restoration for all the spills under a single plan. This
document represents that comprehensive effort and presents the final selected restoration
projects that will address spill injuries from 1990 through 2003. See Carter and
Golightly, eds. (2003) for a summary of the 1997-98 injury assessment.

The story of the Luckenbach, its discovery, its impacts, and the response operations have
been widely documented. Related publications include:

Elliott, G. 2002. The SS Jacob Luckenbach: A Ghost Story. California Coast &
Ocean 18: 14-17.

Hampton, S., R.G. Ford, H.R. Carter, C. Abraham, and D. Humple. 2003. Chronic
oiling and seabird mortality from the sunken vessel S.S. Jacob Luckenbach in central
California. Marine Ornithology 31:35-41.

Nevins, H.R. and H.R. Carter. 2003. Age and sex of Common Murre Uria aalge
recovered during the 1997-98 Point Reyes Tarball Incidents in Central California.
Marine Ornithology 31:51-58.

McCleneghan, K. 2003. Ghost of the SS Jacob Luckenbach: The hunt for clues to a
killer. Outdoor California 64: 4-11. Also in Oil Spill Intelligence Report XXV, 12
December 2002.

McGrath, G.G., J.A. Tarpley, H.A. Parker-Hall, A. Nack. 2003. The investigation to
identify the SS Jacob Luckenbach: Using technology to locate a hidden source of oil
that caused years of impacts and the future implications of sunken shipwrecks.
Proceedings of the 2003 International Oil Spill Conference. Vancouver, British
Columbia, Canada.

Parker-Hall, H.A., S. Hampton, and J. Haas. 2003. Integrating trustee issues into a
balanced response: Working toward a common goal. Proceedings of the 2003
International Oil Spill Conference. Vancouver, Canada. Washington, DC: American
Petroleum Institute.

7
 Hampton, S. and M. Zafonte. 2005. An analysis of factors influencing beached bird
collection during the Luckenbach 2001-2002 oil spill. Proceedings of the Pacific
Seabird Group and The Waterbird Society Annual Meeting. Portland, OR

Addassi, Y.N., K. Jennings, M. Ziccardi, J. Yamamoto, and S. Hampton. 2005. Long-

term wildlife operations: Adaptations to traditional Incident Command Structure (or
ICS). A case study of the SS Jacob Luckenbach. Proceedings of the International
Oil Spill Conference 2005, Miami, FL.

Massey, G., Hampton, S. M. Ziccardi. 2005. A cost/benefit analysis of oiled wildlife

response. Proceedings of the International Oil Spill Conference 2005, Miami, FL.

Additionally, a report commissioned by CDFG after the 1992-93 mystery spill,

examining the effects of chronic oil pollution on the Common Murre (Nur et al. 1997),
unknowingly addressed impacts caused by the Luckenbach and other mystery spills.

Finally, the Luckenbach has been the subject of three television features:

CALIFORNIA CONNECTED - 1-hour newsmagazine on PBS (in California only) -

15-minute segment, first broadcast on every public television station in California on
May 8, 2003. It was updated and rebroadcast on July 15, 2004.

EXTREME EVIDENCE on Court TV (cable & satellite) - 30-minute program titled,

“Deadly Tide” first aired on January 26, 2004, and rebroadcast at least once to an
international audience. Produced by LMNO Productions of Hollywood.

DEEP SEA DETECTIVES on The History Channel (cable & satellite) - 1-hour
program titled, “Time Bomb of the Deep” first aired on August 30, 2004, and
rebroadcast at least once to an international audience. Produced by KPI Productions
of New York.

1.2 Summary of Natural Resource Injuries

The injuries from these oil spill episodes were primarily limited to birds. In addition, an
estimated 8 Sea Otters were impacted. Impacts to shoreline habitats, cultural resources,
and the water column were minimal. This was likely a result of relatively small
quantities of oil slowly released over time at sea. With the oil emanating from the
Luckenbach 17 miles offshore, the small amounts of oil would weather (or stick to birds)
and form small tarballs before making landfall. During most spill episodes, no oil was
found on beaches. There were no beach closures and no significant impact to
recreational beach use. Most of the birds were oiled while foraging at sea, but a few
(e.g., Snowy Plovers) were oiled by tarballs on beaches.

This plan describes restoration projects that benefit the various species of birds impacted
and the otters, according with their degree of injury. The primary species was the

8
Common Murre. However, other species, including the federally- and state-listed
Marbled Murrelet, Brown Pelican, Snowy Plover, and Southern Sea Otter, were impacted
as well. Here is a summary of the impacted species, as well as the number estimated
killed since August 1990:

• Waterfowl (primarily Surf Scoter): 862

• Loons (primarily Pacific Loon): 1,314
• Grebes (primarily Western Grebe): 4,106
• Procellarids (primarily Northern Fulmar): 4,796
• Brown Pelican: 278
• Cormorants (primarily Brandt’s Cormorant): 1,460
• Gulls (primarily California, Western, and Glaucous-winged Gulls): 2,388
• Snowy Plover: 30
• Other shorebirds (primarily Red Phalarope): 1,554
• Common Murre: 31,806
• Marbled Murrelet: 45
• Other alcids (primarily Ancient Murrelet, and Cassin’s and Rhinoceros Auklets):
2,763
• Sea Otters: 8

Including a small number of other species and unidentified birds, the total estimated
number of animals killed is 51,569.

1.3 Summary of Final Selected Restoration Projects

The Trustees’ mandate under OPA (see 33 U.S.C. 2706(b)) is to make the environment
and the public whole for injuries to natural resources and natural resource services
resulting from the discharge of oil. This requirement must be achieved through the
restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of equivalent natural resources
and/or services. Thus, for a project to be considered there must be a connection, or nexus,
between the natural resource injuries and the proposed restoration actions.

Restoration actions under OPA are termed primary or compensatory. Primary restoration
is any action taken to accelerate the return of injured natural resources and services to
their baseline condition. Trustees may elect to rely on natural recovery rather than active
restoration where feasible or cost-effective active restoration actions are not available, or
where the injured resources will recover relatively quickly without human intervention.

Compensatory restoration is any action taken to compensate for interim losses of natural
resources and services pending recovery to baseline conditions. The scale, or amount, of
the required compensatory restoration will depend on the extent and severity of the initial
resource injury and how quickly each resource and associated service returns to baseline.
Primary restoration actions that speed resource recovery will reduce the amount of
compensatory restoration. To the extent that restoration projects are implemented prior
to the completion of natural recovery, there is an element of primary restoration to the
project. This factor is taken into account in the scaling of the restoration project sizes.

9
The Trustees and their scientific advisors considered over 30 restoration concepts and
alternatives with the potential to provide primary and compensatory restoration. These
were evaluated based on selection criteria developed by the Trustees consistent with the
legal guidelines provided in the OPA regulations (15 C.F.R. 990.54(a)). Section 4.2.2
presents OPA-based selection criteria developed by the Trustees for this spill. Based on
the Trustees’ evaluation, a total of 14 restoration projects have been selected. These are
summarized below and presented in detail in section 4.3.

It is the intent of the Trustees to address all injuries. However, rather than develop
separate restoration projects for each species impacted, the Trustees have grouped the
injuries into categories, sometimes combining impacts to similar species. In this way,
one restoration project, benefiting a suite of species or one primary species, addresses all
injuries for that category.

Because some restoration projects may benefit several species of birds, the Trustees
grouped bird species with similar restoration needs. After evaluating several restoration
project concepts, the Trustees developed the list of 14 restoration projects. Several
projects outside California (including one in Mexico and one in Canada) were identified
because they provide the most cost-effective benefits to the impacted migratory species.
Table 3 provides a conceptual guide to the injury categories and the restoration projects
that would address each injury.

Table 3: Matching Injury Categories to Restoration Projects

Waterfowl Nesting habitat protection, Alaska
Loons
Grebes Nesting colony protection, Calif. lakes
Procellarids Mouse eradication, Farallon Islands
Nesting colony protection, New Zealand
Pelicans, Cormorants, Gulls Nesting colony protection, Baja Calif.
Snowy Plovers Nesting habitat restoration, Pt. Reyes
Other Shorebirds (Red Phalarope) Nesting colony protection, central Calif.
Common Murre Corvid management, Pt. Reyes
Nesting colony restoration, Reading Rock
Marbled Murrelet Nesting habitat protection, Santa Cruz Mtns
Other Small Alcids Corvid management, Santa Cruz Mtns
(Ancient Murrelet, Rat eradication, Queen Charlotte Islands
Cassin’s Auklet,
Rhinoceros Auklet) Nesting habitat restoration, Año Nuevo I.
Sea Otters Sea Otter pathogens education

In accordance with OPA, all 14 of the selected projects have been “scaled” in size, such
that the benefits of the restoration offset the injuries caused by the spill. Summaries of

10
the selected restoration projects are provided below. More details on the projects are
provided in section 4.0.

PROJECT: Nest Protection at Kokechik Flats, Alaska

BENEFITS: Waterfowl, Loons, and Other Shorebirds
This project will protect nesting seabirds from human disturbance at Kokechik Flats,
Alaska, a private in-holding within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge. Kokechik
Flats is home to nesting waterfowl, Pacific Loons, Red-throated Loons, and Red
Phalaropes (as well as other species), all of which were impacted by the Luckenbach and
associated mystery spills. This nesting area has been continually threatened with
disturbance by ATV riders and others. Planned actions include educating subsistence
hunters and harvesters about sensitive resources, providing designated staging and
camping areas, recommending transportation routes through sensitive nesting areas,
developing written conservation and management guidelines and outreach materials, and
providing on-site attendants to monitor activities and provide outreach for a 10-year
period. Cost: $561,631.

PROJECT: Grebe Colony Protection at Northern California Lakes

BENEFITS: Grebes
This project will fund many of the recommendations of the California grebe management
plan (Ivey 2004), designed to protect Western and Clark’s Grebe nesting colonies from
human disturbance, for 10 years. These recommendations include public education and
outreach, as well as the establishment of small seasonal buffers around grebe nesting
colonies. The primary colonies targeted for protection are located at Clear Lake, where a
pilot project is underway. Additional similar work will be done to protect colonies at
other Eagle Lake, Thermolito Forebay, Lake Almanor, and Tule Lake National Wildlife
Refuge. Cost: $965,435.

PROJECT: Mouse Eradication on the Farallon Islands

BENEFITS: Procellarids
This project will fund eradication of the non-native House Mouse from Southeast
Farallon Island, off the California coast. Removal of this invasive species will benefit
nesting Ashy Storm-Petrels. Mice have directly depredated Ashy Storm-Petrel chicks
and have artificially supported a small number of over-wintering Burrowing Owls that, in
turn, depredate these smaller seabird species at unnaturally high levels. Cost: $975,597.

PROJECT: Shearwater Colony Protection at Taiaroa Head, New Zealand

BENEFITS: Procellarids
This project will fund the construction of a predator-proof fence to protect a mainland
colony of Sooty Shearwaters from disturbance caused by humans and sheep, and from
predation caused by non-native predators such as brush-tailed possums, hedgehogs, rats,
stoats, and other mammals. Cost: $55,649.

11
PROJECT: Seabird Colony Protection on Baja California Islands, Mexico
BENEFITS: Brown Pelicans, Cormorants, and Cassin’s Auklets
This project will add to on-going efforts to protect nesting seabirds from human
disturbance and non-native animals. The islands, located off the Pacific Coast of the Baja
California Peninsula, are San Martín, San Jeronimo, San Benito, Natividad, San Roque,
and Asunción. These islands host large numbers of breeding seabirds. Planned actions
include constructing boardwalks, trails, and other facilities to focus human traffic and
prevent trampling of burrows and disturbance of nesting and roosting seabirds; education
regarding the reintroduction of non-native animals; construction of nest boxes and
deployment of social attraction techniques (e.g., decoys) to reestablish seabird colonies;
and the establishment of seasonal stewards for six years to minimize disturbances from
garbage, lights, and human activities. Of species impacted by the oil spills, these actions
will directly benefit Cassin’s Auklets, Brown Pelicans, and Brandt’s and Double-crested
Cormorants. Cost: $3,736,475.

PROJECT: Dune Habitat Restoration at Point Reyes National Seashore

BENEFITS: Snowy Plovers
This project will expand ongoing efforts to remove non-native vegetation from coastal
foredunes at Point Reyes National Seashore. The primary goal of this project is to create
more nesting habitat for Snowy Plovers. Recent experience has demonstrated that
plovers have benefited from restored habitat. Cost: $501,447.

PROJECT: Common Murre Colony Protection Project

BENEFITS: Common Murres
This project will provide funding to extend a current program for 20 years to protect
Common Murre nesting colonies off the central California coast from human disturbance.
This program includes education and outreach to pilots, boaters, and others regarding the
locations and sensitivity of nesting colonies, as well as maintaining seasonal warning
buoys in the vicinity of the colonies. The colonies included in this project are located
from Point Reyes south to the Big Sur coast, and include the Farallon Islands. Cost:
$9,526,603.

PROJECT: Corvid Management at Point Reyes National Seashore

BENEFITS: Common Murre
This project will improve Common Murre nesting success at the Point Reyes Headlands
by implementing a suite of actions intended to reduce the raven population at Point Reyes
National Seashore. Raven populations are artificially high as a result of the cattle and
dairy operations; the ravens feed on cattle feed and carcasses. This, in turn, leads to
increased predation of murre nests by corvids. The key component of this project is to
address land use management at dairy and beef ranches that sustain unnaturally high
raven populations near the murre colonies. Ranchers that are willing participants will be
compensated for changes in land use practices that adversely affect their dairy operations.
Another component of the project is the elimination of a key raven roosting area.
Limited removal of certain ravens may also be implemented as a secondary activity if
deemed necessary. Cost: $500,000.

12
PROJECT: Reading Rock Common Murre Colony Restoration
BENEFITS: Common Murre
This project will contribute to a project to reestablish a nearly extirpated Common Murre
colony at Reading Rock in Humboldt Colony. The project will use social attraction
techniques (e.g., decoys, audio playback) to attract birds back to the colony, as well as
education and outreach to minimize human disturbance of the colony site. Cost:
$255,307.

PROJECT: Old Growth Forest Acquisition and Protection

BENEFITS: Marbled Murrelets
This project will set aside funds to acquire and manage critical old-growth forest parcels
that are (1) currently at risk of logging, (2) known to contain nesting Marbled Murrelets,
and (3) located in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Because land may only be acquired from a
willing seller, and such opportunities are limited and difficult to predict, funds will be
held for five years, awaiting an opportunity to acquire threatened habitat. This project
will benefit Marbled Murrelets, which depend upon such habitat for nesting. Cost:
$1,745,000.

PROJECT: Corvid Management in the Santa Cruz Mountains

BENEFITS: Marbled Murrelets
This project will improve Marbled Murrelet nesting success by contributing to on-going
corvid (i.e., ravens, jays, crows) management efforts in state and county parks of the
Santa Cruz Mountains of central California for five years. Corvid populations are
artificially high in areas where human food waste is readily accessible. This, in turn,
leads to increased predation of murrelet nests by corvids. Management efforts include
education of park campers and visitors regarding control of food waste, improved
garbage facilities, limited raven removal, and outreach to nearby communities where
food waste may support artificially high corvid numbers. Cost: $695,363.

PROJECT: Rat Eradication in the Queen Charlotte Islands, Canada

BENEFITS: Ancient Murrelets
This project will fund eradication of the non-native Norway rats from Ellen Island and
the Bischof Islands, part of the Queen Charlotte Islands, off the coast of British
Columbia, Canada. Removal of this introduced species will benefit nesting Ancient
Murrelets. Norway rats are predators of murrelet eggs and chicks and have seriously
reduced (or completely eradicated) seabirds on many of their nesting islands. Cost:
$188,405.

PROJECT: Nesting Habitat Restoration on Año Nuevo Island

BENEFITS: Rhinoceros Auklets
This project will contribute to ongoing native vegetation restoration efforts on Año
Nuevo Island, off the central California coast. The goal of this project is to restore low-
lying vegetation cover to the central part of the island, prevent erosion, and thereby
support Rhinoceros Auklets, which nest in burrows on the island. Cost: $974,037.

13
PROJECT: Sea Otter Pathogens Education and Outreach
BENEFITS: Sea Otters
This project will fund an education and outreach project in the Monterey Bay region to
communicate to the public the threats posed to Sea Otters by various human activities.
Recent scientific research has found that the current decline in California’s Sea Otters is a
result of pathogens that enter the water through human and domestic animal feces. The
project will suggest changes in how people manage pets and livestock, as well as boat
and home septic tank systems. Cost: $121,155.

14
2.0 Environment Affected by the Spills
This section presents a brief description of the physical and biological environment
affected by the oil spills. The physical environment includes approximately 220 miles of
shoreline from Salmon Creek (north of Bodega Bay) to Carmel, as well as the Pacific
Ocean extending at least 20 miles offshore. This section provides information on the
affected environment for the selected projects within this area. Information on the
affected environments for selected projects outside this area is provided along with the
project descriptions in section 4.3.

2.1 Physical Environment

The area affected by the spills is rich with marine life and encompasses a wide diversity
of protected natural resources, both at sea and along the coast. The at-sea impacted areas
include:

• Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary

• Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
• Point Reyes National Seashore (boundary extends ¼ mile offshore)
• Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary
• Farallon National Wildlife Refuge

Along the mainland coastline, the impacted areas include:

• California Coastal National Monument

• Point Reyes National Seashore
• Golden Gate National Recreation Area
• Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
• Duxbury Reef Marine Reserve
• James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve
• Año Nuevo State Reserve
• Point Lobos State Reserve
• Tomales Bay State Park
• Mount Tamalpais State Park
• Big Basin Redwoods State Park
• Wilder Ranch State Park
• Sonoma Coast State Beaches
• Montara State Beach
• Half Moon Bay State Beach
• San Gregorio State Beach
• Pomponio State Beach
• Pescadero State Beach
• Bean Hollow State Beach
• Natural Bridges State Beach
• Twin Lakes State Beach
• New Brighton State Beach

15
 • Manresa State Beach
• Sunset State Beach
• Zmudowski State Beach
• Moss Landing State Beach
• Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge
• Salinas River State Beach
• Marina State Beach
• Monterey State Beach
• Asilomar State Beach
• Carmel River State Beach

This region contains a wide range of coastal habitats, including sandy and rocky intertidal
beaches, open ocean, protected bays, harbors and jetties, offshore rocks, and the Farallon
Islands.

The environment impacted by the spills encompasses 4,000 square miles of Pacific
Ocean along with near shore tidal flats, wetlands, rocky intertidal areas, coastal beaches,
subtidal reefs, kelp forests, and underwater canyons. Brief descriptions of the areas
affected by the oils spills are presented below.

The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS) and the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) were established in 1981 and 1992, respectively,
to protect the thousands of seabirds, sea mammals, fish, and other wildlife off the
California coast.

The Farallon National Wildlife Refuge is a group of islands located 28 miles west of San
Francisco, which was established in 1969 to protect some of the largest colonies of
seabirds and marine mammals on the Pacific Coast of North America. The refuge
sustains the largest seabird breeding colony south of Alaska and contains 30 percent of
California's nesting seabirds. Thirteen species, representing up to 250,000 individuals
breed here, including the largest colonies of Brandt’s Cormorant, Ashy Storm-Petrel, and
Western Gull found anywhere.

The California Coastal National Monument, which was designated by Presidential

Proclamation on January 11, 2000, runs the entire length of the California coast (840
miles) between Oregon and Mexico. It extends 12 nautical miles from the shoreline and
encompasses thousands of BLM-administered islands, rocks, exposed reefs, and
pinnacles above mean high tide.

The Point Reyes National Seashore, which was established in 1962 to protect both the
natural and cultural resources within its boundaries, encompasses about 73,000 acres of
land and the boundary of the seashore extending ¼ mile offshore. It includes 20,000
acres of coastal and estuarine waters. Point Reyes is the center of one of only five coastal
boundary upwelling ecosystems in the world and the only one in North America.
Located at the convergence of a number of ocean currents, the adjacent waters are rich in
nutrients and support an abundant fishery and associated fauna. The geology of the

16
peninsula and its association with the Pacific Ocean have created unique estuarine
environments that have been described as some of the most unspoiled in the United
States. Tomales Bay, formed by seismic activity along the San Andreas Fault, is a long
narrow bay included within the National Seashore. Much of the area (33,000 acres) is a
congressionally designated wilderness area. Drake’s Estero, Rodeo Lagoon, Estero de
Limantour, and Abbott’s Lagoon are also significant estuarine resources. Drake’s Estero
has been characterized as possibly the most pristine estuary on the Pacific Coast. The
estero is used by numerous avian species, many of which are either state or federally
listed. Limantour Estero is a state marine reserve, designated by the California
Department of Fish and Game in 1970s. Tomales Bay also harbors tens of thousands of
migratory waterfowl and the federally-listed Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi).
Point Reyes Headland and several large nearshore rocky islands along the peninsula
support several thousand nesting and roosting seabirds, particularly large colonies of
Common Murre, cormorants, Ashy Storm-petrels, and Brown Pelicans.

Golden Gate National Recreation Area comprises approximately 75,000 acres of coastal
lands including the mouth of San Francisco Bay. The legislative boundary of this federal
park, which was established in 1972, encompasses the Marin Headlands north of and the
ocean shoreline south of the Golden Gate, Alcatraz Island, and Angel Island. Alcatraz
supports several species of nesting and roosting seabirds and waterbirds, including Brown
Pelicans. Rodeo Lagoon also harbors migratory waterfowl and the Tidewater Goby.

In addition to these areas, numerous other federal, state, and local parks dot the coastline
within the impacted area, many with a rich or unique array of natural resources. These
include Tomales Bay and Mount Tamalpais State Parks, Duxbury Reef and Fitzgerald
Marine Reserves, Año Nuevo State Reserve, and 19 state beaches.

The dominant oceanic current within the affected environment is the California Current,
which flows southward from Alaska to Mexico. During the year, several oceanic
phenomena affect this current, including the northward-flowing Davidson Counter
Current prevailing during the winter, upwelling processes, local gyres and eddies, and
tidal exchanges with San Francisco and Monterey Bays. The average annual ocean
surface temperature is 55° F.

The three distinct ocean seasons along the central California coast are the oceanic period
(July-October), the Davidson Current period (October- March), and the upwelling period
(March/April-August). The oceanic period is the season in which the California Current
dominates the circulation pattern. This period is characterized by low temperature, low
salinity, high-nutrient, and highly oxygenated sub-arctic water. The Davidson Counter
Current carries oxygen-poor, nutrient-rich waters that are characteristically warmer and
more saline than the California Current. Low temperatures, high salinities, and high
nutrient levels usually characterize coastal upwelling. This process increases primary
productivity of surface waters by supporting large phytoplankton blooms. Rich
zooplankton and fisheries production ensues.

17
The coastal terrestrial landscapes are equally significant, diverse, and rare, representing a
high degree of endemism. They include such diverse vegetation alliances as active
coastal fore dunes, coastal terrace prairie, and northern coastal salt marsh.

2.2 Biological Environment

The affected area has one of the most diverse and abundant assemblages of marine
organisms in the world. A rich array of habitats─including the open ocean, rugged rocky
shores, sandy beaches, lush kelp forests, and wetlands─support large numbers of seals
and sea lions, whales, fish stocks, otters, and seabirds. The environment is home to, or a
migration corridor for, 36 species of marine mammals, 94 species of seabirds and
waterbirds, 400 species of fish, 4 species of sea turtles, 31 phyla of invertebrates, and
over 500 species of marine algae. Other important species in the impacted area include
the Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris), Gray Whale (Eschrichtius robustus), Blue Whale
(Balaenoptera musculus), Humpback Whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), Market Squid
(Loligo opalescens), Brown Pelican, California Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch),
rockfish (Sebastes sp.), commercial sea urchin (Class Echinoidea), and Giant Kelp
(Heterostichus rostratus). For many migratory species, such as the whales, seals,
salmonids, and Brown Pelicans, the affected area is also an important link to other
habitats beyond their boundaries.

Marine Mammals

Pinnipeds
Thirty-six species of marine mammals have been observed in the affected area, including
six species of the sub-order pinnipedia (seals and sea lions), two species from the sub-
order fissipedia (Sea Otter and River Otter), and twenty-eight species of the order
cetaceans (whales and dolphins).

Año Nuevo, Point Reyes, and the Farallon Islands are important pinniped breeding sites
in the area and the most important pinniped rookeries and resting areas in central and
northern California. The five species of pinnipeds considered common within the affected
area include California Sea Lions (Zalophus californianus), Steller Sea Lions
(Eumetopias jubatus), Northern Elephant Seals (Mirounga angustirostris), Northern Fur
Seals (Callorhinus ursinus), and Pacific Harbor Seals (Phoca vitulina richardii). An
additional species, the Guadalupe Fur Seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), has been
documented on the Farallon Islands, at Point Reyes, and at Año Nuevo Island.

In any season, California Sea Lions are the most abundant pinniped in the area (Bonnell
et al. 1983, Keiper et al. 2005). They breed farther south along the coast in the summer
and then migrate northward, reaching their greatest numbers in central California in
autumn. Sea lions haul out on offshore rocks and islands. Both haul-out sites and
foraging grounds are essential to the species' health. In contrast, the Steller Sea Lion
(Eumetopais jubatus),a federally-listed species, is declining in the region and currently
breeds at Año Nuevo, the Farallon Islands, and Fort Ross (Sydeman and Allen 1999).
Historically, Steller Sea Lions bred at Point Reyes. But since the 1970s their numbers

18
have diminished significantly. Reasons for their decline are unclear but may be a
combination of exposure to pollutants, disease, decreases of favored prey such as
salmonids and sardines, and competition with California Sea Lions.

Northern Elephant Seals breed in the winter months and then disperse to feed in pelagic
waters throughout the eastern North Pacific and Alaskan waters. The population returns
to the terrestrial colony later in the year to undergo an annual molt. Peak abundances
occur on land in the spring when juveniles and females haul out to molt. The largest
populations are on Año Nuevo Island, the adjacent mainland point, and at Point Reyes
Headland. The winter population of Northern Elephant Seals on land during the breeding
season exceeds 4,000 at Ano Nuevo and 2,000 at Point Reyes (M.L. Bonnell pers. com.,
S. Allen pers. com.).

Pacific Harbor Seals are year-round residents in the area. They haul out at dozens of sites
along the coast from Point Sur to Point Arena. Peak abundance on land is reached in late
spring and early summer when they haul out to give birth to pups, breed, and molt.
Favorite haul-out sites in the outer coast are isolated sandy beaches and rocky reef areas
exposed at low tide. Harbor seals also use the estuarine habitats of Elkhorn Slough,
Drake’s Estero and Limantour Esteros, and Tomales Bay. More than 20 percent of the
breeding population of harbor seals in the state of California occurs at Point Reyes,
accounting for around 7,000 seals (Sydeman and Allen, 1999, Allen et al. 2004).

Northern Fur Seals occur in the open waters in winter and spring. They feed offshore
after migrating from the Pribilof Islands in Alaska and the Channel Islands off southern
California. The greatest density of individuals is found well offshore over the continental
slope in waters from 100 to 1,000 fathoms (200 to 2,000 m) deep. Northern Fur Seals
have a declining population currently estimated to be 1.2 million animals. Many causes
have been attributed to this decline, including entanglement in marine debris and
competition with commercial fisheries. This species has been proposed for designation as
a depleted species by NOAA. Northern Fur Seals regularly haul out on the Farallon
Islands and have pupped on the island every year since 1996. Fur seals also occasionally
haul out on Año Nuevo Island and at Point Reyes.

Cetaceans
Approximately 20 species of whales and dolphins have been sighted within the affected
areas. Ten species are seen regularly and of these, the Killer Whale (Orcinus orca),
Minke Whale (Balaenoptera acutorostrata), Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena),
Dall’s Porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli), and Pacific White-sided Dolphin (Lagenorhynchus
obliquidens) are considered year-round “residents.” The affected area also lies on the
migratory pathway of the Gray Whale and other large baleen whales. More than a third
of the world's cetacean species occur off San Francisco Bay and Point Reyes. Of
particular note are Gray Whales that migrate close to shore and forage within the waters
of Point Reyes and around the Farallon Islands. Blue and Humpback Whales are also
common and are annually seen foraging in the region.

19
 Fissipeds
The California or Southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) is a threatened species that
is found throughout shallow waters in the affected area. Sea Otters inhabit a narrow zone
of coastal waters, normally staying within one mile of shore. They forage in both rocky
and soft-sediment communities as well as in the kelp understory and canopy. They
seldom are found in open waters deeper than 30 m, preferring instead the kelp beds which
serve as vital resting, foraging, and nursery sites. Otters are an important part of the
marine ecosystem. By foraging on kelp-eating macroinvertebrates (especially sea
urchins) Sea Otters can, in many instances, influence the abundance and species
composition of kelp assemblages and animals within nearshore communities (Reidman
1990).

The California Sea Otter population is a remnant of the North Pacific population that was
decimated by the commercial fur trade in the 18th and 19th centuries. Further discussion of
Sea Otter recovery and conservation issues is presented in section 4.3.11. Approximately
31 percent of California’s Sea Otter population is found in the area from Point Sur north
to Año Nuevo/Pigeon Point.

Seabirds
Marine habitats along the affected coast are among the most productive in the world as
evidenced by the numbers of seabirds supported year-round. These populations forage in
nearshore waters within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS),
Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary (CBNMS), and Monterey Bay National Marine
Sanctuary (MBNMS) and are highly dependent on the productive waters of the three
sanctuaries, and in the nearshore waters of Point Reyes National Seashore and Golden
Gate National Recreation Area (Veit et al. 1996, Ford et al. 2004). The Farallon Islands,
a National Wildlife Refuge surrounded by the waters of GFNMS, support the largest
concentrations of breeding marine birds in the continental United States (Ainley and
Boekelhide 1990). The islands support a diverse nesting community of 13 species,
including nearly 100,000 breeding pairs of Common Murres, the species most heavily
impacted by the oil spills. The populations of Brandt’s Cormorants, Ashy Storm-Petrels,
and Western Gulls breeding on the Farallones are the largest for these species worldwide;
although, in recent years a large population of Brandt’s Cormorants has begun breeding
at Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay. The Ashy Storm-Petrel reaches the northern
limit of its breeding range on the Farallones and Bird Rock off Point Reyes (Ainley and
Boekelheide 1990, Ainley 1995). Rhinoceros Auklets disappeared from the Farallones in
the 1860s, but re-colonized and began breeding in the 1970s (McChesney and Whitworth
1995). In addition the island supports breeding colonies of Cassin’s Auklets and Tufted
Puffins.

Several significant seabird colonies occur along the mainland as well, including one of
the largest concentrations of Common Murres in California at Point Reyes. Eleven
known seabird species nest at Point Reyes, but a much larger number of seabirds,
shorebirds and waterbirds (nearly 200 species) forage in the area, including several
federally- and state-listed species such as the Brown Pelican, Marbled Murrelet, and the
Short-tailed Albatross. The Western Snowy Plover, a federally-listed shorebird, also

20
breeds at Point Reyes and on several beaches along the San Mateo County coast. Several
Species of Special Concern also nest at Point Reyes, including Rhinoceros Auklets, Ashy
Storm-Petrels, and Tufted Puffins.

Many seabird species use the affected area for foraging and during migrations from their
nesting areas. These include waterfowl (e.g., scoters), loons, grebes, various Procellarids,
Brown Pelican, various gulls, various shorebirds (such as Red Phalarope), and various
alcids (e.g., Ancient Murrelet). These species that migrate through or winter within the
affected area nest around the Pacific Rim, including Alaska, Canada, Baja California, and
New Zealand.

The American Bird Conservancy recognized Point Reyes as one of 100 Globally
Important Bird Areas (IBA) in the world for bird diversity (Freeman 2001). Populations
of some species of seabirds are among the most abundant of western North American,
south of the Aleutians (Carter et al. 1992). Both Bolinas Lagoon and Tomales Bay were
designated as Wetlands of International Importance under the United Nations
Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization’s Convention on Wetlands (known as
Ramsar) because of their significance to migratory waterfowl and shorebirds.

Fish
The diversity and abundance of the fish within the affected area is a significant resource.
Generally, the area exhibits the very rich cold-water fish fauna of the Oregonian province
(Briggs et al. 1987). The same environmental factors that determine the distribution,
abundance, and species composition of the other living resources of the area also affect
the fish communities.

Approximately 400 species of fish are found within the affected area. The diverse
habitats of the area each have their own characteristic assemblage of fishes. Fishes of the
nearshore subtidal habitats exhibit the greatest diversity. This habitat includes many
commercially important fishes such as the pelagic schooling species [Northern Anchovy
(Engraulis mordax), Pacific Herring (Clupea pallis), Jack Mackerel (Thyrsitops sp.), and
California Sardine (Sardinops caeruleus)], the large predators [King or Chinook salmon
(Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), sharks)], and some
demersal species [English Parophrys vetulus) and Petrale Sole (Eopsetta jordani)].
Many important species of rockfish are found over rocky reefs, and federally-listed Coho
Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), California coastal Chinook (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha), and Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) can all be found within the
boundaries of the affected waters.

Small pelagic species, such as California Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) and smelt
(Atherinopsis spp.), use sandy intertidal of Tomales Bay and San Francisco Bay for
spawning. Other species that forage near sand flats include the surf perch (Family
Embiotocidae), Striped Bass (Morone lineatus), Jacksmelt, Sand Sole (Pegusa lascaris),
Pacific Sanddab (Citharichthys sordidus), and Starry Flounder (Platichthys stellatus).
Most of the finfish found in shallow rocky reefs are also common in kelp beds. The kelp
canopy, stips, and holdfasts increase the available habitat for pelagic and demersal

21
species and offer protection to juvenile finfish. Greenling (Hexagrammos sp.), Lingcod
(Ophiodon elongatus), and numerous species of rockfish are the dominant fishes.

The rocky intertidal habitat is characterized by a rather small and specialized group of
fish adapted for life in tide pools and wash areas. The most representative species are the
Monkey-face Eel (Cebidichthys violaceous), Rock Eel (Pholis gunnellus), Dwarf
Surfperch (Micrometrus minimus), juvenile Cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus),
sculpins (Cottidae sp.), and blennies (Blennius sp.) (California Department of Fish and
Game 1979).

Fishes in the submarine canyon of MBNMS are characterized by a variety of little known
meso- and bathypelagic species. Because the canyon allows deep-living species to come
close to shore, many uncommon deep-sea fishes have been taken in Monterey Bay.
Anderson et al. (1979) reports fishes belonging to 41 families were captured in Monterey
Bay by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories or by fishermen. Several of the species were
previously unrecorded in the area, while others were extremely rare or far beyond their
normal range.

Few fishes live year-round in sloughs and estuaries although some fish such as the
Tidewater Goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) and the Three-spined Stickleback
(Gasterosteus aculeatus leiurus) depend upon the more brackish upper reaches of the
estuarine habitats. Full time residents such as the Staghorn Sculpin and the bay pipefish
depend upon the mud, eelgrass and other microhabitats to feed, reproduce and hide from
predators. Mid-water swimmers such as the northern anchovies, Pacific Herring,
Topsmelt and Jacksmelt also use the area for feeding while simultaneously using the
microhabitats for protection from predators (Silberstein and Campbell 1989). Large
marine predators such as Bat Rays (Myliobatis californica) and Leopard Sharks (Trakis
semifasciata) forage extensively on the benthic fauna of the more saline lower reaches of
the estuaries. Sardines were the basis for an extensive fishery in the 1930s. Overfishing
in combination with environmental factors caused stocks of the Pacific sardine to
decrease until the fishery collapsed in the late 1950s.

Point Reyes supports a diverse and abundant assemblage of marine fish and crustaceans,
several of which also have state or federal protection, including about eight species such
as California Freshwater Shrimp, Coho Salmon, and Steelhead Trout. A recent inventory
documented over 170 species of fish in the park waters that extend ¼ mile offshore and
include estuaries (NPS 2005). There are also numerous important commercial and sport
fish and shellfish including about 20 species of rockfish (Sebastes), Pacific Herring,
Dungeness Crab, and Pink and Red Abalone. Point Reyes also has one of the few healthy
populations of Black Abalone, a state species of concern. Within the boundary of the
park there are numerous commercial oyster operations at Tomales Bay and Drake’s
Estero.

Sea Turtles
Four species of sea turtles are found in the affected area. The Leatherback
(Dermocheysp coriacea) is the most common followed by the Green Sea Turtle
(Chelonia mydas agassizi), the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta), and an

22
occasional Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivaceas). There are no sea turtle nesting areas in
the affected area; however, NOAA surveys indicate that Point Reyes is a hot spot for
Leatherback Sea Turtles in the state (Scott Eckert, pers. comm). They are mostly seen
during their foraging activities in the summer and early fall. Most appear during the
warmest sea temperatures (above 16º C and most common above 18º C). Many of the
turtle’s distributions seem to be regulated by the 16º C isotherm (Scott Eckert, pers.
comm.).

Algae
Large marine algae, or seaweeds, are diverse and abundant within the affected area. The
extent of this diversity is shown by the presence of over 500 of the 669 species of algae
described for California (Abbott and Hollenberg 1976). The area has the largest marine
flora of the temperate northern hemisphere, with numerous endemic species and the only
population of one large understory kelp (Eisenia arborea) between southern California
and Canada.

The seaweeds of the Gulf of the Farallones region and Monterey Bay area are composed
of three main phyla: Red Algae (Division Rhodophycota), Brown Algae (Division
Phaeophycophyta), and Green Algae (Division Chlorophycota). They occur primarily in
areas of rocky substrate and only rarely in water deeper than 40 m (Abbott and
Hollenberg 1976). The most extensive algal communities are dominated by forests of
Giant Kelp (Macrocystis integrifolia) and Bull Kelp (Nereocystis leutkeana). Bull Kelp
rejuvenates itself annually; giant kelp is generally perennial, growing all year.

Kelp beds are continuous from San Simeon in the south of the affected area to the city of
Monterey. Within Monterey Bay from the city of Monterey to south of Santa Cruz there
are no kelp beds due to the sandy substrate of the shore. Kelp beds are thick off of Santa
Cruz and intermittent up to Año Nuevo. Giant Kelp is rare from Año Nuevo north to
Half Moon Bay, the northern limit of its dominance, where Bull Kelp then becomes the
dominant kelp along the coast. The Santa Cruz County coast between Terrace Point and
Point Año Nuevo has changed from almost total dominance of Giant Kelp in 1911 to an
increase in the number of Bull Kelp stands (Yellin et al. 1977). Although Sea Otters may
produce further changes, the primary factors affecting these kelp forests appear to be
storms and substrate composition (reviewed in Foster and Schiel 1985).

In addition to the marine and coastal types of algae, the estuary and slough habitats
provide sheltered areas for an abundant growth of marine algae as well as specifically
adapted vascular plants, such as eelgrass (Zostera marina) and pickleweed (Salicornia
sp.). These in turn provide rich micro-habitats for other organisms, and some species are
dependent on them such as Black Brant and Pacific herring on eel grass beds.

Fauna of Sandy and Rocky Shoreline Habitats

Sandy beaches are the dominant intertidal habitat within the affected area. This is a very
dynamic habitat with constantly shifting sands caused by wave action. Most animals
capable of tolerating the stresses of the intertidal area are burrowing organisms. The

23
overall productivity of this habitat is lower than that for rocky intertidal habitats
(Nybakken 1982).

Polychaete worms, bivalve mollusks, and crustaceans are the predominant invertebrates
on sandy beaches. Sand Dollars (Clypeaster subdepressus) and gastropod mollusks are
also found here (Wilson 1986). The only fishes that are common are those that use sandy
beaches for spawning [e.g., the Surf Smelt (Hypomesus pretiosus)]. Benthic diatoms are
the only marine algae that may be present and growing within this habitat, although kelp
beds may be common in subtidal habitats just offshore from sandy beaches. However,
drift algae may accumulate on some sandy beaches, providing refuge and food for
amphipods, insects, and shorebirds. Sandy beaches are important winter foraging habitat
for migratory shorebirds and nesting habitat for the Western Snowy Plover. Peregrine
Falcons nest along numerous rocky shoreline areas in the region including around Muir
Beach, the Golden Gate and Tomales Point. Also, in recent years, California Condor are
sighted regularly in the Big Sur coastal area, occasionally feeding on marine mammal
carcasses.

Rocky intertidal habitats are highly productive and diverse environments and located
throughout the affected area within the lowest and highest tidal level. Organisms living in
this area must be able to withstand periodic desiccation, high temperature and light, low
salinities, and strong wave action (Nybakken 1982). Variation in the degree of exposure
to these environmental factors can create marked zonation patterns within this habitat
(Foster et al. 1988). Marine plants are primarily red, brown, and green algae. The
invertebrates include mostly sessile species such as mussels, barnacles (Infraclass
Cirripedia), and anemones (Order Actiniaria). Mobile grazers and predators include
crabs (Order Decapoda), amphipods (Stygobromus sp.), littorine snails (Class
Gastropoda), limpets (Subclass Streptoneura), sea stars (Subclass Asteroidea), and sea
urchins. Tidepool fishes include the Striped Surfperch (Embiotoca lateralis), Tidepool
Sculpin (Oligocottus maculosus), and Tidepool Snailfish (Liparis florae).

Rocky intertidal habitats are probably the best studied of all habitats in and adjacent to
Monterey Bay. These habitats are not uniform within Monterey Bay, but vary in
composition within short distances. In addition, Point Reyes, Duxbury Reef, the
Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, Asilomar Beach, and Point Sur are well known areas for
invertebrates. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve supports one of the largest intertidal reefs in
California, supporting an extremely diverse and abundant array of invertebrate species.
California Department of Fish and Game, federal agencies (NOAA and NPS), and the
Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans (PISCO) maintain numerous
intertidal monitoring stations throughout the study area, some of which have been
monitoring for over 30 years.

2.2.1 Threatened and Endangered Species

There are several species known to be impacted by the spills that are of special concern
due to their population status. The various federal and state levels of special-status
designations include:

24
 • Federally Endangered
• Federally Threatened
• State Endangered
• State Threatened
• State Fully Protected Species
• California Species of Special Concern (pursuant to the 1978 list)
• Proposed California Species of Special Concern (based on the 2003 list, which has
not been officially adopted).

The federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.) and the
California Endangered Species Act of 1970 (Ca. Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et
seq.) direct the protection and conservation of listed endangered and threatened fishes,
plants, and wildlife. The habitat of endangered, threatened, and rare species takes on
special importance because of these laws, and the protection and conservation of these
species requires diligent management. Four state- and/or federally-listed species were
impacted by the spill: the California Brown Pelican, the Western Snowy Plover, the
Marbled Murrelet, and the California or Southern Sea Otter.

Several other state- and/or federally-listed sensitive species are found in the affected area.
These species are not thought to have been affected by the spill either because they were
not present in the area due to migration patterns or because of low overall population
density or regional scarcity. These species include the Short-tailed Albatross, the
Peregrine Falcon (recently delisted), the Least Tern, the Steller Sea Lion, Guadalupe Fur
Seal, all four species of sea turtles that occur in the area (Leatherback, Green,
Loggerhead, and Olive Ridley), and the Blue and Humpback Whales.

Additionally, the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002),
supported by NOAA and the USFWS, assigns “categories of conservation concern” for
all colonial or semi-colonial species. The National Audubon Society also has evaluated
bird population status and trends and has developed a “watchlist,” in which the most
vulnerable species are on the “red list” and less vulnerable species are on the “yellow
list” or “green list.” Table 4 below lists species impacted by the oil spills and their
special status or level of concern on the various lists.

25
 Table 4: Special Status Species Impacted by the Spills

CATEGORY OF AUDUBON
FEDERAL STATE CONSERVATION WATCHLIST
SPECIES STATUS STATUS CONCERN STATUS
Common Loon CSSC 1978, Not evaluated
2003
Eared Grebe Moderate
Western Grebe Moderate
Northern Fulmar Moderate
Pink-footed Shearwater High Red List
Sooty Shearwater Moderate
Black-vented Shearwater High Red List
Ashy Storm-Petrel CSSC 1978, Highly Imperiled Red List
2003
Brown Pelican Endangered Endangered; Moderate
Fully Protected
Brandt’s Cormorant High
Double-cr. Cormorant CSSC 1978 Not at risk
Pelagic Cormorant High
Black Brant CSSC 2003 Not evaluated Yellow List
Western Snowy Plover Threatened CSSC 1978, Not evaluated Red List
2003
Bonaparte’s Gull Moderate
Heermann’s Gull Moderate Red List
California Gull CSSC 1978 Moderate
Common Murre Moderate
Pigeon Guillemot Moderate
Marbled Murrelet Threatened Endangered High Red List
Ancient Murrelet High
Cassin’s Auklet CSSC 2003 Moderate
Rhinoceros Auklet CSSC 1978, Low
2003
Horned Puffin Moderate
Sea Otter Threatened Fully Protected
Notes: CSSC = California Species of Special Concern. 1978 refers to the current official version of the
list; 2003 refers to the proposed draft revision of the list, which has not been approved. Category of
Conservation Concern refers to the status assigned by the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan.
Those species considered under that plan as “Low Concern” or “Not currently at risk,” and with no other
special status, are not included above.

2.3 Archeological and Cultural Resources

Humans settled in the vicinity of the affected environment at least 10,000 years ago. At
the time of Spanish arrival in the early 1700s, about 40 Native American tribes populated
the coastal areas. The size of coastal middens suggests that Native Americans were the
principal controllers of animal population sizes in the intertidal zone in some areas. The
Spanish, the first European settlers, arrived in the late 1700s, and began to exploit local
marine resources by hunting Sea Otters and harvesting abalone for trade with northwest
coast Native Americans.

26
Many shipwrecks along this coastline are a result of significant maritime exploration and
trade coupled with a coastline dotted with shallow, rocky headlands that are largely
exposed to prevailing winds and storms. More than 100 shipwrecks have been
documented in this region, and there are undoubtedly more that are unrecorded. Some of
the most significant shipwrecks of North America have occurred in the region, including
the Spanish galleon San Augustin that sank in 1592 at Point Reyes.

2.4 Recreational Services

The Central California coast is well known for its scenic rocky coastline, open sandy
beaches, and picturesque coves. Because much of the San Mateo and Marin County
coast is undeveloped, many of these beaches have a remote, wild feeling. At the same
time, Highway 1 and ample parking lots and pull-outs provide easy public access. These
beaches host a wide range of recreational activities, including general beach use, hiking,
biking, fishing, surfing, camping, wildlife viewing, horseback riding, and other
specialized uses. Campgrounds are located near several beaches in northern Monterey
Bay, Marin County, and Sonoma County. Some of the beaches are characterized by the
remote locations and/or rugged beauty (e.g., Limantour Beach in Marin County and
various cove beaches along the San Mateo and Santa Cruz County coastlines), while
others are located near urban areas and receive considerable beach use (e.g., Ocean
Beach, Santa Cruz City Beach, Monterey Beach Park).

27
3.0 Coordination and Compliance

3.1 Federal and State Trustee Agencies

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Park Service (NPS), the
Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) are
the state and federal trustee agencies (Trustees) who are addressing the natural resources
injured by the spills. The USFWS, NPS, BLM, and NOAA are designated Trustees for
natural resources pursuant to subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances
Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR § 300.600 et seq.) and Executive Order
12580 (3 C.F.R., 1987 Comp. p. 193, 52 Fed. Reg. 2923 (January 23, 1987) as amended
by Executive Order 12777 (56 Fed. Reg. 54757 (October 19, 1991). CDFG has been
designated as a state trustee for natural resources pursuant to Section 1006 (b) (3) of the
Oil Pollution Act and subpart G of the NCP. Additionally, CDFG has state natural
resource trustee authority pursuant to Fish and Game Code §§ 711.7 and 1802 and the
Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act (Government Code §
8670.1 et seq.). As a designated Trustee, each agency is authorized to act on behalf of
the public under state and/or federal law to assess and recover natural resource damages
and to plan and implement actions to restore, rehabilitate, replace, or acquire the
equivalent of the affected natural resources injured as a result of a discharge of oil. The
USFWS is designated as the lead federal Trustee for purposes of coordination and
compliance with OPA and NEPA.

3.2 Coordination

3.2.1 Coordination Among the Trustees

Federal regulations implementing OPA provide that where an oil spill affects the interests
of multiple Trustees, they should act jointly to ensure that full restoration is achieved
without double recovery (15 CFR § 990.14(a)). The Trustees in this matter have worked
together in a shared effort to fully restore the resources that were injured. OPA is
described in more detail below.

3.2.2 Coordination with the NPFC

The Trustees and the NPFC have been involved with these spills since 1997, when the
Trustees responded to the winter 1997-98 Point Reyes Tarball Incidents. The NPFC paid
for response costs (primarily bird collection) during this spill episode, as well as during
the winter 2001-02, summer 2002, and winter 2002-03 episodes. In the summer of 2002,
the NPFC authorized and paid $20 million for oil removal operations at the sunken
Luckenbach.

With regard to NRDA, the NPFC approved and paid $333,145.62 for an Initiation of
NRDA as a result of the 1997-98 Point Reyes Tarball Incidents. The results of that work,
documented in Carter and Golightly (2003), are incorporated into the injury

28
quantification described in this document. After the winter 2001-02 spills, the NPFC
again authorized Initiation of NRDA, paying $80,464 in assessment costs.

The Trustees have remained in contact with the NPFC, informing it of the status of the
DARP/EA and assessment activities, with the goal of submitting a final claim to the
NPFC to fund the selected restoration projects and to reimburse the Trustees for
unreimbursed assessment costs.

3.2.3 Coordination with the Public

Public review of the draft DARP/EA was an integral component of the restoration
planning process and is required pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). NEPA is described in more detail below. A 45-day public review period was
held on the draft plan and environmental assessment. This comment period opened
February 28, 2006 and closed on April 14. Comments are included and summarized in
Appendix N, along with Trustee replies.

The Trustees continue to maintain a website

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/organizational/scientific/nrda/NRDAluckenbach.htm that
provides information on the case and on-going restoration planning.

In addition, the Trustees have opened an Administrative Record (Record) in compliance

with 15 C. F. R. § 990.45. The Record includes documents relied upon or considered by
the Trustees during the assessment and restoration planning process.

The Record is on file at:

California Department of Fish and Game

Office of Spill Prevention and Response
1700 K Street, Suite 250
Sacramento, CA 95814

Arrangements may be made to review the Record by contacting Steve Hampton by

telephone at (916) 323-4724.

The Trustees also released a Notice of Intent to Conduct Restoration Planning after the
Luckenbach was discovered to be a primary source of the oil spills and the assessments of
injuries from the various spill episodes were merged into a single effort (Federal
Register: January 6, 2004, Volume 69, Number 3, Page 673-675).

3.3 Compliance with Environmental Laws, Regulations, and Policies

3.3.1 The Oil Pollution Act

The Oil Pollution Act, Title 33 USC § 2701 et seq. (OPA), establishes a liability regime
for oil spills that injure or are likely to injure natural resources and/or the services that

29
those resources provide to the ecosystem or humans. Pursuant to OPA, federal and state
agencies and Indian tribes act as Trustees on behalf of the public to assess the injuries,
scale restoration to compensate for those injuries, and implement restoration. The draft
and final DARP/EAs have been prepared jointly by the USFWS, NPS, NOAA, and
CDFG. As described above, each of these agencies is a designated natural resource
Trustee for natural resources injured by the Spill. OPA defines "natural resources" to
include land, fish, wildlife, water sources, and other such resources belonging to,
managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United
States, any State or local government or Indian tribe, or any foreign government.
Assessments are intended to provide the basis for restoring, replacing, rehabilitating, and
acquiring the equivalent of injured natural resources and services. OPA authorizes the
Trustees to assess damages for natural resources injured under their trusteeship. OPA
further instructs the designated Trustees to develop and implement a plan for the
restoration, rehabilitation, replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of the natural
resources under their trusteeship. The regulations for natural resource damage
assessments under OPA are found at 15 C.F.R. Part 990.

3.3.2 The National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.; 40 C.F.R. Parts
1500-1508, sets forth a specific process of impact analysis and public review. NEPA is
the basic national charter for the protection of the environment. Its purposes are to
“encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and the environment; to
promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere
and stimulate the health and welfare of man; and to enrich the understanding of the
ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation” 42 U.S.C. §4321.
NEPA provides a mandate and a framework for federal agencies to consider all
reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of their proposed actions and to involve and
inform the public in the decision-making process. NEPA also established the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) in the Executive Office of the President to formulate and
recommend national policies which ensure that the programs of the federal government
promote improvement of the quality of the environment.
Generally, when it is uncertain whether an action will have a significant effect, federal
agencies will begin the NEPA planning process by preparing an environmental
assessment (EA). The EA may undergo a public review and comment period. Federal
agencies may then review the comments and make a determination. Depending on
whether the effects of a selected project are considered significant, an environmental
impact statement (EIS) or a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) will be issued.

In accordance with the regulations implementing the OPA NRDA process, the Trustees
integrated OPA restoration planning with the NEPA process (15 CFR § 990.23).
Accordingly, the draft DARP was integrated with a NEPA EA document. The integrated
process allowed the Trustees to meet the public involvement requirement of OPA and
NEPA concurrently. The Trustees anticipate that this DARP/EA will meet the required
NEPA compliance requirements for most of the selected restoration projects described
herein. However, subsequent NEPA compliance may be required prior to

30
implementation of some of the restoration actions that are conceptual at this stage (e.g.,
mouse eradication on the Farallon Islands) pending development of sufficient project-
level detail.

3.3.3 Other Federal and State Laws, Regulations, and Policies

As described above, OPA, NEPA, and federal regulations implementing these laws are
the major federal laws and regulations guiding the development of this DARP/EA for
restoration of injured resources and services resulting from the Luckenbach and the other
mystery spills. However, there are other federal and state laws, regulations or policies
that may be pertinent to either the approval of this DARP/EA or to implementation of the
specific restoration actions proposed herein. Potentially relevant laws, regulations, and
policies are set forth below.

3.3.3.1 Federal Laws, Regulations, and Policies

Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq.

The federal Water Pollution Control Act (commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act,
CWA, or the Act) is the principal federal statute governing water quality. The Act’s
objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation’s waters. The CWA regulates both the direct (point source) and indirect (non-
point source) discharge of pollutants into the Nation's waters.

Section 402 pf the Act established the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. The Act allows EPA to authorize state governments to implement the
NPDES program. Section 301 of the Act prohibits the discharge into navigable waters of
any pollutant by any person from a point source unless it is in compliance with a National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. Section 319 of the Act directs
states to identify best management practices and measures to reduce non-point source
pollution.

Section 311 of the CWA regulates, inter alia, the discharge of oil and other hazardous
substances into navigable waters, adjoining shorelines, and waters of the contiguous
zone. The CWA allows the federal government to remove the substance and assess the
removal costs against the responsible party. The CWA defines removal costs to include
costs for the restoration or replacement of natural resources damaged or destroyed as a
result of a discharge of oil or a hazardous substance.

Section 404 of the Act authorizes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) to issue
permits, after notice and opportunity for public hearings, for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into the waters of the United States. Section 401 of the Act provides that any
applicant for a federal permit or license to conduct any activity which may result in any
discharge into navigable waters must obtain certification of compliance with state water
quality standards.

31
Although the Trustees do not anticipate that any of the restoration projects will trigger
CWA permitting requirements, the implementing entity for each project will be required
to apply for the appropriate permits prior to project implementation.

Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. § 401 et seq.

The Rivers and Harbors Act regulates the development and use of the Nation’s navigable
waterways. Section 10 of the Act prohibits unauthorized obstruction or alteration of
navigable waters and vests the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with authority to regulate
discharges of fill and other materials into such waters.

The Trustees do not believe that any of the restoration projects have the potential to
negatively affect navigable waters because none of the projects will result in the
obstruction or alteration of navigable waters.

Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1451, et seq.

The goal of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) is to encourage and assist states
to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, restore and enhance valuable natural
coastal resources. Participation by states is voluntary. California developed the
California Coastal Management Program pursuant to the requirements of the federal
CZMA. NOAA approved the California Coastal Management Program in 1977. The
enforceable policies of the CZMA are found in Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act.
For the entire California coast, except San Francisco Bay, the California Coastal
Commission implements the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (in the San
Francisco Bay area, the implementing agency is the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission).

Section 1456 of the CZMA requires that any federal action inside or outside of the
coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural resources of the coastal zone
shall be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of
approved state management programs. It states that no federal license or permit may be
granted without giving the State the opportunity to concur that the project is consistent
with the state's coastal policies. The regulations implementing the CZMA outline the
consistency procedures. 15 C.F.R. Part 930.

The Trustees believe that each of the selected projects can be implemented in a manner
that will either have no effect on coastal resources or uses or is consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with the CZMA and the California Coastal Management
Program. The USFWS, on behalf of the federal trustees, has determined that at least
twelve of the selected projects will not adversely affect coastal zone resources and/or
uses, and the California Coastal Commission has concurred. As to those two selected
projects that require further design or details in order to make such a determination, the
federal agency responsible for implementing such projects will seek California Coastal
Commission concurrence in its determination.

32
Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1531, et seq.

The purpose of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is to conserve endangered and
threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. The ESA directs all
federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further these purposes. Pursuant to Section
7 of the ESA, federal agencies shall, in consultation with the Secretary of the Department
of the Interior and/or Commerce, ensure that any action that they authorize, fund, or carry
out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened
species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.

Under the ESA, the NOAA Fisheries Service (formerly the National Marine Fisheries
Service, or NFMS) and the USFWS publish lists of endangered and threatened species.
Before initiating an action, the federal action agency, or its non-federal permit applicant,
must ask the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries Service to provide a list of threatened,
endangered, proposed, and candidate species and designated critical habitat that may be
present in the project area. If no species or critical habitats are known to occur in the
action area4, the federal action agency has no further ESA obligations under Section 7. If
the federal action agency determines that a project may affect a listed species or
designated critical habitat, consultation is required.

If the federal action agency concludes that the project will not adversely affect listed
species or critical habitat, the agency submits a “not likely to adversely affect”
determination to the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries Service. If the USFWS and/or
NOAA Fisheries Service concur with the federal action agency’s determination of “not
likely to adversely affect,” then the consultation (informal to this point) is completed and
the decision is put in writing.

If the federal action agency determines that the project is likely to adversely affect either
a listed species or its critical habitat, then more formal consultation procedures are
required. There is a designated period in which to consult (90 days), and beyond that,
another set period for the USFWS and/or NOAA Fisheries Service to prepare a
biological opinion (45 days). The determination of whether or not the proposed action
would be likely to jeopardize the species or adversely modify its critical habitat is
contained in the biological opinion. If a jeopardy or adverse modification determination
is made, the biological opinion must identify any reasonable and prudent alternatives that
could allow the project to move forward.

Several federally-listed species occur in the affected area for this Restoration Plan (see
Table 4). The federally endangered Sea Otter and Brown Pelican and the federally
threatened Marbled Murrelet and Snowy Plover may utilize waters and lands which may
be included in selected areas for implementing restoration projects. Additionally, these
species are the target for the proposed restoration in some of the selected projects.

4
Action Area: All areas that may be affected directly or indirectly by the proposed action and not merely
the immediate area involved in the action.

33
The Trustees do not believe any of the restoration projects will likely adversely affect a
listed species or critical habitat because the projects are designed to restore and benefit
injured resources including certain federally-listed species. The USFWS has been
consulted regarding those three bird species for which it is responsible and has concurred
with this determination. NOAA Fisheries will be consulted regarding the Sea Otter.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1801, et

seq.

The federal Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-

Stevens Act) as amended and reauthorized by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996
establishes a program to promote the protection of essential fish habitat (EFH) in the
review of projects conducted under federal permits, licenses, or other authorities that
affect or have the potential to affect such habitat. After EFH has been described and
identified in fishery management plans by the regional fishery management councils,
federal agencies are obligated to consult with the Secretary of Commerce with respect to
any action authorized, funded, or undertaken, or proposed to be authorized, funded, or
undertaken, by such agency that may adversely affect any EFH.

The Trustees do not believe that any of the selected restoration projects will adversely
affect EFH.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, 16 U.S.C.§ 661, et seq.

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) provides the basic authority for the
USFWS involvement in the evaluation of impacts to fish and wildlife from proposed
water resource development projects. The FCWA requires that federal agencies consult
with the USFWS (and/or NOAA Fisheries as may be appropriate) and state wildlife
agencies for activities that affect, control or modify waters of any stream or bodies of
water, in order to minimize the adverse impacts of such actions on fish and wildlife
resources and habitat. This consultation is generally incorporated into the process of
complying with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, NEPA or other federal permit,
license or review requirements.

The Trustees will consult with the appropriate agencies on any of the selected restoration
projects that involve activities that affect, control or modify water bodies.

Marine Mammal Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1361, et seq.

The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) prohibits, with certain exceptions, the take
of marine mammals in U.S. waters and by U.S. citizens on the high seas, and the
importation of marine mammals and marine mammal products into the U.S. The
Secretary of Commerce is responsible for the conservation and management of pinnipeds
(other than walruses) and cetaceans. The Secretary of Commerce delegated MMPA
authority to NOAA Fisheries. The Secretary of the Interior (through the USFWS) is
responsible for walruses, sea and marine otters, polar bears, manatees, and dugongs.

34
Title II of the MMPA established an independent Marine Mammal Commission (and its
Advisory Committee) which provides independent oversight of the marine mammal
conservation polices and programs being carried out by federal regulatory agencies. The
Commission is charged with developing, reviewing and making recommendations on
domestic and international actions and policies of all federal agencies with respect to
marine mammal protection and conservation and with carrying out a research program.
The MMPA provides for several exceptions to the moratorium on taking and importation
of marine mammals and marine mammal products. The Secretary may issue permits for
take or importation for purposes of scientific research, public display, photography for
educational or commercial purposes, enhancing the survival or recovery of a species or
stock, importation of certain polar bear parts taken in sports hunting in Canada, and
incidental taking in the course of commercial fishing operations.

The Trustees do not believe that any of the selected restoration actions have the potential
to result in the take, injury, or harassment of any species protected under the MMPA.
One possible exception may be the mouse eradication project at the Farallon Islands,
where some short term disturbance of marine mammals may occur. This will be
addressed by additional environmental compliance associated with that project, if
selected. Additionally, work on Año Nuevo Island is already being done with an MMPA
permit due to occaisional minor harassment of pinnipeds in the course of accessing and
working on the island. That permit will be amended as necessary. If work on Reading
Rock is deemed to have similar impacts as those at Año Nuevo, an MMPA permit will be
required.

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

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) implements four international treaties involving
protection of migratory birds, including all marine birds, and is one of the earliest statutes
to provide for avian protection by the federal government. The MBTA generally
prohibits actions to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt to take, kill, possess, offer
for sale, sell, offer to purchase, deliver for shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for
transportation, transport, cause to be transported, carry, or cause to be carried by any
means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or carriage, or export, at any time,
or in any manner, any migratory bird...or any part, nest, or egg of such bird.” Exceptions
to these prohibitions are only allowed under regulations or permits issued by USFWS.
Hunting of migratory game birds is regulated annually through a process in which the
USFWS sets “framework regulations” and “special regulations” designed to maintain
sustainable hunting levels. Framework regulations are the foundation of annual
regulations and consist of the outside dates for opening and closing seasons, season
length, daily bag and possession limits, and shooting hours. Special regulations consist
of framework regulations that are applied on a small scale and consist of split seasons,
zones and special seasons, state regulations conform to the federal regulations. All other
actions prohibited by the MBTA are only allowed under specific permits issued by the
USFWS Regional Bird Permit Offices. These permits include special use permits for
rehabilitation, possession and salvage of oiled birds during spill response, which usually

35
provides the primary data for determining extent of injury to marine birds and the need
for restoration.

Implementation of restoration projects selected in this DARP/EA will be conducted in

full compliance with the MBTA.

National Marine Sanctuaries Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1431, et seq.

The National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) to designate and manage areas of the marine environment with special
national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historical,
scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or esthetic qualities as national marine
sanctuaries. Day-to-day management of national marine sanctuaries has been delegated
by the Secretary to the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The primary objective of the
NMSA is to protect marine resources, such as coral reefs, sunken historical vessels or
unique habitats.

The NMSA prohibits the destruction, loss of, or injury to any sanctuary resource. The
Secretary is required to conduct such enforcement activities as are necessary and
reasonable to carry out the Act. The Secretary may issue special use permits which
authorize specific activities in a sanctuary to establish conditions of access to and use of
any sanctuary resource or to promote public use and understanding of a sanctuary
resource. The NMSA also establishes liability for response costs and natural resource
damages for injury to sanctuary natural resources.

The at-sea areas impacted by the spills include the Cordell Bank National Marine
Sanctuary, the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, the Monterey Bay
National Marine Sanctuary, and the Farallon Islands National Wildlife Refuge. For
restoration projects that have the potential to affect resources within a sanctuary (i.e. the
Seabird Colony Protection Program activities that include the Farallon Islands) the
Trustees will consult with and apply for permits as appropriate to conduct activities
within sanctuary boundaries.

Park System Resource Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 19jj

The Park System Resource Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 19jj), authorizes the Secretary of
the Interior (Secretary) to assess and monitor injuries, and to seek damages for
restoration, for National Park Service (NPS) resources. A “park system resource” is
defined by the PSRPA as “any living or nonliving resource that is located within the
boundaries of a unit of the National Park Service….” The Act specifically allows the
Secretary to seek response costs and damages from the responsible party causing the
destruction, loss of, or injury to park system resources.

The Trustees do not believe that any of the restoration projects have the potential to
negatively affect NPS resources.

36
Wilderness Act, 16 U.S.C. Public Law 88-577

The Wilderness Act established a National Wilderness Preservation System to be

composed of federally owned areas designated by Congress as wilderness areas, to be
administered in such a manner that will leave them unimpaired for future use and
enjoyment as wilderness. In 1976, Congress designated a portion of Point Reyes National
Seashore (33,000 acres) as wilderness, including Point Reyes Headlands, the shoreline
north of the peninsula, and the shoreline from Limantour Estero south.

Executive Order (EO) 11988 – Construction in Flood Plains

The 1977 Executive Order 11988 seeks to avoid, to the extent possible, the long-and
short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood
plains and to avoid direct or indirect support of development in flood plains wherever
there is a practicable alternative. Each federal agency is responsible for evaluating the
potential effects of any action it may take in a flood plain. Before taking an action, the
federal agency should determine whether the proposed action would occur in a flood
plain. For any major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human
environment, the evaluation would be included in the agency’s environmental impact
statement prepared pursuant to NEPA. The agency should consider alternatives to avoid
adverse effects and incompatible development in flood plains. If the only practicable
alternative requires sitting in a flood plain, the agency should: (1) design or modify the
action to minimize potential harm, and (2) prepare and circulate a notice containing an
explanation of why the action is proposed to be located in the flood plain.

None of the selected restoration projects involve construction in a floodplain.

Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species

The 1999 Executive Order 13112 requires that all federal agencies whose actions may
affect the status of invasive species shall, to the extent practicable and permitted by law,
(1) identify such actions, and (2) take actions specified in the Order to address the
problem consistent with their authorities and budgetary resources; and (3) not authorize,
fund, or carry out actions that they believe are likely to cause or promote the introduction
or spread of invasive species in the United States or elsewhere unless, “pursuant to
guidelines that it has prescribed, the agency has determined and made public its
determination that the benefits of such actions clearly outweigh the potential harm caused
by invasive species; and that all feasible and prudent measures to minimize risk of harm
will be taken in conjunction with the actions.”

The Trustees do not believe that any of the selected restoration projects have the potential
to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive species. Certain of the selected
restoration projects are aimed at the removal or control of non-native species.

37
Executive Order (EO) 12898 - Environmental Justice

The 1994 Executive Order 12898 requires each federal agency to identify and address, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects
of its programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. In the
memorandum to heads of departments and agencies that accompanied executive Order
12898, the President specifically recognized the importance of procedures under NEPA
for identifying and addressing environmental justice concerns. The memorandum states
that “each federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, including human
health, economic and social effects, of federal actions, including effects on minority
communities and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by [NEPA].”
The memorandum particularly emphasizes the importance of NEPA’s public
participation process, directing that “each federal agency shall provide opportunities for
community input in the NEPA process.” Agencies are further directed to “identify
potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities, and
improve the accessibility of meetings, crucial documents, and notices.” The CEQ has
oversight of the federal government’s compliance with Executive Order 12898 and
NEPA.

The Trustees have involved the affected community by providing notice to the public,
seeking public comments, holding public meetings and providing public access to the
Administrative Record.

Information Quality Law, Public Law 106-554, Section 515

Information disseminated by federal agencies to the public after October 1, 2002, is

subject to information quality guidelines developed by each agency pursuant to Section
515 of Public Law 106-554 that are intended to ensure and maximize the quality of the
objectivity, utility and integrity of such information. This DARP/EA is an information
product covered by information quality guidelines established by NOAA and DOI for this
purpose. The quality of the information contained herein is consistent with these
guidelines, as applicable.

3.3.3.2 State Laws, Regulations, and Policies

California Environmental Quality Act, Pub. Res. Code 21000-21178.1

CEQA was adopted in 1970. Its basic purposes are to inform California governmental
agencies and the public about the potentially significant effects of proposed activities, to
identify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced, to
prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment through adoption of feasible
alternatives or mitigation measures, and to disclose the reasons for agency approval of a
project resulting in significant environmental effects.

The CEQA process begins with a preliminary review as to whether CEQA applies to the
project in question. Generally, a project is subject to CEQA if it involves a discretionary
action that is carried out, funded or authorized by an agency (i.e., the lead agency), and

38
that has the potential to impact the environment. Once the lead agency determines that
the project is subject to CEQA, the lead agency must then determine whether the action is
exempt from CEQA compliance under either a statutory or categorical exemption.
Examples of categorical exemptions include actions taken by regulatory agencies for
protection of natural resources and actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the
environment (Title 14 CCR, Chapter 3, §§ 15307-15308).

If the lead agency determines that the project is not exempt, then an Initial Study is
generally prepared to determine whether the project may have a significant effect on the
environment. Based on the results of the Initial Study, the lead agency determines
whether to prepare a Negative Declaration (i.e., the project will not result in significant
adverse effects to the environment) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The test
for determining whether an EIR or negative declaration must be prepared is whether a
fair argument can be made based on substantial evidence that the project may have a
significant adverse effect on the environment.

CEQA encourages the use of a federal EIS or FONSI prepared pursuant to NEPA when
such documents are available, or the preparation of joint state/federal documents, in lieu
of preparing a separate EIR or negative declaration under CEQA. Accordingly, the State
Trustee, CDFG, intends to use this federal NEPA EA document and resulting FONSI (if
issued) as necessary towards CEQA compliance for the restoration alternatives described
herein. Towards this end, the CDFG will coordinate with the federal Trustees to ensure
the EA and FONSI (if issued) complies with the provision of CEQA guidelines (Title 14
CCR, Chapter 3, § 15220 et seq.).

The Trustees anticipate that this DARP/EA will meet the CEQA compliance
requirements for most of the restoration projects described herein. Additional
environmental compliance may be required for some of the projects prior to actual
implementation. This will be determined once detailed engineering design work or
operational plans are developed for the selected projects.

California Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act,

Government Code § 9574.1, et seq.

The Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act became effective
on September 24, 1990. This legislation is the key state compensatory mechanism for
subsequent spills and establishes a comprehensive liability scheme for damages resulting
from marine oil spills. Recoverable damages include damages for the injury to,
destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing the
injury, destruction, or loss, the cost of rehabilitating wildlife, habitat, and other resources,
and the loss of use and enjoyment of natural resources, public beaches, and other public
resources. Responsible parties are required to fully mitigate adverse impacts to wildlife,
fisheries, and wildlife and fisheries habitat by successfully carrying out environmental
restoration projects or funding the activities of CDFG to carry out environmental
restoration projects.

39
California Coastal Act, California Public Resources Code § 30000, et seq.

The California Coastal Act was enacted by the California State Legislature in 1976 to
provide long-term protection of California’s 1,100-mile coastline for the benefit of
current and future generations. The Coastal Act created a partnership between the state
(acting through the California Coastal Commission [Commission]) and local government
(15 coastal counties and 58 cities) to manage the conservation and development of
coastal resources through a comprehensive planning and regulatory program. New
development in the Coastal Zone may require a permit from the Commission or the
appropriate local government agency. The Commission also reviews and approves Local
Coastal Programs, which are the basic planning tools used by local governments to guide
development in the Coastal Zone.

The Trustees do not anticipate that any of the restoration projects will adversely affect
coastal resources or involve development in the California Coastal Zone. However, the
implementing entity for each project will be required to apply for any necessary permits
and approvals, including any required coastal development permit.

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

Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (California Fish and Game
Code Sections 2050 et seq.), it is the policy of the State of California that state agencies
should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of any
endangered species or threatened species or result in the destruction or adverse
modification of habitat essential to the continued existence of those species if there are
reasonable and prudent alternatives available. However, if reasonable alternatives are
infeasible, individual projects may be approved if appropriate mitigation and
enhancement measures are provided.

Pursuant to the CESA, the Fish and Game Commission has established a list of
threatened and endangered species based on criteria recommended by the California
Department of Fish and Game. Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code
prohibits “take” of any species that the Commission determines to be an endangered
species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code
as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.”
The CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. The
CESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, or
threatened species and to develop appropriate mitigation planning to offset project-caused
losses of populations of listed species and their essential habitats.
Several state-listed species occur in the affected area for this Restoration Plan (see Table
4). The state fully-protected Sea Otter, endangered Brown Pelican, and endangered
Marbled Murrelet may utilize waters or lands which may be included in selected areas for
implementing restoration projects. Additionally, these species are the target for the
proposed restoration in certain of the restoration projects. While the Trustees do not
believe the restoration projects will result in the take of any state-listed species, the

40
Trustees will evaluate the potential effects of the projects on these species and consult
with the CDFG as may be appropriate pursuant to the requirements of the CESA.

Public Resources Code, Division 6, § 6001, et seq.

The Public Resources Code, Division 6, gives the California State Lands Commission
trustee ownership over State sovereign tide and submerged lands. Permits or leases may
be required from the State Lands Commission if a restoration project is located on such
lands.

3.3.3.3 Other Potentially Applicable Statutes and Regulations

Additional legal requirements may be applicable to NRDA restoration planning activities.

The statutes listed below, or their implementing regulations, may require permits from
federal or state permitting authorities.

• National Park Act of August 19, 1916 (Organic Act), 16 USC 1, et seq.
• Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 16 U.S.C. 460, et seq.
• National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 as amended (16 U.S.C. 470-470t, 110)
• Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
• Executive Order 11514 – Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality
• Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands
• Executive Order 11991 – Relating to the Protection and Enhancement of
Environmental Quality
• Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Water Code Sections 13000 et seq.

41
4.0 Injury Quantification and Restoration Planning

This section describes the Trustees’ efforts to quantify the nature, extent, and severity of
injuries to natural resources resulting from the spills. It begins with an overview of the
data collected during the spills followed by a description of the damage assessment
strategy and methods used to determine and quantify the injuries. The chapter also
presents summaries of the injury quantification results, restoration alternatives including
a no-action alternative, and restoration scaling for all projects. The environmental
impacts, or consequences, of the selected projects are described in section 4.3, and
potential cumulative impacts are summarized in section 4.5.

The Trustees have used available information, focused studies, and expert scientific
judgment to arrive at the best estimate of the injuries caused by the spill. Principal
investigators included state and federal scientists, consultants with damage assessment
experience, and recognized experts on the impacted species. There is, however, some
uncertainty inherent in the assessment of impacts from oil spills. While collecting more
information may increase the precision of the estimate of the impacts, the Trustees
believe that the type and scale of restoration actions would not substantially change as a
result of more research. The Trustees have sought to balance the desire for more
information with the reality that further research would cost more money and would
delay the implementation of the restoration projects.

4.1 Overview of Data Collection and Studies

Prior to 1997, when oiled birds were found on beaches, the Trustees largely depended on
the public to collect live injured birds and bring them to local wildlife care centers, except
in a few incidences such as the Cape Mohican and the Puerto Rican oil spills. Response
by the Trustees was often limited, because no associated oil had been observed or
reported on the water and there was no known oil spill. Instead the Trustees and the
USCG focused on investigating possible sources of the oil. Nevertheless, a sample of
beached birds and tarballs have been routinely documented and collected since 1993.
Oiled wildlife and tarballs were collected through Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey
Bay National Marine Sanctuaries beach surveys and analyzed at the CDFG Petroleum
Chemistry Lab. The wildlife care centers documented the numbers of birds brought to
them by the public. Data regarding species composition of beached birds show that most
of the birds were Common Murres (Carter 1997; Nur et al. 1997; Roletto et al. 2003).
Beginning with the 1997-98 spills (the Pt. Reyes Tarball Incidents), the Trustees
responded in a more organized fashion to reports of oiled wildlife. The Trustees
conducted daily beach searches and documented all birds collected (live and dead) in
coordination with the Oiled Wildlife Care Network, which had been recently established
to coordinate responses to oiled wildlife. Below is a list of activities conducted during
the spills that resulted in important data for damage assessment. The Trustees used this
response data to conduct their preassessment of natural resource damages (NRD).

Oiled Wildlife Search and Collection: These activities were conducted for response
purposes to capture live oiled wildlife, if possible (for potential rehabilitation), and to

42
 remove dead oiled wildlife from the beaches. In addition to documenting the date,
location, species, and attributes of all birds collected, the surveyors also documented
their search effort, including beaches searched, method, time, and number of birds
collected (if any). This is the primary data used to estimate bird mortality.

Aerial Surveys: Limited aerial surveys were conducted in 1997-98 to search for oil
(see Carter and Golightly, eds. 2003). More extensive surveys were conducted in
summer 2002, during the oil removal operations at the Luckenbach, to evaluate
resources at risk in the event on an unplanned release. This data provides important
information on the presence of Marbled Murrelets in the spill area.

Based on the information collected during the response actions summarized above, the
Trustees determined that injuries to birds had occurred. The Trustees also determined
that potential restoration actions to compensate for the losses were feasible and proceeded
with injury assessments. To that end, the Trustees engaged in some additional injury
assessment and restoration planning studies after the response was over:

Bird Mortality Estimation: The Trustees used a Beached Bird Model to estimate the
total number of birds impacted from all spills. The Trustees contracted with Glenn
Ford, an expert in estimating bird mortalities resulting from oil spills, for this work.
While the results are summarized in this document, a separate report on this analysis
will be available (Ford et al. 2006a).

Carcass Re-wash Study: The Trustees conducted a study, using radio-tagged bird
carcasses, to evaluate the fate of beachcast birds on narrow beaches in the spill zone
subject to re-wash at high tides. The results of this study were input directly into the
Beached Bird Model used to estimate bird mortality. The Trustees contracted with
Glenn Ford for this work.

Scavenging Rate Study: The Trustees conducted a study, using radio-tagged bird
carcasses, to evaluate the scavenging and removal rate of beachcast carcasses from
several different types of beaches within the spill zone. The results of this study were
input directly into the Beached Bird Model used to estimate bird mortality. The
Trustees contracted with Glenn Ford for this work.

Analysis of Factors Influencing Bird Recovery Rates: The Trustees conducted a

statistical examination of the response data, examining the effects of various beach
search methods and attributes on the likelihood of finding beachcast birds. The results
of this study were input directly into the Beached Bird Model used to estimate bird
mortality. This work was performed by Trustee staff and is described further in
Hampton and Zafonte (2005).

BeachWatch Data Preparation: BeachWatch is a program of regular beach surveys

organized by the GFNMS. These surveys have recorded all beachcast birds, oiled
and unoiled, throughout the year since 1993 in much of the spill area. Although some
of the data were analyzed during the Point Reyes Tarball Incidents natural resource

43
 damage initiation, much of the remaining data had never been entered into a digital
format. The Trustees undertook this task to assist in bird mortality estimation. This
data source was especially important for analyzing natural mortality rates as well as
spill-related mortality outside of the major oiling episodes. The Trustees contracted
with the Farallones Marine Sanctuary Association for this work.

Marbled Murrelet Telemetry Study: Because Marbled Murrelets are at risk and
declining in central California, and because they are difficult to find on the beaches,
the Trustees conducted a study to determine the winter dispersal of birds that nest in
the Santa Cruz Mountains. The purpose was to learn the extent to which birds from
this population would have been at risk of oiling. The Trustees contracted with UC
Berkeley for this work and the results can be found in Peery et al. (2003).

Historical Oil Sample Analysis: In addition to oil samples already analyzed during
the oil spill response and investigation of the source of the oil, the Trustees analyzed
an additional 71 feather samples and 8 Sea Otter fur samples from the period of 1993
to 2001. This was done to determine the impacts of the Luckenbach in previous years
and during the summer months, and to determine the extent to which natural seep oil
may have been responsible for some of the impacts to wildlife. The Trustees used
samples collected from bird rehabilitation facilities, past oil spill response efforts, and
beached bird surveys (GFNMS Beach Watch program). CDFG’s Petroleum
Chemistry Laboratory performed the analyses.

Ancient Murrelet Restoration Planning: Because Ancient Murrelet restoration needs

are at their breeding grounds in Canada and Alaska, the Trustees had little familiarity
with potential restoration project alternatives. The Trustees contracted with Island
Conservation to research suitable restoration projects, including making the necessary
contacts with government officials and Native American tribal leaders.

Other Data Preparation and Research: Additional work performed by the Trustees
included considerable time reviewing and preparing response data regarding beach
search and bird collection for use in the Beached Bird Model. The Trustees also
conducted considerable restoration planning including identifying and researching the
costs and feasibility of restoration projects for the impacted species, as well as
preparing this DARP/EA.

4.2 Injury and Damages Assessment

The goal of injury assessment is to determine the nature, extent and severity of injuries to
natural resources, thus providing the technical basis for evaluating and scaling restoration
actions. The OPA regulations define injury as “an observable or measurable adverse
change in a natural resource or impairment of a natural resource service.” Diminution in
the quantity or quality of recreational use of natural resources also constitutes an injury as
defined by the OPA regulations.

For each of the injury categories, the Trustees selected appropriate assessment procedures
based on (1) the range of procedures available under section 990.27(b) of the OPA

44
regulations; (2) the time and cost necessary to implement the procedures; (3) the potential
nature, degree, and spatial and temporal extent of the injury; (4) potential restoration
actions for the injury; (5) the relevance and adequacy of information generated by the
procedures to meet information requirements of planning appropriate restoration actions;
and (6) input from scientific experts.

Each injury assessment focused on determining both the magnitude of the injury (e.g.,
number of animals killed) and the time to full recovery. This produced an estimate of the
direct and interim (from the time of injury until full recovery) losses of resources
resulting from the oil spills. Injury estimates in future years were discounted at 3 percent
per year (NOAA 1999). (Discounting is described in section 4.2.1.3)

4.2.1 Damage Assessment Methods

4.2.1.1 Estimation of Numbers of Animals Impacted

A separate report, covering the period from 1990 through 2003, describes the details of
mortality estimation for all birds except Snowy Plovers (Ford et al. 2006a). This section
summarizes the general approach of that report.

The first step in injury quantification was to estimate the number of animals impacted by
species. Not all impacted birds and otters are found and collected during spill response
for a variety of reasons:
• Unsearched areas. Because precipitous parts of the coastline are inaccessible, they
often remain unsearched by spill responders. In this case, much of the Marin, San
Mateo, and Santa Cruz County coastlines were sparsely searched.
• Scavenging or predation. Scavengers may pick apart or entirely remove dead birds
from the beaches. This is especially true of small birds. Predators such as
Peregrine Falcons or coyotes may more easily capture weakened oiled birds and
remove them from the area (Ford and Ward 1999).
• Search efficiency. Spill responders searching for beachcast birds may not find them
all. Dark-bodied animals are especially difficult to see on beaches littered with
wrack (beachcast kelp, seagrass, wood, and other debris) (Ford et al. 2006b).
• Re-wash. Bird carcasses that are deposited on a beach may be subsequently
removed from the beaches by high tides or large waves and re-deposited
elsewhere, or buried in situ.
• Beach transit. It is often assumed that live oiled birds come to the beaches and
simply stop there. Experience, however, has noted that many birds, including
Common Murres, may continue walking inland, perhaps in search of cover.
During the 2001-02 response at Point Reyes, tracks revealed that all 16 live
beached murres walked several hundred meters inland into a dune complex,
where they could not be found.
• Removal or burial by the public. On beaches with even light human use, dead birds
are subject to being tossed in trash cans or buried in the sand. This may prevent
their discovery by spill response crews. In this case, removal and burying was

45
 known to occur at the south end of Monterey Bay, San Mateo County beaches,
Ocean Beach, and Stinson Beach.
• At-sea loss. Because many oiled hypothermic birds lose bodyweight quickly and
die of starvation within two days (Oka and Okuyama 2000), some birds never
make it to the beach. Dead or dying birds are often subject to winds and currents,
which may carry them offshore. Additionally, dead and dying birds are subject to
scavenging and predation while at sea.
• Departure from the area. Larger birds, such as pelicans, are sometimes able to
survive minor oiling for many days. During this time, they may travel well
outside the spill zone and beyond the range of response operations.

The Beached Bird Model (see Ford et al. 1987, 1996) was used to determine the number
of birds impacted for all species in this case except for Snowy Plovers and Marbled
Murrelets. This model seeks to take some of the factors listed above into consideration,
by estimating the number of birds killed from the numbers of birds found on the beach (a
method called “backcasting”). Using estimated rates of carcass disappearance, the
number of birds removed or not found on the beaches is then estimated. Using a
simplified example, if the probability of a bird being removed by a scavenger in the
course of a day are 50 percent, and the probability of it being overlooked by a searcher
are 50 percent, then the probability of it being recovered are 25 percent. This would
imply that, for every one bird found, three more are missed. This would result in a
“beached bird multiplier” of four. That is, one bird found implies that four birds were
impacted.

The Beached Bird Model used in this case was based on Ford et al. (1987, 1996). The
model relied on some of the additional studies outlined above (e.g., re-wash study,
scavenging study, analysis of factors affecting beach search efficiency) to inform the
parameters. The model incorporated different scavenging rates for large and small birds;
it was assumed that small birds were more likely to be removed from the beaches than
large birds.4 In addition, all birds were more likely to be scavenged when fresh, and less
likely as they decomposed. Likewise, the model incorporated different search efficiency
rates, depending upon the size of the bird. While foot searches in San Mateo County
found birds at nearly twice the rate of vehicle searches in Monterey Bay, this was
consistent with estimated deposition patterns. Thus, no adjustment was made for
differential search mode.

Because of the location of the spill and the level of search effort, beach transit, removal
or burial by the public, at-sea loss, and departure from the area were considered to be
small factors and were not evaluated or included in the model. To the extent that these
factors contributed to carcass disappearance, the model may provide an underestimate of
actual bird mortality.

During any spill response, some level of natural background mortality can be expected to
contribute to the number of birds collected. Before the Beached Bird Model can be
employed, it is appropriate to separate such birds from the spill-related birds that were

46
collected. It is not sufficient to assume that birds without visible oiling are not spill
related. Spill related birds might show no visible oiling for the following reasons:

• Thin sheen or small amounts of oil. For ocean-going birds that must rely on the sea
for their food, a spot of oil the size of a nickel may be sufficient to cause death.
Like a hole in a wetsuit, the oil destroys the feathers’ ability to insulate the bird,
thus allowing cold ocean water to spread against the bird’s skin. Birds typically
die of hypothermia and starvation (Moskoff 2000). Often, such small traces of oil
may be difficult to see on a bird. They may appear wetted, like a wet dog, but
show no oil.
• Scavenging. Oil usually coats the underparts of a bird, such as the belly and breast,
as the bird swims in the ocean. These are the same parts of the bird that are
removed by scavengers. Experience in California and a recent study in Canada
have found that scavengers do not hesitate to feed upon oiled birds (Wiese 2002).
When this occurs, those feathers are often removed. Scavenging often occurs in
the first few hours or days after a bird becomes beached. It is not unusual for a
fresh bird to be reduced to a skeleton overnight (Ford and Ward 1999).
• Dark plumage. Because oil is usually black, it is most difficult to see on black-
plumaged birds. While most seabirds have white underparts, some are entirely
black.
• Preening and ingestion. Birds may remove small amounts of oil through the
process of preening. Internal oil is typically documented only if post-mortem
examinations are performed. Due to costs, such examinations are not typically
done.

There are two primary approaches to accounting for natural mortality among the birds
collected:
1. Examine each entry in the intake log and remove each individual bird that seems
unlikely to be spill related (e.g., old, desiccated carcass on the first day of the
spill; gunshot wound, previously documented carcasses found through
standardized beached bird monitoring programs)
2. Estimate the average background carcass deposition rate and subtract a flat rate
from the total number of birds collected during the response. In some cases,
beached bird surveys in the area may provide historical data for individual
beaches and time of year, by species.

In this case, the latter approach was used because the response periods lasted many
months. Furthermore, an extensive data set from the GFNMS Beach Watch program was
available to analyze background levels of beached bird carcasses.

Additionally, the Trustees had to evaluate the fate of rehabilitated and released birds.
During the responses between 1997 and 2003, 730 birds were captured alive, cleaned,
and released. Of the released birds, 601 (82%) were Common Murres, and 75 (10%)
were Western Grebes. The remainder represented a wide range of species. Although
there is uncertainty associated with the fate of such birds, several studies have suggested
that post-rehab survival is extremely low (e.g., less than 10%), especially for alcids such

47
as Common Murres (Sharp 1996). During the Stuyvesant oil spill response, the Oiled
Wildlife Care Network conducted a telemetry study of rehabbed and released Common
Murres (Newman et al. 2004). The results suggest a survival rate greater than the earlier
studies, although it is difficult to compare the rehabilitated birds with the control birds
due to the limited life of the radio transmitter batteries. There is one documented case of
rehabilitated bird from the Luckenbach spills successfully laying an egg on the Farallon
Islands. Based on the limited available information, the Trustees assumed that 75 percent
of the rehabilitated birds died, and 25 percent survived to join (or rejoin) the breeding
population. For injury quantification, this adjustment was only made for Common
Murres and Western Grebes. This adjustment increases the mortality estimates by less
than 2% for these species, and is incorporated in Ford (2006).

For Western Snowy Plovers and Marbled Murrelets, the Beached Bird Model could not
be used because so few birds were found. This is not unusual for small-bodied birds with
small populations. The methods used for quantifying total mortality for these species are
described in the relevant sections below (section 4.3.6 for Snowy Plovers, and section
4.3.9 for Marbled Murrelets).

4.2.1.2 Restoration Categories

For restoration planning purposes, the Trustees concluded that it was not advantageous to
implement restoration projects for each of the 51 bird species impacted. For many of
these species, no restoration project has ever been implemented, creating challenges with
respect to feasibility. For others, the impact was relatively small, implying that a small
restoration project would suffice for compensation. The implementation of many small
projects, however, would be economically inefficient, because each project incurs some
level of fixed costs. Thus, in order to focus restoration efforts on larger, efficient, and
feasible projects, the Trustees created restoration categories according to the following
criteria:

1. The species in each group should be similar in their habitat preferences and life
histories.
2. The species in each group are likely to benefit from a single restoration action.
3. Each grouping must contain one or more species for which there are feasible
restoration alternatives.
4. Species with declining populations with special restoration needs should be
specifically addressed to the extent feasible.

Using these criteria, the impacted species were grouped accordingly:

• Waterfowl • Other Shorebirds

• Loons • Common Murres
• Grebes • Marbled Murrelets
• Procellarids • Other Alcids
• Brown Pelicans, Cormorants, Gulls • California Sea Otters
• Western Snowy Plovers

48
All impacted birds and otters were accounted for in the calculation of compensatory
damages. Spill-related mortality was estimated for each species and all injuries within
each grouping were counted when scaling restoration.

4.2.1.3 Quantification of Damages

Quantification of damages relied on a service-to-service restoration-based approach; that

is, the Trustees sought to determine appropriate restoration projects to both restore the
injured resources and compensate for the interim losses between the time of the spill and
full recovery to conditions had the spills not occurred (see NOAA 1997). Restoration
scaling is the process of determining the appropriate size of a restoration project. These
projects, because of their compensatory nature, are intended to provide resources “of the
same type and quality, and of comparable value” as those injured (NOAA 1995). For this
task, the Trustees relied upon Resource Equivalency Analysis (REA).

The REA method is divided into two main tasks: the debit calculation and the credit
calculation. The debit calculation involves determining the amount of “natural resource
services” that the affected resources would have provided had they not been injured. The
unit of measure may be acre-years, stream feet-years, or some other metric (such as bird-
years). The credit calculation seeks to estimate the quantity of those resource services
that would be created by a proposed compensatory restoration project. Thus, the size of
the restoration project is said to be “scaled” to equal the size of the injury. Consistent
with federal recommendations for NRDA (NOAA 1997; see also NOAA 1999) and
generally accepted practice in the field, future years are discounted at a rate of 3 percent
per year. This discounting is done based on the assumption that present services are more
valuable than future services, and that some uncertainty exists when estimating future
restoration benefits.

When the injury is primarily to individual animals rather than to a complete habitat, the
REA may focus on lost animal-years. For example, suppose an oil spill causes negligible
injury to a body of water, but results in the death of 100 ducks. Using information about
the life history of the ducks (e.g., annual survival rate, average life expectancy, average
fledging rate, etc.), it is possible to mathematically model/estimate the lost “duck-years”
due to the spill. On the credit side, restoration projects can be designed to create duck
nesting habitat and scaled, such that the size of the project is sufficient to create as many
“duck-years” as were lost in the incident. This is the approach used for the bird species
groups listed above. The scaled project sizes and some of the details used in the scaling
calculations are provided below. See Appendix A for further details on the REA method.

There are a variety of ways to calculate lost animal-years, all of which imply informed
biological assumptions regarding the recovery of the species from the spills (Zafonte and
Hampton 2005). For all species, the Trustees assumed that a representative section from
each age class was killed by the spill. Nevins and Carter’s (2003) examination of
Common Murres collected dead during the Point Reyes Tarball Incidents supports this
assumption. For each species, the Trustees examined the literature regarding population
regulation mechanisms, identifying the factors that currently limit the population and how

49
the species might recover from the spill impacts over time. After considering these
population recovery mechanisms, the Trustees used the most appropriate method for
calculating lost bird-years. For further details, see Appendix C.

The bird-years gained by each restoration project were evaluated differently, depending
upon the benefits associated with each specific project. These are explained below.

4.2.2 Restoration Project Selection Criteria

The Trustees considered numerous restoration alternatives to compensate the public for
spill-related injuries. Each restoration alternative was subjectively evaluated using the
criteria described below. This process resulted in the selection of the 14 projects.

Phase I - INITIAL SCREENING CRITERIA: The following initial screening criteria

were used to select the restoration projects presented in this DARP/EA.

A. Consistency with Trustees’ Restoration Goals. Projects must meet the

Trustees’ intent to restore, rehabilitate, replace, enhance, or acquire the equivalent
of the injured resources and resource services.

B. Technical Feasibility. The project must be technically and procedurally sound.

Consider the level of risk or uncertainty and the degree of success of projects
utilizing similar or identical techniques in the past.

C. Cost-Effectiveness. Consider the relationship of expected project costs to

expected resource and service benefits. Seek the least costly approach to deliver
an equivalent or greater amount and type of benefits.

D. Relationship to Injured Resources and/or Services (nexus). Projects that

restore rehabilitate, replace, enhance, or acquire the equivalent of the same or
similar resources or services injured by the spill are preferred to projects that
benefit other comparable resources or services. Consider the types of resources or
services injured by the spill, the location, and the connection or nexus of project
benefits to those injured resources.

E. Time to Provide Benefits. Consider the time it takes for benefits to be provided
to the target ecosystem or public to minimize interim resource loss (sooner =
better).

F. Duration of Benefits. Consider the expected duration of benefits from the

project. Long-term benefits are the objective.

G. Multiple Resource and Service Benefits. Consider the extent to which the
project benefits more than one natural resource or resource service. Measure in
terms of the quantity and associated quality of the types of natural resources or
service benefits expected to result from the project.

50
 H. Comprehensive Range of Projects. Consider the extent to which the project
contributes to the more comprehensive restoration package. Evaluate the project
for the degree to which it benefits any otherwise uncompensated spill injuries.

Phase II - ADDITIONAL SCREENING CRITERIA: To the extent that sufficient

information was available, these additional screening criteria were used to further refine
the selection of the restoration projects in this DARP/EA. These additional criteria are
not considered to be of lesser importance than the initial screening criteria. However,
these criteria are generally more appropriately applied after more detailed project plans
and scopes of work are developed.

I. Avoidance of Adverse Impacts. The project should avoid or minimize adverse

impacts to the environment and the associated natural resources. Adverse impacts
may be caused by collateral injuries when implementing, or as a result of
implementing, the project. Consider avoiding future short-term and long-term
injuries as well as mitigating past injuries.

J. Likelihood of Success. Consider the potential for success and the level of
expected return of resources and resource services. Consider also the ability to
evaluate the success of the project, the ability to correct problems that arise during
the course of the project, and the capability of individuals or organizations
expected to implement the project.

K. Compliance with Applicable Federal, State, and Local Laws and Policies.
The project must comply with applicable laws and policies.

L. Public Health and Safety. The project must not pose a threat to public health
and safety.

M. Maintenance and Oversight of Project. Consider the opportunities to protect

the implemented project and resulting benefits over time through conservation
easements, land acquisition, or other types of resource dedication. Long-term
protection is preferable.

N. Opportunities for Collaboration. Consider the possibility of matching funds,

in-kind services, volunteer assistance, and coordination with other ongoing or
proposed projects. External funding and support services that reduce costs or
extend benefits are preferable. Funds, however, shall not be used to offset the
costs of ongoing mitigation projects required pursuant to state or federal law.

O. Total Cost and Accuracy of Estimate. The total cost estimate should include
costs to design, implement, monitor, and manage the project. Its validity is
determined by the completeness, accuracy, and reliability of methods used to
estimate costs, as well as the credibility of the person or entity submitting the
estimate.

51
Phase III - SUPPLEMENTAL CRITERIA: The following criteria were also considered.

P. Ability to Document Benefits to the Public. Consider the ability to document

receipt or delivery of benefits to the public as a result of a project or other use of
funds.

Q. Educational/Research Value. Consider the potential for public education and

outreach and/or clarifying restoration planning issues.

R. Non-Duplication. Projects should not duplicate other efforts already ongoing at

the same location.

4.3 Injury Quantification and Restoration Alternatives

The following sections provide the details regarding injury quantification, the range of
potential restoration alternatives, and, for each injury category, a description of the
selected restoration project and the scaling of that project. Details of the scaling, such as
the REAs for each project, are provided in Appendices D thru M. Included with each
restoration project description below is a discussion of its impacts under “Environmental
Consequences.”

Project costs are intended to include design, permitting, implementation, and biological
monitoring. They also include estimated overhead charged by contracting agencies when
contracting with the private sector. (Note: budgets in the Draft DARP did not include
estimated overhead charges.) The estimates presented here do not include costs for
oversight and administration (e.g., managing contracts, reviewing annual progress
reports) by the Trustees, or any budget for unexpected contingencies. However, the
Trustees will take these costs into account when making the claim for funding to the
NPFC, to ensure that there will be sufficient funds to implement the final selected
projects.

All project budgets assume that funds will be received in 2007. For long-term projects,
the budgets assume that funds for future years will also be received in 2007 and will be
invested by the Trustees, earning an average of 1.5 percent real rate of return (i.e., after
accounting for inflation). Thus, the budgets are in present-value (2007) dollars.

52
 4.3.1 Waterfowl

Background
Waterfowl refer to swans, geese, and ducks. In this case, nearly all of the waterfowl
impacted were diving ducks, along with a few Brant (geese). The Trustees have also
lumped American Coot into this category.

Scoters (primarily Surf and White-winged) accounted for 88 percent of the birds
collected from this species group. These species occur regularly along the California
coast in winter, primarily near the surf zone but also in harbors and bays. They nest
throughout Alaska and northern Canada, on lakes within forested areas. A recent
telemetry study has shown that birds wintering in California originate from these northern
regions (Takekawa 2005).

Conservation Issues
All scoter populations are showing declines in various surveys, especially in the West
(Brown and Fredrickson 1997; Savard et al. 1998; Conant and Groves 2003). The
reasons for these declines are not well understood. Elevated levels of toxic contaminants,
particularly metals ingested on the wintering grounds, have been found in most studies.
However, it is difficult to relate these findings to decreases in the population. Nesting
habitats in Alaska and Canada face threats from recreational development and natural gas
extraction (e.g. roads and pipelines through breeding habitat).

Injury Calculations
A total of 144 waterfowl were collected during the spills that occurred between 1997 and
2003. Additional waterfowl were likely collected between 1990 and 1996, although
species composition regarding collected birds is limited for this time period. The total
estimated dead from all spills is 862. Details on the number of birds collected during
each spill event and the estimate of total mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford et al.
(2006).

Realizing that waterfowl will benefit tremendously from the restoration project selected
to benefit loons and phalaropes (protection of Kokechik Flats, Alaska, described in
section 4.3.2), lost bird-years were not calculated for waterfowl.

53
 Total Total
Species Collected* Estimated Dead
Brant 1
Lesser Scaup 1
Greater Scaup 1
Surf Scoter 99
White-winged Scoter 22
Black Scoter 1
Scoter, sp. 4 862
Bufflehead 6
Ruddy Duck 2
Red-breasted Merganser 1
Duck, sp. 2
American Coot 4
TOTAL 144
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

Restoration Alternatives
Restoration options for scoters on their wintering grounds are limited. However, there
are some feasible options for protecting nesting habitat on the breeding grounds. Because
scoters were the predominant species impacted, the Trustees focused on waterfowl
projects that included scoters among the beneficiaries. Four projects considered are listed
in the table below.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Protection of nesting areas in Kokechik Flats, Alaska Waterfowl (also Pacific and Red-
throated Loons and Red Phalarope)
Nesting habitat protection via land acquisition at Yukon Flats, Alaska Surf and White-winged Scoters, other
waterfowl, loons
Nesting habitat protection via land acquisition near Togiak NWR, Surf and White-winged Scoters, other
Alaska waterfowl, loons
Land protection advocacy in MacKenzie River area, Canada Surf and White-winged Scoters, other
waterfowl, loons

The Kokechik Flats nest protection project was selected because it will provide the most
benefits at a relatively lower cost, even though the waterfowl species composition at this
site does not perfectly match the waterfowl species impacted by the spills (Black Scoters
are the predominate scoter at Kokechik Flats). Furthermore, the Kokechik Flats project
will simultaneously protect thousands of waterfowl and phalarope nests and, possibly,
several hundred loon nests. The Yukon Flats and Togiak NWR projects protected a
relatively small number of nests, and from less imminent threats. Thus, they would
provide far fewer benefits than the selected project, and at a higher cost. The MacKenzie
River advocacy proposal focused on lobbying for protection, rather than achieving it with
certainty. Although lobbying for protection may ultimately lead to natural resource
benefits, the inherent uncertainty associated with it caused the Trustees to question its
likelihood of success in providing benefits in the short term.

Final Selected Project

Nest Protection at Kokechik Flats, Alaska
This project is described in the loon section below (section 4.3.2).

54
 4.3.2 Loons

Background
Loons are duck-like birds that spend most of their lives floating on the water and diving
for fish. They nest in very low densities on inland lakes, primarily in Alaska and Canada.
Common Loons formerly nested in northeastern California, but have been extirpated for
over 50 years. Loons winter in near-shore ocean waters, bays, and (less commonly) at
inland lakes within California.

One species, the Pacific Loon, accounted for 73 percent of the beachcast birds from this
species group. This species occurs regularly along the California coast in winter. They
nest throughout Alaska and northern Canada, on tundra ponds and forested lakes. The
Pacific Loon was likely impacted to a greater degree than the other species because they
occur farther offshore in winter and closer to the oil spills.

Conservation Issues
Loon nests are constructed of small islands of vegetation that sit low in the water. Loons
nest in low densities, often one pair per pond, depending on the size of the lake. They are
highly sensitive to human disturbance. In one study from Alaska, Pacific Loons left the
pond entirely if approached within 270 meters. This led to predation of eggs by jaegers
(Russell 2002). A Common Loon restoration project in Maine, funded by the North Cape
oil spill which occurred off Rhode Island in 1996, seeks to protect loon nesting areas
from human disturbance, thereby increasing nest productivity.

Injury Calculations
A total of 146 loons were collected during the spills that occurred between 1997 and
2003. Additional loons were likely collected between 1990 and 1996, although species
composition regarding collected birds is limited for this time period. The total estimated
dead from all spills is 1,314. Details on the number of birds collected during each spill
event and the estimate of total mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford et al. (2006).
Details regarding the calculation of lost bird-years are presented in Appendix D.

Total Total Total Lost

Species Collected* Estimated Dead Bird-Years
Red-throated Loon 17
Pacific Loon 107
Common Loon 19 1,314 10,348
Loon, sp. 3
TOTAL 146
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

These lost bird-years represent the interim losses between the time of the spills and return
of these populations to pre-spill conditions. Thus, any restoration project benefiting this
species group should seek to replace 10,348 lost bird-years.

Restoration Alternatives
Restoration options for loons on their wintering grounds are limited. Furthermore,
because their populations are most likely limited by pressures on their nesting grounds, it

55
makes most sense to focus restoration at these locations. Because Pacific Loons were the
predominant loon species impacted, the Trustees examined potential restoration options
for this species. At the same time, the Trustees considered more local restoration within
California for Common Loons. Two projects were considered for benefiting loons,
which are listed in the table below.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Nest Protection at Kokechik Flats, Alaska Pacific and Red-throated Loons (also
waterfowl and Red Phalarope)
Social attraction to re-establish Common Loon nesting in California Common Loon

The Kokechik Flats, Alaska project was selected because it was deemed the only feasible
project. This project will simultaneously benefit waterfowl and shorebirds (e.g. Red
Phalarope). The use of social attraction to re-establish Common Loons as a breeder in
California would be an experimental project with unknown benefits. Presently, it is rare
to even find Common Loons over-summering at historical nesting locations in California.
The Trustees are not aware of restoration projects designed to benefit these species on
their wintering grounds in California.

Final Selected Project

Nest Protection at Kokechik Flats, Alaska
The goal of this project is to reduce human disturbance to nesting habitat of Pacific and
Red-throated Loons, as well as waterfowl and Red Phalaropes, in coastal western Alaska.
The Pacific Loon and the phalarope were two of the most impacted species from the
Luckenbach oil spills. Brant, which will also benefit from this project, were impacted by
the spills as well, although to a lesser degree.

Many of the species impacted by the spills only nest in the far north, such as in coastal
Alaska or along the Arctic Ocean coastline. This is the case with the Pacific and Red-
throated Loons and with Red Phalarope. The loons spend the winter at sea off the coast
of California, while the phalarope migrates over the ocean off California. There are no
known feasible restoration options for these species in the waters off California.

On their breeding grounds, these species face threats from land use changes and human
disturbance. On the south side of Kokechik Bay, Alaska, there exists a 30,000-acre
parcel that is a private in-holding within the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge
(NWR). This parcel is home to high densities of nesting Pacific and Red-throated Loons,
Red Phalaropes, and other wetland species.

56
Figure 2: Map of Alaska on left, showing the Hooper and Kokechik Bay region; map of the region on
right, outlining the Kokechik Flats parcel. The blue tones show relative Pacific Loon nesting densities.

Located only six miles north of the village of Hooper Bay, this parcel is increasingly
subject to human disturbance (primarily on ATVs). The Sea Lion Corporation, an Alaska
natives’ corporation, owns the parcel and is concerned about the disturbance, although
they lack the means to conduct ongoing outreach and management to protect the bird
colonies. The Yukon Delta NWR considers this parcel their “number one priority” for
wildlife protection and would like to work with the Sea Lion Corporation to protect the
sensitive nesting habitat.

Figure 3: Aerial view of Kokechik Flats.

This project includes the following specific tasks: (1) develop habitat management
guidelines to protect and enhance nesting habitat; (2) provide for and staff access,
staging, and camping sites to minimize traffic and activities in sensitive areas; (3) provide
staff to conduct on-site education and outreach about the sensitive resources and provide
recommendations on avoiding impacts; and (4) periodically monitor the habitat to ensure
that all management guidelines are implemented.

57
 Budget
This project will provide $60,000/year for 10 years, for a total of $561,631 (future years
have been discounted to account for interest earned at an annual rate of 1.5% above
inflation).

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

Scaling focused on the injuries and benefits to loons. The Trustees believe that injuries to
waterfowl and shorebirds (other than Snowy Plover) will be simultaneously addressed by
this project. There are thousands of nesting waterfowl at the project site. Although data
for scaling is lacking, Red Phalaropes are common nesters as well and will benefit
substantially from the project. With regard to loons, as described above, the total injury
to this restoration category was 10,348 lost bird-years. For restoration scaling, the
Trustees relied on loon data from Kokechik Flats, as well as on data from loon
disturbance studies in New England (Sperduto et al. 2003). The Trustees estimate that
reducing nest disturbance at Kokechik Flats may result in an average increase of 0.32
fledges per nest for each year of the project. Assuming that project benefits begin in the
year 2007 and last 10 years, the Trustees calculated that such a project would generate the
bird-years required to offset the injury to loons.

Appendix D provides additional details regarding the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
This project will be located in the Yukon-Kuskowim River Delta of Alaska, a broad, flat
delta interlaced with countless ponds, lakes and rivers, streams, inlets, bays, and coastal
areas. Most of the region is managed by the Yukon Delta NWR for the benefit of large
concentrations of nesting waterfowl and shorebirds, as well as large numbers of salmon
and marine mammals. This project will enhance the NWR management of the area.

At 19.5 million acres, the Yukon Delta NWR is larger than the state of Maine. The
Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta supports one of the largest populations of nesting water birds
in the world, providing habitat for waterfowl from all four North American flyways.
More than one million ducks and half a million geese breed annually. In terms of both
density and species diversity, the delta is the most important shorebird nesting area in the
nation. The delta also includes hundreds of miles of spawning and rearing habitat for 44
species of fish (including 5 species of Pacific salmon). The adjacent coastal waters of the
Bering Sea support Harbor, Ribbon, Ringed and Bearded Seals, and Walrus. The
ancestral home of the Yup’ik Eskimo, the refuge includes more than 40 Yup’ik villages
whose residents continue to live a largely subsistence lifestyle.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

This project will protect nesting habitat for 10 years. Because the project focuses on the
entire habitat, all nesting species in the vicinity should benefit as well. This includes
Red-throated Loon, Pacific Loon, Tundra Swan, White-fronted Goose, Cackling Canada
Goose, Emperor Goose, Black Scoter, Spectacled Eider, and Red Phalarope.

58
This proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts. By
design, human uses of this parcel will be reduced and concentrated, but these impacts are
not expected to be significant, as there are alternative locations for human uses in the
vicinity of Hooper Bay. The management guidelines will allow for some human access
subject to limitations during the breeding season and perhaps at other times, in
coordination with the local public and the Sea Lion Corporation managed by the local
indigenous peoples. This project has the support of the tribal leaders.

Probability of Success
The probability of success is high. With active management of sensitive areas, there is
every reason to expect that waterfowl, loon and phalarope nesting will be subject to
reduced disturbance in the future. A pilot project in summer 2005 demonstrated
significant benefits (M. Reardon, pers. comm.).

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

Yukon Delta NWR will be responsible for periodic monitoring of the habitat to ensure
that all management guidelines are implemented and enforced. Periodic updates by the
Yukon Delta NWR will be provided regarding the status of the habitat and the
implementation of the habitat management guidelines.

Evaluation
Habitat protection is an effective and practical method to achieve restoration for these
species. By providing funding to the Yukon Delta NWR to take over management of this
habitat, the Trustees believe they are taking advantage of this unique opportunity to
protect and promote nesting habitat and increase bird reproduction. Furthermore, by
instituting land management guidelines, the project will work toward the goal that no use
of the land will jeopardize bird nesting in the future.

The Trustees have evaluated this project using the threshold and additional screening
criteria developed to select restoration projects and concluded that this project is
consistent with and meets the objectives of these selection factors. They believe that this
type and scale of project will effectively provide appropriate compensation for waterfowl,
loons, and shorebirds (not including the Snowy Plover) injured as a result of the spills
and have therefore selected this project as a preferred alternative.

4.3.3 Grebes

Background
Like loons, grebes are aquatic birds that spend most of their lives floating on the water
and diving for fish. They nest on inland lakes along marsh edges and winter in near-
shore ocean waters and inland lakes. Unlike loons, many grebes nest in temperate
climates, including California.

Two species, the Western Grebe and the Clark’s Grebe, are closely related and often nest
in close proximity in dense colonies. These two species are known as Aechmophorus
grebes. Together, they accounted for 82 percent of the birds collected from this species

59
group. These species occur regularly along the California coast in winter, as well as at
large inland lakes. They nest at various lakes throughout the western United States and
Canada. The total number of Western and Clark’s Grebes nesting in California is at least
5,000 pairs (Ivey 2004). The vast majority of those birds (nearly 90%) nest at four lakes:

• Eagle Lake in Lassen County

• Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuge (North Sump) in Siskiyou County
• Clear Lake in Lake County
• Lake Almanor in Plumas County

Conservation Issues
Western Grebe populations have declined significantly in the past 25 years. Data from
Christmas Bird Counts reveal that total Western Grebe counts have fallen from
approximately 80,000 in 1980 to just over 40,000 in recent years. Like loons, grebe nests
are constructed of small islands of vegetation that sit low, usually floating at the surface
of the water. Unlike loons, many species of grebes nest in dense colonies (although they
are also known to solitarily nest). For example, the majority of California’s grebes nest
in a few colonies that are so concentrated that a single disturbance event by a boat could
destroy the majority of a colony’s breeding attempt in any given year. Grebe nesting
colonies in California are subject to several factors that may reduce or eliminate nest
productivity in any given year: wave wash from boat wakes, disturbance and direct
destruction of nests from boats or personal watercraft (e.g., jet-skis), sudden changes in
water levels (Ivey 2004), and potentially reduced food supplies. Recent data from Clear
Lake shows that grebe colonies have suffered from severe disturbance events (from
boats) in 6 of the past 13 years (1992-2004), reducing nest productivity by an average of
80,percent in those years (D. Anderson, pers. comm.).

Injury Calculations
A total of 481 grebes were collected during the spills that occurred between 1997 and
2003. Additional grebes were likely collected between 1990 and 1996, although species
composition regarding collected birds is limited for this period. The total estimated dead
from all spills is 4,106. Details on the number of birds collected during each spill event
and the estimate of total mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford et al. (2006). Details
regarding the calculation of lost bird-years are presented in Appendix E.

Total Total Total Lost

Species Collected* Estimated Dead Bird-Years
Pied-billed Grebe 3
Horned Grebe 16
Red-necked Grebe 3
Eared Grebe 15
Western Grebe 349 4,106 15,487
Clark’s Grebe 22
Aechmorphorus grebe sp. 58
Grebe, sp. 15
TOTAL 481
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

60
These lost bird-years represent the interim losses between the time of the spills and return
of these populations to pre-spill conditions. Thus, any restoration project benefiting this
species group should seek to replace 15,487 lost bird-years.

Restoration Alternatives
Restoration options for grebes on their wintering grounds are limited. Furthermore, as
their populations are most likely limited by factors on their nesting grounds, and because
restoration efforts when the birds are concentrated into nesting areas is logistically more
feasible, it makes most sense to focus restoration at these locations. Because Western
and Clark’s Grebes were the predominant species impacted, the Trustees examined
potential restoration alternatives for these two species. The two projects considered to
benefit grebes are listed in the table below.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Grebe Colony Protection at Northern California Lakes Western and Clark’s Grebes
Acquisition of land around Lake Earl, California to allow for higher Western Grebe
lake levels and increase Western Grebe nesting

The nesting colony protection project is selected as the preferred project because it was
deemed to provide more widespread benefits at a relatively lower cost. This project takes
advantage of a significant restoration planning effort recently conducted by the American
Trader oil spill trustee council, whereby a grebe management plan (Ivey 2004) was
prepared which describes specific colony protection measures to implement at specific
lakes. Although the American Trader Trustee Council only has funds available to
implement a limited, small number of the protection measures (Gericke 2006), and for
only two or three years, the project selected here seeks to build on and expand those
efforts, implementing many of those measures for a longer period of time. The Lake Earl
project was not preferred because it would provide fewer benefits at a much higher cost.
Additionally, scaling calculations suggest that only a partial contribution to the project
would be sufficient to compensate for the injury. However, without an additional
contribution from other funds (which have not been identified), that project could not be
implemented.

Final Selected Project

Grebe Colony Protection at Northern California Lakes
This project will fund many of the recommendations of the California grebe management
plan (Ivey 2004), designed to protect Western and Clark’s Grebe nesting colonies from
human disturbance and other perturbations. These two species nest together and, as
described above, are subject to disturbances when nesting; conservation issues for each
species are identical and inseparable. These disturbances, usually from close approach by
boats or personal watercraft (e.g., jet-skis) can result in nest abandonment or direct loss
of chicks, eggs, or nest. The colonies considered for protection are located at Clear Lake,
Eagle Lake, Lake Almanor, Tule Lake NWR, and the Thermolito Forebay. Clear Lake
will be the top priority because disturbance there is most pronounced. Monitoring at
other lakes will aid in identifying and prioritizing opportunities for implementing the
project at additional sites. The duration of the project will be 10 years.

61
 Figure 4: Grebe colony protection sites.

Protective actions will include public education and outreach and the establishment of
small seasonal buffers around grebe nesting colonies. Public education will include
pamphlets and signs around boat launches, marinas, campgrounds, and other public
places. Seasonal buffers will be marked with buoys and signs, typically within 100 to
200 yards of the shoreline where nests are located in emergent vegetation. All of these
efforts will be coordinated with local enforcement and government officials. Other
actions may include protection and restoration of emergent vegetation.

This project will expand upon a current two-year pilot project at Clear Lake initiated by
the American Trader oil spill Trustee Council (Gericke 2006).

Budget
The budget for the total project (10 years at Clear Lake and 10 years at other lakes) is
estimated at $965,435 (in present value).

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

As described above, the total injury to this restoration category was 15,487 lost bird-
years. For restoration scaling, the Trustees relied on data from Clear Lake, where
significant disturbance events have drastically impacted breeding colonies in 6 of the last
13 years (D. Anderson, pers. comm.) The data suggest that grebe colony protection
measures (with an 80% effectiveness rate) may result in an average increase of 0.30
fledges per nest for each year of the project (almost doubling current average
productivity). Assuming that project benefits begin in the year 2007 and continue for 10
years, the Trustees calculated that such a project would generate half of the bird-years
required to offset the injury. Assuming that restoration costs and benefits from other

62
lakes would be similar, the Trustees propose to fund a 10-year project at Clear Lake and
10 years worth of similar efforts at other breeding lakes (e.g., Eagle Lake, Lake Almanor,
Tule Lake NWR, and the Thermolito Forebay).

Appendix E provides additional details regarding the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
This project will be located at various large lakes in northern California. These lakes
offer a wide variety of human recreational opportunities (e.g., fishing, water-skiing),
especially during the summer months. In addition to the grebe colonies, small numbers
of other birds (e.g., waterfowl, American Coots) use the lakes in the summer. The water
levels in the lakes are managed for a variety of purposes, including storage for irrigation
water, water supply for hydroelectric facilities, and water for wildlife habitat and human
recreation.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

This project will lead to increased nest success for Western and Clark’s Grebes. Further,
it will serve to protect important nesting colonies. The public will also be educated
regarding behavior and characteristics of these attractive and conspicuous birds. Other
species, such as small numbers of Eared and Pied-billed Grebes, may indirectly benefit as
well.

There are no significant adverse impacts anticipated for other species of wildlife and
habitat because this project will protect areas from human disturbance. Our growing
experiences indicate that there will be only minor inconveniences to boaters and users of
personal watercraft because grebe colonies will be seasonally protected by buffers that
restrict boating access. However, these buffers are relatively small, extending only 50 to
100 meters from shore, and span only the length of shoreline where the colonies are
located. Given the large size of these lakes, these buffers typically represent less than 1
percent of the total lake surface area. Additionally, the buffers are seasonal because they
are only needed during the breeding season (primarily May through August). As such,
any impacts to human use of these areas are expected not to be significant.

Probability of Success
Because the primary goal of this project is to modify human behavior, successfully
protecting grebe colonies from all human disturbances will be difficult. While it is
unlikely this project will entirely eliminate disturbance, it should prevent the kind of
catastrophic disturbance events that have occurred in the past. If so, nest success should
stabilize at more natural levels each year, thus ensuring project success. Initial results
from the current pilot project have been positive, suggesting that grebes at Clear Lake
experienced the largest production of young in 14 years of study (D. Anderson, pers.
comm.).

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The goal of this project is to prevent disturbance of nests, educate boaters, and to ensure
that the juvenile/adult ratio in any one year does not fall below 0.35 due to human

63
disturbance. To measure both compliance and grebe nest success, the project includes
monitoring during each breeding season. Grebes will be monitored using both aerial and
boat surveys, according to current protocol and previous surveys as described in Ivey
(2004). Although Ivey (2004) examined the levels of human disturbance at each lake,
additional monitoring may be required to strategically plan project activities.

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against the initial and additional screening
criteria developed to select restoration projects and concluded that this project is
consistent with and meets the objectives of these selection factors. The Trustees
determined that this type and scale of project will effectively provide appropriate
compensation for injuries to grebes that occurred as a result of the spill and have selected
this project as a preferred alternative.

4.3.4 Procellarids

Background
Procellarids, also called tubenoses, are highly pelagic seabirds. They include albatrosses
(although no albatrosses were known to be impacted by the spills), shearwaters, and
storm-petrels. Shearwaters and the Northern Fulmar resemble gulls, although they are
typically longer-winged and have a more graceful, arching flight. Storm-petrels are much
smaller, fluttering and dancing over ocean waves as they search for food. Procellarids
spend most of their lives at sea, where they travel great distances soaring low over the
waves, stopping to land on the water wherever food is available. They typically nest on
remote islands or cliffs.

One species, the Northern Fulmar, accounts for 94 percent of the beachcast birds
collected from this species group. This species breeds in dense colonies on the cliffs of
remote islands in Alaska and Canada. They occur regularly along the California coast in
winter. The Pink-footed Shearwater nests primarily off Chile, the Sooty Shearwater off
New Zealand, the Short-tailed Shearwater off Australia, and the Black-vented Shearwater
off Baja California, Mexico. All of these species occur regularly off the California coast
seasonally. The Leach’s Storm-Petrel nests on islands in both the northern Pacific and
Atlantic Oceans. The Ashy Storm-Petrel occurs only off the California and Baja
California coasts and nests from the Farallon Islands and Point Reyes to the Coronados
Islands, Mexico. Its total population of just 10,000 individuals makes it the rarest
Procellarid impacted by the spills.

Conservation Issues
Procellarids around the world face a variety of threats at their breeding grounds and at
sea. For many species, over 90 percent of the population nests at a few locations,
sometimes on a single island. At these locations, the entire colony may be at risk from
predation by introduced non-native species (e.g., rats, cats) or from habitat and ecosystem
changes caused by non-native species (e.g., rabbits, goats). Human disturbance and
trampling of burrows is also significant at some locations. At sea, Procellarids are at risk
from certain commercial fishing practices, such as long-lines and drift nets, although

64
recent improvements in methods have reduced the by-catch of some species of seabirds
in some regions (e.g., Alaska). Procellarids also suffer mortality from the ingestion of
plastic waste floating on the ocean’s surface.

Of the species impacted by the spills, the Ashy Storm-Petrel, with its small population
and limited range, is probably the most threatened. It is the only bird species impacted by
the spills that is considered “highly imperiled,” the most serious category of conservation
concern, in the North American Waterbird Conservation Plan (Kushlan et al. 2002).
Approximately half of the world’s population of Ashy Storm-Petrels breeds on the
Farallon Islands, and around 10 percent occur at Point Reyes. Between 1972 and 1992,
this population declined 42 percent (Sydeman et al. 1998). Part of this has been due to
predation of chicks by introduced non-native House Mice, and predation of adults by
Burrowing Owls, which are, in turn, seasonally sustained on the island by the House
Mouse (see discussion of the restoration project in section 4.4.3).

The various shearwater species face various threats at their breeding colonies, most often
associated with non-native predators (e.g., rats). Some of these issues are being
addressed through restoration actions overseas. For example, one project seeks to
eradicate non-native rats on four islands off New Zealand where Sooty Shearwaters
breed. This project is funded in part by funds from the Command oil spill settlement
(Command Trustee Council 2004).

Northern Fulmars, perhaps because of their willingness to scavenge offal from

commercial fishing vessels, have increased dramatically in recent years (Hatch and
Nettleship 1998). Because of this, they have not been a focus of conservation concern.

Injury Calculations
A total of 375 Procellarids were collected during the spills that occurred between 1997
and 2003. Additional birds were likely collected between 1990 and 1996, although
species composition regarding collected birds is limited for this time period. The total
estimated dead from all spills is 4,796. Adjustments for non-spill related die-offs of
Northern Fulmars in certain years have been incorporated into this estimate. Although
specific mortality for Ashy Storm-Petrels was not estimated from the two individuals
collected, it is likely that the ratio of actual dead to recovered dead is similar to that of
Ancient Murrelets and Cassin’s Auklets, which are also very small and highly pelagic
species. For the relevant time periods when Ashy Storm-Petrels were recovered, this
would imply that total mortality for this species was approximately 21 individuals.
Details on the number of birds collected during each spill event and the estimate of total
mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford et al. (2006). Assuming the same dead bird
multiplier for fulmars and shearwaters would imply that 4,496 fulmars and 266
shearwaters were killed. Details regarding the calculation of lost bird-years are presented
in Appendix F.

65
 Total Total Total Lost
Species Collected* Estimated Dead Bird-Years
Northern Fulmar 352 4,496 72,509
Pink-footed Shearwater 1
Sooty Shearwater 11
Short-tailed Shearwater 3 266 2,228
Black-vented Shearwater 3
Shearwater, sp. 3
Leach’s Storm-Petrel 1
34 1,044
Ashy Storm-Petrel 2
TOTAL 375 4,796 75,781
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

These lost bird-years represent the interim losses between the time of the spills and return
of these populations to pre-spill conditions. Thus, any restoration project benefiting this
species group should seek to replace 75,781 lost bird-years.

Restoration Alternatives
There is a wide range of restoration alternatives on various breeding islands around the
world, many of which are being addressed. Addressing at-sea causes of mortality (e.g.,
by-catch associated with commercial fishing; ingestion of plastic waste) is more difficult.
The table below provides a list of restoration concepts considered by the Trustees.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Mouse Eradication on the Farallon Islands Ashy Storm-Petrel
Shearwater Colony Protection at Taiaroa Head, New Zealand Sooty Shearwater
Reduction of plastics waste at sea Many Procellarid species
Rabbit eradication on Santa Clara I. (in Juan Fernandez Is.), Chile Pink-footed Shearwater
Shearwater colony protection at Isla Mocha, Chile Pink-footed Shearwater
Other breeding habitat restoration in Chile Pink-footed Shearwater
Habitat improvement at the Farallon Islands Ashy Storm-Petrel, Cassin’s Auklet
Rat eradication at Northeast Titi Islands, New Zealand Sooty Shearwater
Sooty Shearwater burrow-cam in New Zealand Sooty Shearwater
Ground-squirrel eradication at the Semidi Islands, Alaska Northern Fulmar, storm-petrels, alcids

The Trustees have selected the eradication of the non-native House Mouse on the
Farallon Islands and the shearwater colony protection project at Taiaroa Head, New
Zealand as the preferred projects to address injuries to this species group. The mouse
eradication project has the full support of the Farallon Islands NWR, has already been
planned and budgeted (with some partnering funds already received), is located near the
spills, and will benefit the species of greatest concern (Ashy Storm-Petrel). Members of
the public proposed the shearwater colony protection project in New Zealand during the
public comment period. While the project is relatively small, it provides significant
benefits to Sooty Shearwaters, one of the other impacted Procellarids.

Two other projects to benefit Sooty Shearwaters were not selected. The rat eradication
project was deemed too large relative to the injury, while the burrow-cam was strictly an
educational project that provided no direct benefits to the birds. A project intended to
reduce plastic waste at sea was not selected because there is no known feasible method

66
for achieving this. Several projects benefiting Pink-footed Shearwaters in Chile were
also less preferred because this species was among the least impacted, and there are
feasible projects benefiting more impacted species. A project to improve nesting habitat
for burrow and crevice-nesting seabirds at the Farallon Islands was not selected for
feasibility concerns, as well as the fact that Cassin’s Auklets are already receiving
significant benefits from the Baja California project. Finally, a project to eradicate Arctic
Ground-Squirrels from one or more of the Semidi Islands, Alaska, may provide an
excellent opportunity for seabird restoration in the future. However, at present, the
project still requires substantial investigation into its feasibility. Additional details on
these issues are provided in Appendix N.

Final Selected Project

Mouse Eradication on the Farallon Islands
This project restores critical seabird nesting habitat on Southeast Farallon Island for the
Ashy Storm-Petrel by eradicating the introduced non-native House Mouse (Mus
musculus). The Trustees have selected this project to compensate, in part, for injuries to
Procellarids.

Island ecosystems like the Farallon Islands are key areas for conservation because they
are critical habitat for seabirds and pinnipeds that use thousands of square kilometres of
open ocean, but depend on islands for breeding and resting. In addition, islands tend to
be rich in endemic species. Islands make up about 3 percent of the earth’s surface, but
are home to 15-20 percent of all plant, reptile, and bird species.

Unfortunately, islands have been disproportionately impacted by humans and the non-
native species (e.g., mice, rats, cats) introduced there. Approximately 70 percent of
recorded animal extinctions have occurred on islands, and most of these extinctions,
including 8 of 11 seabird extinctions, were caused by non-native introduced species.
Invasive species are the major cause for population decline for over 50 percent of the 59
endangered seabird species. House Mice have been introduced onto islands worldwide,
causing ecosystem-wide perturbations, with profound effects on the distribution and
abundance of native flora and fauna (e.g. Crafford and Scholtz 1987; Crafford 1990;
Copson 1986). On the Farallon Islands, introduced House Mice are directly and
indirectly impacting the breeding success of burrow nesting seabirds, particularly the
Ashy Storm-Petrel.

Mice are known predators of eggs and chicks of the storm-petrel. Potentially as many as
12 percent of the eggs and chicks are lost to House Mice (Ainley and Boekelhide 1990).
More importantly, the exotic mice appear to be indirectly responsible for the
hyperpredation and decline of the Farallon Island’s Ashy Storm-Petrel breeding
population by non-resident, predatory owls. This form of apparent competition (see Holt
1977; Roemer et al. 2002) occurs when a local prey species (e.g., Ashy Storm-Petrel)
declines due to predation pressure from a predator (owls that normally are not resident on
the Farallones) sustained by an alternative prey, in this case the exotic House Mouse.
This type of interaction is now thought to be an underappreciated mechanism of
biodiversity loss. It has been recently demonstrated on Santa Cruz Island, California,

67
resulting in a wholesale restructuring of the food web including the near extinction of the
island fox (Roemer et al. 2002). A similar pattern has been seen on seabird colonies
where feral cat populations are subsidized by non-native rats and rabbits when the
seabirds are absent, thereby causing increased seabird mortality through higher cat
populations during the breeding season (see Atkinson 1985, J. Donlan, pers. comm.).

Figure 5: Southeast Farallon Island.

On Southeast Farallon Island, over-wintering Burrowing Owls are thought to cause

significant mortality to the Ashy Storm-Petrel population. Each October, young
Burrowing Owls stop off on the Farallones during migration (Pyle and Henderson 1991),
when the House Mouse population peaks there. Because of the abundant food source
provided by the mice, the owls choose to stay at the island for the winter. Under natural
circumstances they would continue migrating to more favorable wintering locations.
Once winter rains arrive, the mouse population crashes and the owls are forced to seek
other prey. Because this coincides with the arrival of Ashy Storm-Petrels to excavate
ground nest sites, the owls switch to eating these seabirds. But the storm-petrels and
auklets do not seem to provide enough nutrition for the owls, and most wintering owls die
before the spring migration period occurs in April-May. Emaciated owl carcasses are
routinely found on the island by staff biologists. Up to 10 Burrowing Owls have been
recorded wintering per year on the Farallones, and biologists have found wings of up to
20 storm-petrels (and 2 or 3 auklets) at an owl roost site. The breeding population of
Ashy Storm-Petrels on the Farallones is currently estimated at only about 1,400 birds.
This devastating scenario for both storm-petrels and owls has been confirmed through the
collection of owl pellets (approximately 65 % of which contain storm-petrel and auklet
feathers in late winter and spring) (Mills 2001).

Rodent eradications have been carried out on many islands worldwide (Torr 2002). The
preferred method is to use rodenticide bait pellets. Trapping alone has proven to be
ineffective for rodent eradication from islands (Moors 1985). Although there are nine
rodenticides registered for use in the United States, the vast majority of eradications have
used brodifacoum, an anticoagulant that has the greatest efficacy against mice, can kill
mice after one feeding, and for which resistance in mice populations is rare.

68
Factors that will determine the rodenticide of choice are previous successful use in island
restoration projects, demonstrated ability to control the mouse population, and potential
effects in the Farallon Island environment (see below).

The key to successfully eradicating mice from islands is to dispense bait into every
mouse territory. This may be achieved through the use of manually-placed bait stations
or by a broadcast method (e.g., by hand or by helicopter) in which bait pellets are
distributed evenly at a density of approximately one pellet per square meter. The
approach used is dictated by a combination of the island’s topography and size and a host
of other biological constraints. Much of Southeast Farallon Island is accessible by foot,
although the island’s steep and rugged cliffs and offshore rocks present a logistical
challenge to delivering bait. Fixed ropes will likely have to be installed for operators to
service bait stations in these areas. Aerially broadcasting bait would overcome this
danger, but precautions would be needed to ensure adequate amount of bait is delivered
into all habitats inhabited by mice and to minimize spread of the bait into marine waters.

The removal of the mice will be timed according to a set of biological conditions that
maximize the probability of eradicating mice and minimize the potential impact to the
Farallon environment (see below). On the Farallon Islands, the House Mouse annual
population cycle typically peaks in the fall and declines precipitously with the onset of
the winter rains, with a low in late spring (Mills 2001). Thus, the ideal time to eradicate
the mice is in late fall through early winter as mouse abundance declines. Fortunately,
this coincides with the time of year when the fewest numbers of sensitive or breeding
wildlife individuals will be affected.

Budget
The total budget for this project is $975,597. It will be implemented by the USFWS and
private contractors as needed. This budget does not include $157,520 that has already
been received from other sources to conduct pre-implementation environmental
compliance.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

As described above, the total injury to this restoration category was 75,781 lost bird-
years. For restoration scaling, the Trustees relied on data regarding the Ashy Storm-
Petrel on the Farallon Islands. Using a population model that employs current population
parameters and replicates the historical decline in this species, the Trustees assumed that
the project will result in increases in storm-petrel nest success and adult annual
survivorship. The population will likely stabilize or slowly increase, rather than
continuing to decrease. Assuming the project provides these benefits through 2100, the
project will compensate for most of the lost bird-years in this species group. The Sooty
Shearwater project described below will address the remaining lost bird-years.

Appendix F provides additional details regarding the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
This project will be located on the Farallon Islands, which are described in section 2.0.

69
 Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)
Without mice, the Farallones are unlikely to support a wintering population of owls and
thereby greatly reduce adult Ashy Storm-Petrel mortality on the colony. The removal of
mice will almost certainly improve breeding success of the Ashy Storm-Petrel and
possibly other seabirds as well. For example, the mice spread seeds of non-native
vegetation that impedes the ability of seabirds to dig burrows. The eradication will
prevent seed dispersal by mice and will make it easier to control exotic weeds, a project
underway and funded by the Cape Mohican Trustee Council. Introduced plants are
perennial and grow through the seabird breeding season, blocking burrow and crevice
entrances. Native plant species are annuals that die back, leaving access to burrows and
crevices during the breeding season. Cassin’s Auklet mortality will also be reduced
somewhat, although modelling shows that owl predation of auklets scarcely impacts that
species. In addition, the entire island ecosystem, including terrestrial invertebrates, the
native salamander (Aneides lugubris farallonensis), landbirds, and native plants, may
benefit in unforeseen ways from removal of the non-native mice. Such was the case
when rats were removed from Anacapa Island.

The Burrowing Owl will also benefit from this project. Very few, if any, of the
Burrowing Owls that choose to spend the winter on Southeast Farallon Island survive to
migrate to their breeding grounds in the spring.

There are potential negative impacts from the eradication operation. These include
incidental poisoning of non-target species and disturbance to wildlife from the personnel
conducting the eradication. A number of factors contribute to the risks to non-target
species including (1) toxicology of the rodenticide, (2) bait composition and application
method, (3) behavior of target species, (4) behavior of non-target species, and (5) local
environmental factors (Record and Marsh 1988; Taylor 1993). Each of these variables
will be considered in the planning phase and in a subsequent NEPA environmental
assessment and upon development of sufficient project-level detail. Understanding the
risks associated with the use of the rodenticide allows for planning and implementation of
effective measures to reduce those risks and for predicting more specifically any negative
impacts.

Wildlife such as roosting seabirds and marine mammals hauled out on beaches may be
temporarily disturbed during either an aerial or bait station operation. However, the
operation will be timed to coincide with seasonal minimums in the number of seabirds
and marine mammals on the island. The disturbance will be of very short duration, and
there will always be alternative roosting/haul out location at any point in time. Therefore,
any such disturbances are expected to be minor.

Should negative impacts occur, they are expected to be temporary and minor and will be
offset by the long-term benefit of the removal of mice. However, these potential negative
effects will be fully evaluated during the project-planning phase and in a subsequent
environmental assessment of this specific project. The recent rat eradication on Anacapa
Island, Channel Islands National Park in Southern California, can be used to predict the
likely impacts from eradication activities. The measures implemented on Anacapa will

70
provide a model for appropriate measures on the Farallon Islands to reduce risks from
project activities.

Probability of Success
House Mice have been successfully removed from islands around the world up to 700
hectares (ha) in size (Torr 2002). The Farallon Islands are approximately 55 ha. Thus,
the Trustees believe the eradication of mice from the Farallon Islands is a realistic,
achievable goal. The House Mouse would be the last non-native mammal to be removed
from the islands and the removal will have direct benefits to seabirds and the entire island
ecosystem. Cats and rabbits were successfully removed from Southeast Farallon Island
in the early 1970’s, shortly after the islands became the Farallon Islands NWR. The
eradication of mice from offshore islands has been successful worldwide in a wide
variety of climatic conditions. The Farallones are within the size range of successful
island mouse eradications and there are no logistical, biological, or regulatory constraints
that could hinder the success of the project. The probability of success is very high if
similar techniques employed in other mouse eradication programs are used. Furthermore,
the Farallon Islands NWR will implement protective measures to prevent the accidental
reintroduction of mice in the future.

The recent successful removal of rats from Anacapa Island in Southern California (see
Whitworth et al. 2005) has pioneered the pathway through the complex regulatory and
biological challenges facing these types of projects. The experience and knowledge
gained from Anacapa will be applied to the Farallon Islands to efficiently plan and
implement the mouse removal project.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The ultimate success of this project will be the removal of the mouse and the recovery
and increase in the populations of the Ashy Storm-Petrel. Mice will be monitored via
chew indicator blocks, track boards, and traps. At all times a small number of NWR staff
and researchers are present on the island. These people provide additional monitoring for
mice via their presence.

All breeding bird species are already subject to regular monitoring by PRBO
Conservation Science (PRBO). In fact, 30 years of pre-project data on seabird breeding
population and productivity, vegetation structure, Burrowing Owl occurrence patterns,
salamander populations, and invertebrate and intertidal communities, will allow
comparisons of pre- and post-project changes in reproductive parameters, colonization of
newly created habitat, and other aspects of the Farallon Island ecosystem.

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all initial and additional screening
criteria developed to select restoration projects and concluded that this project is
consistent with and meets the objectives of these selection factors. The Trustees
determined that this type and scale of project will effectively provide appropriate
compensation, in part, for injuries to Procellarids that occurred as a result of the spills and
have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

71
 Final Selected Project
Shearwater Colony Protection at Taiaroa Head, New Zealand
This project protects one of the last remaining mainland nesting colonies of Sooty
Shearwaters in New Zealand. The Trustees have selected this project to compensate, in
part, for injuries to Procellarids.

The Sooty Shearwater is the most abundant seabird in the California Current System
during the summer months (Briggs and Chu 1986), although it faces threats on its
breeding grounds and has declined in California (Viet et al. 1997). It breeds during the
California winter in the Southern Hemisphere, primarily in New Zealand. There, it has
largely been reduced to nesting on small offshore islands, as non-native mammalian
predators now occupy the mainland. Nesting colonies also face disturbance and
trampling from humans and sheep. Shearwater breeding colonies were once common on
headlands and near-shore islets throughout mainland New Zealand. However, declines
and local colony extinctions have been well documented at many sites (Jones 2000;
Lyver et al. 2000) and have been attributed to depredation of eggs, chicks, and adults by
introduced predators (Hamilton 1998; Lyver et al. 2000; Jones 2002; Jones et al. 2003).
The number of colonies has declined by 54% during the past 50 years (Jones 2000).

The largest remaining mainland colony is at Taiaroa Head, Dunedin, which currently has
about 750 pairs. This colony is threatened by predation by non-native brush-tailed
possums, hedgehogs, rats, rabbits, stoats, and other mammals. Periodic surveys suggest
the colony declined 26% between 1995 and 2002 (Mckechnie 2002), equating to an
annual decline of 4.3%. This decline, coupled with the continued exposure of the colony
to exotic predators, makes this breeding population extremely vulnerable to extinction in
the short-term.

Figure 6: Aerial view of shearwater colony

This project would protect this colony by constructing a 700-meter long predator-proof
fence. This fence will provide needed protection for this colony and will forestall further

72
colony declines. Several outreach signs will be posted to prevent human disturbance as
well as to educate the public regarding the importance of this conservation action.

The land is privately owned by Perry Reid and family. The Reids operate Natures
Wonders Eco-tours, primarily to view a nearby colony of Northern Royal Albatross.
While a fence already protects the albatross colony, the shearwater colony remains
vulnerable. The Reids are conservation-minded land stewards and are willing partners in
this effort to protect one of the few remaining mainland colony areas. The Reids have
agreed to have the fence built on their property and would maintain the fence and give
access to researchers (through the University of Otago).

Budget
The total budget for this project is $55,649. The Reid family will provide monitoring and
maintenance of the fence.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

As described above, the total injury to this restoration category was 75,781 lost bird-
years. For restoration scaling, the Trustees relied on data from the Taiaroa Head Sooty
Shearwater colony. The Trustees assumed that the project will result in increases in
shearwater nest success and adult annual survivorship. The population will likely
stabilize or slowly increase, rather than continuing to decrease. Assuming the project
provides these benefits through 2100, the project will compensate for many of the lost
bird-years in this species group. The Farallon Islands project described above addresses
the remaining lost bird-years.

Appendix F provides additional details regarding the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
Although implemented by an American organization, this project will be located in New
Zealand. The project will comply with all relevant New Zealand laws and includes a
budget for appropriate local permits and environmental compliance.

Specifically, two types of permits will be necessary for this project, a building permit and
a resource consent. The project will require a resource consent under the New Zealand
Resource Management Act because it will require some earth moving through a sensitive
area. The project will comply with all applicable local laws.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

This project is expected to have no adverse environmental affects. Fencing will reduce
the pressure from introduced mammalian predators on the shearwater colony, likely
reducing the take of eggs, chicks, and adults. The reduction in grazing will increase
native vegetation, and reduce soil erosion and perturbation to shearwater nesting burrows
in the fragile sandy soil.

The fence may benefit other cliff-nesting species nesting below the shearwater colony
area, such as Spotted Shags (Stictocarbo punctatus) and Red-billed Gulls (Larus

73
novaehollandiae). Adjacent to the property is the world-renown mainland Northern
Royal Albatross colony and nearby are nesting beaches of Yellow-eyed and Little Blue
Penguins (Figure 6). The outreach signage will increase the public understanding of the
threat of introduced predators on seabird populations and the importance of conservation
actions such as the proposed project.

Probability of Success
The likelihood that this project will succeed is high. Oikonos, the American project
implementer, and the Reid family, the New Zealand landowners, have considerable
knowledge and experience with predator control. Also, similar fencing projects have
been implemented with success throughout New Zealand. These include fences at the
reserve at Orokonui, near Dunedin, and at the Karori Wildlife Sanctuary near Wellington.
Hamilton and Moller (1995) suggest that 80% predator effectiveness will ensure
population persistence. The University of Otago research team has a long history of
cooperation with the Reid family, who has provided researchers with access to the site for
over 15 years. Similarly, the Trustees have an established relationship with Oikonos
based on Oikonos’ implementation of restoration projects in New Zealand sponsored by
the Command Trustee Council. The long-term protection of this colony will be provided
through a currently existing conservation covenant that, under New Zealand law, is
binding on both the current and successor landowners.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The primary objectives are to (1) erect an effective predator fence, (2) remove all grazers
and mammals within the enclosure, (3) educate the public about the threat of non-native
mammals to seabird conservation, and (4) measure initial results of shearwaters
occupancy. In the three years following the installation of the fence, a research team from
the University of Otago will conduct surveys to monitor burrow density and shearwater
occupancy to compare to previous reports (Jones 2000, Mckechnie 2003).

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all initial and additional screening
criteria developed to select restoration projects and concluded that this project is
consistent with and meets the objectives of these selection factors. The Trustees
determined that this type and scale of project will effectively provide appropriate
compensation, in part, for injuries to Procellarids that occurred as a result of the spills and
have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

4.3.5 Brown Pelicans, Cormorants, and Gulls

Background
These three species groups were combined because of the substantial overlap in
restoration projects that benefit these species. Most of the proposed projects that benefit
one of these species groups benefit the others as well.

The California Brown Pelican is listed as a state and federal endangered species. This
subspecies nests in three main areas: islands in the Sea of Cortez, islands off the Pacific

74
Coast of Baja California, and two of the Channel Islands off southern California
(Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands). They do not nest in central or northern California.
The vast majority are from the Sea of Cortez. Pelicans occur off the central California
coast during the non-breeding season as a seasonal migrant, primarily during fall and
winter. Brown Pelicans typically forage in relatively shallow coastal waters, feeding
almost entirely on surface-schooling fish caught by plunge diving in coastal waters.
Brown Pelicans are rarely found away from salt water and do not normally venture more
than 20 miles out to sea.

Cormorants are large, mostly black, duck-like birds that dive for fish. Three cormorant
species were impacted by the oil spills: Double-crested, Brandt’s, and Pelagic. All three
species are frequently found roosting and foraging in close proximity to each other.
Brandt’s and Pelagic are found strictly along the coast, while Double-crested occurs
inland as well. Along the coast, they forage in near-shore waters and in bays and spend
considerable time out of the water roosting on rocks or other platforms, often among
pelicans and gulls. One species, the Brandt’s Cormorant, accounts for 84 percent of the
estimated impacted birds from this species group.

Gulls come in a wide variety of species, from a variety of ecological niches. Of the ten
species impacted by the spills, only one breeds along the California coast and is common
year-round (Western Gull). Others breed along far northern coasts (Black-legged
Kittiwake, Glaucous-winged Gull), at inland lakes in California and elsewhere
(California Gull, Ring-billed Gull), along rivers and lakes in the interior of Alaska and
Canada (Herring Gull, Mew Gull, Bonaparte’s Gull), or along the tundra coast of far
northern Alaska and Canada (Glaucous Gull). One species (Heermann’s Gull) breeds
primarily on a single island in the Sea of Cortez, Mexico. All of the species occur along
the California coast in winter (although Glaucous Gull is rare and Black-legged Kittiwake
occurs primarily offshore). Like the pelicans and cormorants, most gulls in winter forage
in near-shore waters and in bays, spend considerable time out of the water roosting on
rocks or other platforms, and are frequently found roosting and foraging together, often
among pelicans and cormorants. The primary species impacted were Western Gull (36%
of all gulls collected), Glaucous-winged Gull (16%), and California Gull (15%).

Conservation Issues
While the two pelican colonies in southern California are protected by the Channel
Islands National Park, various breeding colonies in Mexico suffer from disturbance from
humans and non-native animals (e.g., dogs, donkeys). This has led to the extirpation or
severe reduction of several colonies along the Pacific Coast. During the non-breeding
season, Brown Pelicans require disturbance-free roost sites to rest and to dry wet plumage
after feeding or swimming (Jaques and Anderson 1987). Major roosts are typically on
jetties and other manmade structures, offshore islands and rocks, and on beaches at the
mouths of estuaries (Jaques and Anderson 1987). In many sections of the coast, such
roosting sites are in short supply or are subject to considerable human disturbance
(Jaques 1994; Jaques and Strong 2002). Another issue in California is pelican
entanglement in fishing lines or direct hooking by anglers on piers or fishing boats.

75
Like the pelican, cormorant nesting is limited to disturbance-free areas, typically small
offshore rocks and anthropogenic structures (e.g., abandoned piers). Likewise,
cormorants require disturbance-free roost sites to enable them to rest and dry their
plumage after foraging for fish in the water.

In general, gull populations have benefited from human presence, as they forage on food
waste and garbage. As a result, most gull species have increased in numbers in recent
decades. Although they can suffer from the same nest site disturbances that afflict other
species (e.g. pelicans and small alcids), gulls are more adaptable and tolerant of human
presence. In many situations, gulls benefit from (and exacerbate the problem of) human
disturbances, as they predate the eggs and chicks of other seabirds that flush when
approached by humans.

Injury Calculations
A total of 41 Brown Pelicans, 162 cormorants, and 261 gulls were collected during the
spills that occurred between 1997 and 2003. Additional birds were likely collected
between 1990 and 1996, although species composition regarding collected birds is
limited for this time period. The total estimated dead from all spills is 278 Brown
Pelicans, 1,460 cormorants, and 2,388 gulls. Details on the number of birds collected
during each spill event and the estimate of total mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford
et al. (2006).

Total Total Total Lost

Species Collected* Estimated Dead Bird-Years
Brown Pelican 41 278 2,083
Brandt’s Cormorant 136
Double-crested Cormorant 6
1,460 7,070
Pelagic Cormorant 17
Cormorant, sp. 3
Bonaparte’s Gull 2
Heermann’s Gull 20
Mew Gull 2
Ring-billed Gull 5
California Gull 40
Herring Gull 11
2,388 Not applicable.
Western Gull 93
Glaucous-winged Gull 43
Glaucous Gull 2
Black-legged Kittiwake 15
Gull, sp. 26
Western x Gl-W Gull hybrid 2
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

These lost bird-years represent the interim losses between the time of the spills and return
of this population to pre-spill conditions. Thus, any restoration project benefiting
California Brown Pelicans should seek to replace 2,083 lost bird-years. Any restoration
project benefiting cormorants should seek to replace 7,070 lost bird-years. Details
regarding the calculation of lost bird-years are presented in Appendix G.

76
Realizing that gulls will benefit substantially from the project for Brown Pelicans and
cormorants (as well as the Año Nuevo Island restoration project benefiting Rhinoceros
Auklets, described in section 4.3.10), the Trustees did not consider any restoration
projects specifically for gulls. Furthermore, the Trustees believe these other projects will
simultaneously more than compensate for impacts to gulls. Thus, lost bird-years were
not calculated for gulls, as such quantification was not necessary for project scaling.

Restoration Alternatives
The table below provides a list of restoration concepts considered by the Trustees.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Seabird Colony Protection on Baja California Islands, Mexico Brown Pelican, Brandt’s and Double-
crested Cormorants, Western Gull
(also Cassin’s Auklet)
Roost site protection in northern California Brown Pelican, Brandt’s and Double-
crested Cormorants, Western Gull
Pelican entanglement education on fishing piers in California Brown Pelican

The Trustees selected the colony protection work on the Baja California islands as the
preferred project. This project not only provides direct benefits to Brown Pelicans,
cormorants, and gulls, but also benefits Cassin’s Auklets (see section 4.3.10 for details
regarding injuries to auklets). This project benefits these species at their breeding
grounds in Mexico, where the vast majority of California’s pelicans originate. The other
projects would benefit these species when they are foraging and roosting in California.
However, other oil spill trustee councils and other agencies are already implementing
these.

Final Selected Project

Seabird Colony Restoration on Baja California Islands, Mexico
The goal of this project is to restore seabird populations on six islands along the Pacific
Coast of Baja California: San Martín, San Jeronimo, San Benito, Natividad, San Roque,
and Asunción. Restoration efforts will target a suite of seabirds including Brown
Pelicans, Brandt’s and Double-crested Cormorants, Western Gulls, and Cassin’s Auklets.
Restoration actions will include (1) social attraction techniques (using decoys and
playback of bird calls) to re-establish colonies; (2) re-designing paths and walkways to
manage human traffic; (3) shielding light sources; (4) native vegetation restoration; and
(5) public outreach and education to reduce disturbance of nesting birds. This project has
been designed to benefit the pelicans, cormorants, and gulls species groups, as well as
Cassin’s Auklets.

The California Current System stretches along the west coast of North America from
southern British Columbia to Baja California. The islands off Baja California are
critically important for many of the seabirds that occur in California, hosting some of the
largest breeding colonies for several species. Many of these islands present important
opportunities for seabird restoration. The Montrose Trustee Council is planning to

77
address the restoration needs for two of these islands (Coronados and Todos Santos)
(Montrose Settlements Restoration Program 2005).

San Francisco
Luckenbach
California

Los Angeles

San Martín
San Jeronimo Mexico
San Benito
Natividad
San Roque
Asunción

Figure 7: Islands for seabird restoration

Most of the seabird colonies in Mexico and California form part of a larger
metapopulation of seabirds that breed, forage, and disperse into California. For example,
there are several sub-populations of Brown Pelican, only one of which breeds in
California. While the majority of the birds breed in Mexico, there is interchange among
colonies (Anderson and Gress 1983, Gress et al. 2005). Metapopulations serve to create
more stable and viable populations because each individual colony buffers the others
against extinction.

In addition to movement of breeding birds and natal dispersal between colonies on either
side of the U.S./Mexico border, a large number of birds breeding in Mexico annually
disperse north during the non-breeding season into the U.S. Dispersal also occurs in the
reverse direction, with birds from the U.S. going south to Mexico. During the fall and
winter, populations of Brandt’s Cormorants, Double-crested Cormorants, and Brown
Pelicans increase dramatically in California, surpassing the total number of breeders in
California. These birds are arriving from their breeding grounds on islands in Mexico.
Other species that follow this pattern include the Craveri’s Murrelet (Deweese and
Anderson 1976), Black-vented Shearwater (Keitt et al. 2000), Heermann’s Gull, Elegant
Tern (Burness et al. 1999), Xantus’s Murrelet (Drost and Lewis 1995), Least Storm-
Petrel, and Black Storm-Petrel (Ainley and Everett 2001). Because seabird populations
overlap international boundaries, protection and restoration of seabird colonies in Mexico
directly benefits seabird populations in the U.S. Robust seabird colonies in Mexico are
also important to ensure the survival of shared species should catastrophic events (e.g.,
oil spills) lead to a severe decline in seabird numbers in California. For example, when

78
the population of Brown Pelicans in southern California suffered from severe DDT-
induced declines several decades ago, surviving sub-populations in Mexico most likely
supplied animals that immigrated to help restore the overall population. San Martín
Island in Mexico is likely one such source island for pelicans to the U.S. portion of their
range (Anderson and Gress 1983).

For the past 10 years, significant conservation efforts have taken place on many of these
islands. This project builds on this past progress. Specifically, a successful collaboration
between local universities, Mexican and U.S. nonprofit conservation organizations, local
fishing cooperatives, and Mexican governmental agencies has resulted in the removal of
introduced species (e.g. cats, dogs, goats, burrows, etc.) from 24 islands in the region, 12
of which are on the Pacific Coast of Baja California (Tershy et al2002). This removal of
non-native species forms a foundation that makes future restoration efforts possible. Of
19 animal extinctions on islands in northwest Mexico, 18 can be attributed in whole or
part to introduced mammals (Donlan et al. 2000). With the recent efforts, 35 exotic
mammal species have been removed from islands in the region. With the removal of
these introduced species, suitable habitat is once again available to seabirds for nesting
and roosting. The success of this regional conservation effort has provided unique
opportunities to enhance recovery of seabird populations within the California Coastal
Current. Nevertheless, human disturbance remains “a major obstacle in the recovery and
re-establishment of seabird colonies on these islands” (Gress et al. 2005).

The Mexican government owns these islands and controls access to them. Because these
islands support globally important populations of marine birds, Mexico’s federal
government recognizes these islands as critical habitat. Visitors to the islands must obtain
permits from the government. Several of the breeding seabird species, including the
Cassin’s Auklet, are listed as endangered or threatened under the Norma Oficial
Mexicana 059, Mexico’s equivalent of the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Three of the islands, Natividad, San Roque, and Asunción, have been protected as part of
the Vizcaino Biosphere Reserve since 1988. The other three, San Martín, San Jeronimo,
and San Benito, are currently in the process of being declared a Biosphere Reserve.
Along with several other islands to the south and Guadalupe Island, another important
island for seabirds in the region, which was designated a Biosphere Reserve in June 2005,
all of the islands along the Pacific coast of Baja California will now be protected at the
highest level. The designation of these islands as Biosphere Reserves create additional
legal infrastructure for enforcing regulations and developing management plans.

Natural resources at the islands are also protected by several other Mexican laws,
including the General Wildlife Law of 2000 and General Law of Ecological Balance and
Environmental Protection (LGEEPA) of 1988. The General Wildlife Law is implemented
primarily by the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT)
Wildlife Directorate General, and provides general authority for conservation of
migratory species and species restoration, as well as more detailed regulation of wildlife
management and use. The LGEEPA focuses on the preservation and restoration of

79
ecological balance, and addresses the issues of Natural Protected Areas, jurisdiction,
ecological zoning, and enforcement.

The specific restoration actions to be conducted on each island are described below.
While these actions are the primary focus of the restoration efforts, the presence of
restoration project biologists regularly visiting the islands will allow for adaptive
management and additional intervention, as appropriate. In the past, the regular presence
of biologists, working with government officials and locals, has been a critical
component in protecting seabirds and identifying potential threats to the colonies as they
arise.

San Martín Island

San Martín Island is 741 acres in size and is located 3.1 miles offshore from San Quintin,
Mexico. Cliffs dominate this rugged volcanic island, except on the northeast side where a
small sandy beach and tidal lagoon occur. Vegetation on the island consists of dense
Californian coastal scrub. In addition to six species of breeding seabirds, San Martín also
supports three endemic reptiles and one endemic mammal. A permanent fishing camp
exists on the island as well as two automated navigational lights that receive at least bi-
annual maintenance by personnel of the Secretary of Communications and
Transportation.

San Martín historically supported a large mixed colony of Brown Pelicans, Double-
crested Cormorants, and Brandt’s Cormorants from at least 1913 until the late 1960’s
(Palacios and Mellink 2000). This colony was the largest historic Double-crested
Cormorant colony in North America, estimated at close to 350,000 nests (Gress et al.
1973, Wright 1913). Although this is thought to be an overestimate (Carter et al. 1995),
San Martín clearly supported an important breeding colony. In 1969 and 1971,
approximately 5,000 Double-crested Cormorants were documented in the colony. During
the 1970s, human disturbance and contaminants that caused thin-shelled eggs were
thought to be the principal factors in the decline of these colonies (Anderson and Keith
1980, Jehl 1973, Gress et al. 2005), which were also heavily impacted by introduced cats,
fisherman, and egg harvesters (Everett and Anderson 1991). Consequently, it was
believed that this colony was essentially abandoned in 1987 and 1988 (Everett and
Anderson 1991).

In recent years, efforts have been taken to protect and conserve San Martín, including the
removal of feral cats in 1999-2000. A survey in 1999 documented the reoccupation of
this regionally important seabird colony, including 600 occupied cormorant and 35
Brown Pelican nests (Palacios and Mellink 2000). In 2002, over 200 pelican nests were
counted and productivity was estimated to be relatively high for this species (Gress et al
2005). The island has also become an important post-breeding roost for foraging
pelicans, with over 10,000 birds present in late summer 2002 (Gress et al. 2005). The
same survey counted over 500 Double-crested Cormorant nests in 2002 and 2003,
making it the largest such colony in the Southern California Bight, and over 120 Brandt’s
Cormorant nests in 2003. No Pelagic Cormorant nests have been found in recent years.
Additional nesting seabirds on San Martín Island may include Western Gulls, Cassin’s
Auklets, and Xantus’s Murrelets (Wolf 2002). With the removal of feral cats and the

80
recent reoccupation of the cormorant/pelican colony, opportunity exists to facilitate
further recovery of these important colonies with relatively simple management actions
(Gress et al 2005).

Activities on San Martín will focus on restoring the pelican and cormorant colonies by
reducing human disturbance through signage, public education, and a redesign of the trail
system to avoid disturbance of the colonies.

Restoration activities at San Martin Island are:

• Re-design and establish a new trail system to reduce/stop disturbance of seabird
colonies by fishermen walking near the colonies;
• Develop and install signs to restrict areas of the island from human access;
• Education to keep introduced predators off the island; and
• Education to reduce human disturbance.

San Jeronimo Island

San Jeronimo is 165 acres in size and has historically supported large colonies of
Brandt’s Cormorants and Cassin’s Auklets (Everett and Anderson 1991). A permanent
fishing camp exists on the island with up to 40 residents during peak fishing seasons. A
lighthouse keeper is permanently stationed on the island. The Brandt’s Cormorant
colony was displaced and large sections of the Cassin’s Auklet colony were destroyed
during an unauthorized guano mining operation in 1999 (Wolf 2002). Since that time, all
guano mining operation has been stopped on the island (B. Keitt, pers.comm.).

Figure 8: The construction of an outhouse and signs designating trails have reduced human destruction of
Cassin’s Auklet burrows surrounding the fishing camp on San Jeronimo Island (left). However, a historical
nesting colony of Brown Pelicans and Brandt’s Cormorants was extirpated by a guano mining operation on
the north end of the island in 1999 (center). Daily flushing by humans has prevented the birds from re-
colonizing. Fisherman also cross the extremely dense Cassin’s Auklet colony on a daily basis, crushing
fragile nesting burrows and destroying nesting attempts (right).

Efforts to remove introduced animals have also been undertaken on this island. Feral cats
were eradicated in 2000. However, nesting birds are still at risk from a number of human-
induced disturbances. Without a single trail, fishermen regularly crush nest burrows by
walking through the colony. Some birds nest in abandoned houses within the fishing
camp, where they are subject to disturbance. Others become disoriented by lights at night
and collide with buildings. Seabirds currently nesting on San Jeronimo Island include the
Double-crested Cormorant, Western Gull, Cassin’s Auklet, and Xantus’s Murrelet (Wolf
2002). Of these, the Cassin’s Auklet colony is the largest. After the unauthorized guano

81
mining operation, Brandt’s Cormorants did not re-nest in 2002. Their population
continues to be well below its historical numbers.

Restoration activities at San Jeronimo Island are:

• Restore the extirpated Brandt’s Cormorant colony through social attraction efforts
(e.g., using decoys);
• Build and install boardwalks to stop destruction of auklet burrows by fishermen
walking through the colony;
• Develop and install signs to restrict areas of the island from human access;
• Build and install nest boxes to protect birds that are prone to nesting in high-use
areas around buildings and the town dump (these nest boxes will also be valuable
for education and monitoring);
• Shield light sources to minimize collision deaths by disoriented birds;
• Education to keep introduced predators off the island; cats have been eradicated
but on occasion fishermen have brought pet cats and dogs to the island after this
effort; and
• Education to reduce human disturbance.

San Benito Island

San Benito Island actually consists of three small islands (East, Middle, and West) with a
combined area of approximately 1,581 acres and is located 40 miles west of Punta
Eugenia at the tip of the Vizcaíno peninsula. Permanent fishing camps exist on West
Benito Island.

San Benito supports one of the largest and most diverse seabird colonies of the entire
California Current. The islets host approximately 2 million breeding seabirds of 12
species, including Brown Pelican, Western Gull, Double-crested Cormorant, Brandt’s
Cormorant, and Cassin’s Auklet (Wolf 2002).

Recent eradication efforts have been undertaken to restore the island ecosystem. In 1998,
feral goats and rabbits were removed. Donkeys were removed in 2004. The presence of
biologists on the island resulted in additional conservation gains. When an algae harvest
company began drying their product in the middle of a dense Cassin’s Auklet colony, the
biologists worked with government agencies to restrict algae drying to a designated zone
outside the colony. Biologists have also worked to establish guidelines for the
construction of a new lighthouse, including the location of the structure, clean up of the
old lighthouse and discarded batteries, use of access roads to the construction site, and
limits on materials brought to the island to reduce likelihood of introductions of rodents,
plants, and insects.

Seabirds continue to be threatened by unshielded light sources in the fishing community,

and expansion of fishing community activities into adjacent seabird colonies.
Additionally, seabird nesting habitat had been severely degraded, particularly on West
Benito Island, due to the past presence of goats, rabbits, and donkeys.

82
Restoration actions will focus on West San Benito Island, which supports considerably
lower densities of seabirds than Middle or East Islands. Restoration activities for San
Benito Island are:
• Removal of exotic plant species and restoration of native plant communities
disturbed by human activities and donkeys;
• Shield light sources to minimize collision deaths by disoriented birds;
• Education to keep introduced non-native animals off the island; and
• Education to reduce human disturbance.

Natividad Island
Natividad Island is 2,592 acres in size and is located 4 miles off Punta Eugenia. There is
a town of 400 permanent residents on the south end of the island and most inhabitants are
members of a fishing cooperative.

It is estimated that Natividad supports approximately 160,000 breeding seabirds of 5

species, including the Brown Pelican, Double-crested Cormorant, Brandt’s Cormorant,
and Western Gull (Wolf 2002). Cassin’s Auklets are thought to have been extirpated by
cat predation (B. Keitt, pers. comm.).

Recent eradication efforts have removed feral cats, goats, domestic pigs, rabbits, and
sheep from the island. These efforts were done with the cooperation of the island’s
fishing community. Cat eradication was initiated in 1998 in response to the large number
(more than 1,000) of dead shearwaters found in the colony each month (Keitt et al. 2002).
Despite the removal of cats, Cassin’s Auklets are not known to have re-colonized
Natividad (Keitt 2000).

Re-introduction of cats and rodents remains a threat. In addition, unregulated road

building, off-road vehicle use, and disturbance of pelican and cormorant breeding and
roosting sites by island residents and tourists continue to limit the number of breeding
seabirds on Natividad Island.

Restoration activities for Natividad Island are:

• Restore the historic Cassin’s Auklet colony by using playback systems and
artificial burrows;
• Protection of cormorant, pelican, and other nesting seabird colonies through
signage and the closing of some access trails and roads;
• Shield light sources to minimize collision deaths by disoriented birds;
• Education to keep introduced non-native animals off the island; and
• Education to reduce human disturbance.

San Roque Island and Asunción Island

San Roque (195 acres) and Asunción (165 acres) Islands are located inside Asunción
Bay. There are no permanent settlements on these islands, although there is regular
visitation by people from the nearby town on the mainland.

83
These islands once supported large nesting colonies of seabirds, including Cassin’s
Auklets and Brandt’s Cormorants (Everett and Anderson 1991; Drost and Lewis 1995;
Wilbur 1987). These represented the southernmost breeding colonies of Cassin’s Auklet
(Kaeding 1905). However, predation by cats extirpated the large populations of Cassin’s
Auklets on these islands by 1992 (McChesney and Tershy 1998). Human disturbance has
caused the abandonment of the cormorant colonies on San Roque and the Brown Pelican
colony on Asunción Island on repeated occasions. Ongoing human disturbance keeps
populations of these species well below historic numbers.

Within the last 10 years, efforts have been made to restore the ecosystem on these
islands. In 1994, feral cats and rats were removed and human visitation to the islands was
temporarily stopped through education and placement of signs. These actions resulted in
secure roosting habitat for thousands of pelicans and cormorants. In 1996, playback
devices were used to encourage the return of the Cassin’s Auklet and Leach’s Storm-
Petrel (O. leucorhoa). In 2004, Cassin’s Auklets were documented using artificial
burrows on the island; however, it is unknown whether breeding occurred (B. Keitt, pers.
comm.). In 2001, Brandt’s Cormorants (more than 2,000 nests) and Brown Pelicans
(approximately10 nests) had begun breeding again on San Roque Island (B. Keitt, pers.
comm.). However, in 2002 after a long lapse in education efforts, local fishermen began
visiting the island again on a regular basis and virtually all of the cormorants and pelicans
abandoned their breeding efforts.

The goal of restoration actions on these islands is to facilitate the re-colonization and
recovery of seabird populations. Restoration activities for San Roque and Asunción
Islands are:
• Restore the historic Cassin’s Auklet colony by using playback systems and
artificial burrows;
• Restore the cormorant colonies by using decoys; and
• Education to reduce human disturbance.

Table 5 shows which seabird species are breeding on the six islands that are the focus of
this restoration project, as well as the primary restoration actions on each island.

84
 Table 5: Breeding Species and Restoration Actions by Island

ISLAND BREEDING SPECIES RESTORATION ACTIONS

San Martín Brown Pelican, Double-crested • New trail system
Cormorant, Brandt’s Cormorant, • Signs
Western Gull, Cassin’s Auklet, • Education and outreach
Xantus’s Murrelet
San Jeronimo Double-crested Cormorant, • Social attraction (decoys)
Western Gull, Cassin’s Auklet, • New boardwalk
Xantus’s Murrelet • Nest boxes
• Light shielding
• Signs
• Education and outreach
San Benito Brown Pelican, Double-crested • Vegetation restoration
Cormorant, Brandt’s Cormorant, • Light shielding
Western Gull, Cassin’s Auklet, Leach’s • Signs
Storm-Petrel, Black Storm-Petrel, Least • Education and outreach
Storm-Petrel, Heermann’s Gull, Xantus’s
Murrelet, Craveri’s Murrelet
Natividad Brown Pelican, Double-crested • Social attraction (audio)
Cormorant, Brandt’s Cormorant, • Light shielding
Western Gull, • Signs
Black-vented Shearwater • Education and outreach
San Roque Double-crested Cormorant, • Social attraction (audio)
Brandt’s Cormorant, Western Gull, • Signs
Heermann’s Gull • Education and outreach
Asunción Brown Pelican, Brandt’s Cormorant,
Western Gull

Budget
The total budget to conduct these activities at these islands for six years is $3,736,475.
Future years have been discounted to account for interest earned at an annual rate of 1.5
percent above inflation.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

The scaling for this project incorporated lost bird-years for pelicans, cormorants, and
Cassin’s Auklets, comparing them with the gained bird-years for these species. As
described above, the total injury was 2,083 lost bird-years for Brown Pelicans and 7,070
lost bird-years for cormorants. The injury to Cassin’s Auklets was 10,773 lost bird-years
(see section 4.3.10).

The Trustees estimate that the project will create (or protect) nests on the six islands
targeted for restoration efforts. Specifically, it is estimated that the project will lead to
240 new nests for pelicans, over 500 new nests for cormorants, and over 1,600 new or
protected nests for Cassin’s Auklets. These new nests will generate 99 percent of the
compensation needed to offset injuries to pelicans, 97 percent of that required for
cormorants, and 205 percent of that required for Cassin’s Auklets. Given the uncertainty
associated with these estimates, the Trustees concluded that this project, by addressing
the needs of several species simultaneously, was the most cost-effective way to provide

85
the needed restoration. Appendix G provides additional details regarding the bird REA
for this project.

Affected Environment
Although implemented by an American organization (and their Mexican affiliates), this
project will be located at six relatively remote islands off the Pacific Coast of Baja
California, Mexico. The islands, all part of a federal Mexican Biosphere Reserve, are
described above. The project will comply with all relevant Mexican laws.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

The project combines several types of restoration activities that will provide long-term
benefits to target seabirds. Social attraction efforts will facilitate the recolonization of
islands after the removal of introduced species. These types of efforts will encourage
seabirds to recolonize suitable and historically occupied habitats. Once attracted to the
island, the presence of nest boxes will further encourage nesting in suitable habitat. The
use of nest boxes will also allow biologists to effectively monitor the success of the
restoration efforts. Although social attraction may only be used for a short time, the
recolonization of a historically occupied colony will provide long-term benefits to seabird
populations since the re-established presence of a colony of birds will likely serve as an
ongoing natural attractant.

A reduction in human disturbance around colonies will significantly benefit roosting and
breeding seabirds. Nesting seabirds, especially cormorants and pelicans, are sensitive to
disturbance and should benefit substantially from a reduction in human disturbance.
Construction of a boardwalk on San Jeronimo Island will greatly reduce the number of
Cassin’s Auklet burrows that are crushed by fisherman walking through the colony.

In addition to the target species, a host of other seabirds will benefit. These include
Black-vented Shearwater, Leach’s Storm-Petrels, Heermann’s Gulls, Elegant Terns, and
Xantus’s Murrelet. Peregrine Falcons will also likely benefit from this project. Because
Peregrine Falcons prey on smaller seabirds, increased seabird populations on these
islands will benefit this species. In addition, some of the islands harbor endemic plants
(one of which is restricted only to West San Benito), endemic landbirds, and or endemic
lizards. These species may benefit as well.

Although there is the potential for mild soil disturbance impacts from the project
activities, the Trustees have determined that these impacts will not be significant.
Activities such as nest box and social attraction device placement, boardwalk
construction, and vegetation restoration will be timed to minimize disturbance of birds.

This project also seeks to limit human disturbance near seabird colonies, but the Trustees
have determined that there will be no significant human use impacts. This action will
likely impact fisherman on the islands; however, alternative trails will be provided. This
impact is not anticipated to be significant due to the minimal number of people that
inhabit the islands and the provision of alternative trails to reach fishing locations. In the
past (during the introduced animal eradications), biologists have developed a positive

86
working relationship with locals and it is expected that such relationships will be fostered
during the implementation of this project. The project will not result in impacts to
cultural resources, transportation, or health and safety.

Probability of Success
Social attraction efforts, including the use of playback systems and decoys, have been
successfully used for a variety of seabirds, including terns, puffins, albatross, and petrels.
The use of artificial nests has also proven to be successful for seabirds such as the Ashy
Storm-Petrel, Leach’s Storm-Petrel, Cassin’s Auklet, and Pigeon Guillemot. Experts in
the field of social attraction will be consulted during project planning and implementation
to ensure that playback systems, decoys, and artificial nests are designed in a manner that
maximizes success of the project. Long-term success of these projects will also be
dependent on whether these islands remain free from introduced species. The education
of island users about the impact of introduced species is critical to the success of these
restoration projects.

Actions to reduce human disturbance (e.g., redesign of trails, posting signs, shielding
lights) are feasible and will provide long-term benefits as long as measures are complied
with and are enforced.

As discussed earlier, a concerted effort is underway by the government of Mexico to

conserve and protect the Baja Pacific Islands. Part of that effort is the designation of the
Baja Pacific Islands as a Biosphere Reserve, including San Martín, San Jeronimo, and
San Benito Islands. Another part has been the Mexican government’s support of previous
seabird restoration actions on these islands, which included the removal of many non-
native species (e.g., goats, dogs, cats, burros). Some of this work was funded by another
American oil spill trustee council (American Trader). Past experience has also shown
that the presence of a seabird biologist has been instrumental in reducing human
disturbance and resolving conflicts with nesting seabirds. These actions also had the
support of the local population. The restoration activities are both feasible and
compatible with these ongoing efforts. In light of the successful efforts to remove non-
native species from these islands and to reduce human disturbance, and the Trustees
ability to contract with an American organization with a successful track record on
international island restoration projects, the Trustees are confident that restoration
activities undertaken on these islands will be successful and will result in long-term
benefits to seabird populations in the California Current System.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The benefits of these restoration activities to seabirds will be evaluated by increases in
colony size, recolonization of seabirds into previously occupied habitats, and reduced
disturbance to seabird colonies. Protocols for seabird monitoring are well-established and
standardized. Efforts to document baseline seabird populations and levels of human
disturbance will be undertaken before project implementation to strategically plan project
activities and to evaluate the project benefits.

87
 Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all screening and evaluation criteria and
concluded that this project is consistent with and meets the objectives of these selection
factors. The Trustees determined that this type and scale of project will provide benefits
to pelicans, cormorants, gulls, and Cassin’s Auklets and have selected it as a preferred
alternative.

4.3.6 Snowy Plovers

Background
The Western Snowy Plover is a rare shorebird found along the west coast of North
America and at estuarine alkaline ponds. Snowy Plovers rarely enter the water and spend
most of their time foraging in the wrack or dry sand areas of the beach. During oil spill
events, they routinely become oiled as they forage on the beach and in oily wrack
deposited during high tides. Through exposure to oil in foraging areas, they may suffer
from oil ingestion and decreased mobility as a result of oiling.

Conservation Issues
The Pacific coast population of the Western Snowy Plover is listed as federally
threatened. The primary threats that warranted listing of the Pacific coast population
include loss of nesting sites due to European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria),
encroachment and urban development, disturbance from human recreational activities,
and predation exacerbated by human disturbance (U.S. Department of the Interior 1993).
Recovery objectives in the recovery plan include (1) achieving well-distributed increases
in numbers and productivity of breeding adult birds, and (2) providing for long-term
protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their habitat (USFWS 2001). The
species is also considered a Species of Special Concern by the state of California and is
on the Red List of the National Audubon Society, the most at-risk category.

A 1999 report by researchers with PRBO estimated that 1,950 plovers exist in California,
Oregon and Washington, but the 2003 summer breeding season survey of the California
coast puts the population at only around 1,400, a sharp decline from the previous range-
wide survey (G. Page, pers. comm). Only 28 nesting areas remain throughout their
range.

The Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS), which was oiled by the spills and where
oiled plovers were observed, typically hosts a breeding population of 25 to 35 birds,
although during winter the population is about 150 to 200 birds. Chicks and eggs have
suffered from high predation rates from ravens. Additionally, elevated mercury levels in
eggs have caused hatching failures in several nests during the 1990s (Schwarzbach et al.,
in press).

Plovers at PRNS have recently benefited from a variety of restoration actions aimed at
protection, habitat restoration, and education. PRNS initiated a pilot project to remove
non-native vegetation and restore dune habitat with funds from Cape Mohican Oil Spill
Restoration Plan and the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. As a result, four

88
successful broods occurred in a 50-acre restoration site at Abbotts Lagoon in 2005.
Plovers are also relocating their broods, after hatching, to the restoration site where
chicks can seek protection from predators under the restored, native vegetation (PRBO,
pers. com.). Based on the success of this pilot project, PRNS will restore another 300
acres of coastal dune habitat with National Park Service funds at a cost of over $2.4
million over the next five years. Also, PRNS is working with PRBO and the USFWS on
a predator management plan to address the immediate predation pressures from the
Common Raven, after successfully reducing predation on plover eggs over the past 10
years with nest exclosures. PRNS has successfully reduced disturbance from dog-
walkers through a docent education program which was initiated in 2002 and is ongoing.
Finally, PRBO and PRNS continue to adaptively monitor the success of these
management actions, and make adjustments to strategy accordingly, at an annual cost of
about $100,000.

Injury Calculations
During the 1997-98 oil spill (the Point Reyes Tarball Incident), PRBO biologists
documented 22 plovers that were directly oiled. These birds, which were alive when
observed and were not captured, represent a conservative estimate of affected birds. Less
information on the number of birds oiled during the other oil spill incidents exists;
however, PRBO observed live oiled plovers during most events. Because no birds were
collected live or dead, the Trustees cannot estimate mortality using the Beached Bird
Model, as has been done for most other species. Although the status of these oiled birds
is unknown, past oil spill experience has revealed that (1) not all oiled birds are located
by observers, (2) not all oiled Snowy Plovers die, and (3) some oiled Snowy Plovers do
eventually die. Taking these points into consideration, the Trustees conclude that
approximately 30 Snowy Plovers died as a result of these incidents or were otherwise
prevented from remaining as part of (or entering) the breeding population. This
represents a sizeable portion of the Snowy Plover breeding population at PRNS.
However, because the impacts occurred in winter, some of the impacted birds may have
been wintering birds from other locations (e.g., northern California or Oregon).

Lost bird-years were calculated relying on the demographic characteristics of the Snowy
Plover. See Appendix H for details. Because Snowy Plovers are declining due to
limitations on suitable nest sites (Page et al. 1995), the Trustees applied the stepwise
juvenile replacement approach to calculating lost bird-years as described in Appendix C.

Total Total Total Lost

Species Collected Estimated Dead Bird-Years
Snowy Plover 0 30 150

These lost bird-years represent the interim losses between the time of the spills and return
of this population to pre-spill conditions. Thus, any restoration project benefiting this
species should seek to replace 150 lost bird-years.

89
 Restoration Alternatives
The table below lists the restoration concepts considered by the Trustees.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Dune Habitat Restoration at Point Reyes National Seashore Snowy Plover
Corvid Management at Pt. Reyes National Seashore Snowy Plover

The Trustees have selected dune restoration at Point Reyes as the preferred project to
address injuries to this species. This project has the full support of PRNS, which has
already implemented a small but successful pilot version of this project. The other
project, developing a corvid management program to improve Snowy Plover nest
productivity, is already being implemented by the NPS using other funds. Because the
oiled Snowy Plovers from the spills were observed at PRNS and there were two feasible
projects located there, no other projects were considered.

Final Selected Project

Dune Habitat Restoration at Point Reyes National Seashore
This restoration project seeks to restore Western Snowy Plover nesting habitat through
eradication of non-native vegetation along the beach foredunes at Point Reyes National
Seashore (PRNS). The project will involve systematic removal of non-native vegetation
(European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) and iceplant, or Hottentot fig (Carpobrotus
edulis) from 30 acres of dune habitat with heavy equipment with followup maintenance
by contractors, park staff, and volunteers. Removal of European beachgrass and iceplant
will facilitate recolonization by native plants and allow reestablishment of the natural
processes controlling dune development.

PRNS contains some of the highest quality remaining coastal dune habitat in the nation
and significant breeding and wintering habitat for the Western Snowy Plover. This
habitat, however, is seriously threatened by the rapid encroachment of European
beachgrass and iceplant. These plants often cover the dunes in thick masses, leaving
almost no sand visible. Because Snowy Plovers prefer open expanses of sparsely
vegetated dunes, these dense stands of non-native vegetation effectively destroy their
nesting and chick-rearing habitat.

These plants were planted extensively in the late 19th century to stabilize the dune sand,
primarily to prevent the filling of shallow harbors and burial of roads and railroad tracks.
Past efforts to stabilize the dunes have adversely affected the survival and spread of
native species, and altered the natural process of sand movement. European beachgrass
affects dune formation and development by slowing sand movement and deposition,
which result in large, stable dunes that form a ridge parallel to the beach. This ridge
prohibits sand movement between the fore and rear dunes, which reduces the amount of
habitat available for native dune species. Simultaneously, iceplant forms dense,
monotypic mats across the dunes, holding sand in place and completely displacing native
dune plant species.

PRNS has historically been an important nesting and wintering area for Western Snowy
Plovers. The Final Draft Recovery Plan (USFWS 2001) identified protection and

90
management of all breeding and wintering locations at PRNS as a top priority for the
recovery of the species. Recommendations of the plan include (1) building the PRNS
population to 70 birds (about twice the current level), (2) minimizing disturbances, (3)
developing a docent education program, (4) restoring habitat, and (5) preventing
excessive predation.

PNRS has invested significant resources (financial and personnel) and taken major
management actions to promote the recovery of the species over the past ten years. PRNS
has ranked the protection and restoration of snowy plovers as the number one priority in
the Resource Stewardship Plan and has taken aggressive steps over the past 10 years to
restore the species, including (1) development of a Snowy Plover Management Plan
(White and Allen 1999), (2) increased monitoring and protection efforts, (3) the use of
wire exclosures around nests to exclude predators, (4) access restrictions on nesting
beaches to dogs and people, (5) development of a predator management plan, and (6) the
initiation of a docent education program. In 2003, after eight years of this effort, the
number of birds rose from approximately 24 to approximately 35, producing 19
fledglings. Nevertheless, these intensive park service management efforts to build up the
population were set back by oiling of the plovers during spills over the past 10 years.

The non-native plants will be removed primarily through the use of methods proven to be
successful by the Nature Conservancy at Lanphere-Christensen dunes in Arcata,
California (Pickart 1977) and at PRNS. The method relies on the use of heavy equipment
to dig up and bury non-native vegetation. Pilot projects have shown this method to be
more successful and cost-effective than the use of herbicide or removal by hand and
shovel. Thus, this project builds on past successes for restoring Snowy Plover nesting
habitat. In the pilot project, PRNS successfully restored 50 acres of plover habitat in the
coastal strand in 2002-3 with restoration funds from the Cape Mohican oil spill and NPS
sources. The following year four pairs of plovers successfully nested in the restored
habitat (Peterlein 2004).

An additional component of the project includes continuing public education via a docent
program at the Abbott’s Lagoon Trailhead and other sites, targeting beach users and
aiming to reduce human disturbance of nesting plovers and to increase compliance with
restricted areas. Past experience has shown that public use of the beaches was impacting
plover nest success, but that a docent program was successful in reducing the number of
eggs and chicks lost due to disturbance (Ruhlen and White 1999; Abbott and Peterlein
2001). Maintaining this program will ensure that public disturbance does not
compromise nest productivity in the restored area.

Budget
This project will build upon the previous pilot project and augment a larger NPS dune
restoration project. The NPS has developed new methods for removal of non-native
species that enable larger areas to be restored with long lasting results, and at cheaper
costs than previously (J. Rodgers, pers. com.). Some of the monitoring costs will be
offset by the Point Reyes National Seashore Association, which contributes annually to
PRBO to monitor Snowy Plovers. Additionally, PRNS provides in-kind support in the

91
form of vehicles, housing, personnel time, volunteer habitat restoration actions, and
office space. PRNS will continue management actions to protect plovers including the
successful docent program to reduce disturbance, seasonal closures of areas on beaches
where plovers nest, predator management and monitoring. The total cost of the project
will be $501,447.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

As described above, the minimum total injury to Snowy Plovers was 150 lost bird-years.
For restoration scaling, the Trustees relied on data from the pilot dune restoration project
at PRNS, where 4 plover nests were found within the 50 acre restored area. The Trustees
believe that a similar project would yield similar benefits. The Trustees calculated that a
30-acre project will generate approximately 107 percent of the bird-years required to
offset the injury.

Appendix H provides additional details regarding the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
This project will be located at PRNS, which is described in section 2.0.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

This project will both enhance the natural dune habitat and improve nesting and foraging
habitat for Snowy Plovers. By eliminating non-native vegetation, the dune habitat will
return to a more natural state. Habitat restoration has several indirect and direct benefits
to snowy plovers. Direct benefits include more habitat for foraging, nesting and raising
chicks. Indirect benefits are more complex and include (1) more space to retreat from
recreationists on beaches, (2) more space on beaches to forage and thereby avoid oiled
patches along the intertidal zone, (3) more complex habitat (less linear) to avoid
predators, and (4) protection from wind in back dune regions (high winds can bury
clutches along highly linear beaches). Plovers are affected by any oil that washes ashore
because they forage specifically along the intertidal zone of the shoreline where the oil
typically deposits along with other marine debris. In areas where European beachgrass is
absent, plovers are able to forage in the back dune also. Previous work at PRNS has
shown that native vegetation has rapidly colonized restored areas.

A potential impact of this project is the temporary disturbance created by implementing

the project, which requires the use of heavy equipment and the presence of many
personnel on the beach. However, the Trustees have determined that this will not be a
significant impact, as implementation of the project will be timed to avoid the plover
nesting season and to minimize disruption to the birds.

Probability of Success
This project has a very high likelihood of success. Dune restoration projects have been
successfully implemented at many sites along the west coast and within PRNS.
Furthermore, a pilot version of this exact project was implemented along a portion of
PRNS in 2002-3 and led to the successful nesting and rearing of chicks of Snowy Plovers
within the project area. The Trustees expect that this project will produce similar positive

92
results. The NPS has also secured funds to restore another 300 acres of coastal dune over
the next five years because of the success of the pilot project. This project will build
upon the previous successful project and augment another project. The NPS has
developed new methods for non-native plant removal using excavators that are more
effective and require little follow up treatment (J. Rodgers, pers. com.).

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

This project will include monitoring of plover nesting areas and plover nests. The
functioning of the protective fencing and the success of the nests will be documented.
Successful fledging of chicks will be considered the goal of the project, but other
measures will include number of nests in restored habitat, number of chicks reared in
restored habitat, and number of total adult birds occurring in restored habitat.
Additionally, restored areas will be monitored for native vegetation, particularly the
federally endangered Beach Layia (Layia carnosa) and Tidestrom’s Lupine (Lupinus
tidestromii), and for the endangered Myrtle’s Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene
myrtleae).

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all initial and additional screening
criteria developed to select restoration projects and concluded that this project is
consistent with and meets the objectives of these selection factors. The Trustees
determined that this type and scale of project will effectively provide appropriate
compensation for injuries to Snowy Plovers that occurred as a result of the spills and
have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

4.3.7 Other Shorebirds

Background
Shorebirds, colloquially referred to as “sandpipers,” are found throughout the spill zone,
predominantly in the winter months. Most species nest in alpine or Arctic tundra in
Alaska and Canada, but migrate or winter along California beaches and mudflats. Some,
such as the phalaropes, swim and forage on the water’s surface, much like a duck.

One species, the Red Phalarope, accounts for 89 percent of the beachcast birds collected
from this species group. This species breeds on coastal tundra around the Arctic Ocean
and Bering Sea in summer, but is entirely pelagic the rest of the year. It occurs offshore
of California in migration and in tropical and subtropical oceans in winter. Its preference
for offshore waters and convergence zones associated with oceanic upwellings and
current rips likely put it at greatest risk of oiling from the spills.

Conservation Issues
Because of its remote breeding locations and far offshore migration and wintering
locations, little is known regarding the conservation concerns for the Red Phalarope.
Several sources indicate a declining population, at least in some regions (Tracy et al.
2002). Ingestion of plastic particles at sea and disturbance at breeding grounds (locally)
has been shown to cause problems.

93
 Injury Calculations
A total of 47 shorebirds were collected during the spills that occurred between 1997 and
2003. Additional shorebirds were likely collected between 1990 and 1996, although
species composition regarding collected birds is limited for this time period. The total
estimated dead from all spills is 1,599. The high multiplier is a function of the small size
and pelagic behavior of the Red Phalarope. Details on the number of birds collected
during each spill event and the estimate of total mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford
et al. (2006).

Realizing that Red Phalaropes will benefit from the restoration project providing benefits
for waterfowl and loons (protection of Kokechik Flats, Alaska, described in section
4.3.2), the Trustees did not consider any restoration projects specifically for these
shorebirds. Thus, lost bird-years were not calculated, as such quantification was not
necessary for project scaling.

Total Total
Species Collected* Estimated Dead
Sanderling 1
Red-necked Phalarope 2
Red Phalarope 42 1,599
Shorebird, sp. 2
TOTAL 47
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

Restoration Alternatives
The Trustees did not specifically research or select a restoration project for this species
group because Red Phalaropes will benefit substantially from the restoration project
providing benefits for waterfowl and loons.

PROJECT CONCEPT BENEFITS

Nest Protection at Kokechik Flats, Alaska Red Phalarope (also waterfowl and
Pacific and Red-throated Loons)

Final Selected Project

Nest Protection at Kokechik Flats, Alaska
This project is described in the loon section above (section 4.3.2).

4.3.8 Common Murres

Background
Common Murres are seabirds resembling ducks or penguins (although they are capable of
flight). They are related to puffins and are members of the alcid family. Alcids spend
much of their lives at sea, where they swim on the surface and dive for fish. They
typically nest in large colonies on offshore rocks or remote headlands along the coast
from Alaska to central California. Figure 9 illustrates the major colony complexes in
California, along with the number of birds counted from aerial photographs in summer
2003.

94
 Figure 9: Common Murre Colonies in California.

The Common Murre winters in offshore waters, generally 5 to 30 miles offshore. Some
birds will visit terrestrial breeding sites intermittently during the winter months. The
murre was heavily impacted by the spills because the Luckenbach was located directly
upwind of the area at sea where murres typically concentrate in winter months. The
Common Murre accounts for 61 percent of all bird mortalities from the spills.

95
 Source: Ecological Consulting (2001).

Figure 10: Common Murre at-sea densities, Nov-Feb, and location of Luckenbach.

Conservation Issues
The Common Murre, despite its name, has a population that is well below historical
levels. It is estimated that over a million birds once nested on the Farallon Islands alone
(Carter et al. 2001). Beginning in the late 1800s, hunting, egging, human disturbance,
and oil pollution took a tremendous toll on the birds. By 1959, less than 10,000 birds
remained on the islands. Since then, however, numbers have increased, although with
some major setbacks due to oil spills and gill-netting, particularly in the mid-1980s (Page
et al. 1990). Today, with gill-netting, hunting, and egging eliminated, the murre
population throughout the state is steady or increasing on a long recovery towards
historical levels. Because alcids are among the longest-lived (around 25 years) and
slowest reproducing of all birds, laying only one egg a year (if they nest at all), recovery
will continue to take many decades. One of the main conservation concerns facing
murres in California is disturbance of nesting colonies by aircraft and boats. Such
disturbance events cause birds to flush and allow gulls and ravens to come in and predate
the eggs or chicks left at the colonies. At some colonies, excessive raven predation is
also an issue.

96
 Injury Calculations
A total of 3,865 Common Murres were collected during the spills that occurred between
1997 and 2003. Additional birds were collected between 1990 and 1996, although
species composition regarding collected birds is limited for this time period. The total
estimated dead from all spills is 31,806. Details on the number of birds collected during
each spill event and the estimate of total mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford et al.
(2006).

Total Total Total Lost

Species Collected* Estimated Dead Bird-Years
Common Murre 3,865 31,806 1,857,471
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

These lost bird-years represent the interim losses between the time of the spills and return
of this population to pre-spill conditions. Thus, restoration projects benefiting this
species should seek to replace 1,857,471 lost bird-years. Details regarding the injury
modeling are presented in Appendix I.

Restoration Alternatives
Several potential restoration actions would benefit Common Murres. The Trustees relied
upon the experiences of several projects already under way in California and Oregon, as
well as meetings with other experts, to identify potential projects. Five projects
considered for benefiting murres are listed in the table below.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Common Murre Colony Protection Project Common Murres
Corvid Management at Point Reyes National Seashore Common Murres
Reading Rock Common Murre Colony Restoration Common Murres
Land acquisition at Cape Viscaino Common Murres
Extending Devil’s Slide Rock Murre Restoration Project Common Murres

The Trustees have selected the three projects listed in bold as preferred. The murre
colony protection project will provide the most benefits, protecting several of the largest
colonies in the state from human disturbances. The corvid management at Point Reyes,
consisting primarily of implementing land use changes at ranches at Point Reyes National
Seashore, will protect an important murre colony from excessive depredation by ravens.
Finally, the Reading Rock project, in northern California, already has partial funding.
This proposal will contribute the remaining funds needed to allow the project to be
implemented. With regard to the non-preferred projects, the feasibility of land
acquisition at Cape Viscaino is uncertain. Moreover, at present those colonies are
increasing and are not threatened with development. The Devil’s Slide Rock project,
created and funded from damages collected as a result of the Apex Houston oil spill, has
been successful and needs little additional work.

Final Selected Project

Common Murre Colony Protection Project
The primary goal of this project is to improve the breeding success of the Common
Murre by reducing disturbance events at their breeding colonies.

97
Breeding seabirds, particularly species like the Common Murre that nest on cliffs or
offshore rocks, are highly susceptible to negative impacts caused by human disturbance
(Manuwal 1978, Anderson and Keith 1980, Carney and Sydeman 1999, Thayer et al.
1999). When disturbance events occur in seabird colonies, the birds may flee from their
nests, leaving their eggs and chicks unprotected from predators and adverse weather
conditions. Ravens, gulls, and other predators may quickly move in and predate large
numbers of eggs and chicks within a short time (e.g., less than an hour). Eggs and chicks
can also be accidentally knocked off rocks by flushing events, or moved into another
bird’s territory where they may be attacked or killed. Disturbance also disrupts courtship,
nest site defense, and colony prospecting, and can lead to site or colony abandonment
before egg-laying even occurs.

Human disturbance in California takes numerous forms and includes, but is not limited
to, disturbance by low-flying aircraft (private, commercial, and governmental),
commercial and recreational fishing boats, sea kayakers, sport divers, surfers, hang
gliders, ultralights, and human entrance onto colonies (Rojek and Parker 2000, Parker et
al. 2001, Ainley et al. 2002). Due in part to insufficient agency attention and complex
jurisdictional boundaries and the remoteness of sites, human disturbance threats have not
been addressed or resolved through coordinated programs and remain one of the major
impediments to the recovery of the Common Murre. Reduction of anthropogenic
disturbance is essential for the complete recovery of the seabird colonies in central
California (Parker et al. 2001).

The goal of this project is to reduce disturbance by implementing an educational program

involving signs, buoys, and outreach materials designed to educate recreational and
commercial users of the coast about the presence of nesting and roosting seabirds and
ways to avoid disturbing these sensitive seabirds. In addition, this project will also
include outreach to the Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Coast Guard, and other
agencies to educate their pilots about the sensitive nature of seabird colonies and their
locations along the central California coast with the goal of reducing inadvertent
disturbance of colonies. Coordination with enforcement officers from various agencies
will also be part of the project. This project is modeled after a similar successful effort in
Oregon and will build on a pilot project in California funded by the Command Oil Spill
Trustee Council. Information on the pilot project is available at
http://www.farallones.noaa.gov/ecosystemprotection/seabirdprotect.html. This project
will last for 20 years.

While the project must necessarily have a regional focus in order to educate boaters and
pilots, there are five complexes of colonies that will receive special focus: the Farallon
Islands, Point Reyes, Drake’s Bay, Devil’s Slide Rock, and CastleRock/Hurricane Pt.
Figure 11 provides a map of these colony locations, with the number of murres counted
by the USFWS in summer 2003. This project will seek to protect these colonies during
the pre-breeding and breeding season. Significant disturbance events have been recently
documented at most of these colonies.

98
 Figure 11: Common Murre Colonies within Project Area.

Specifically, some of the project elements include:

• Erecting signs at coastal launching ramps to educate sport and commercial

fishermen, kayakers, surfers, and others about the sensitivity of nearby seabird
colonies. Specially produced pamphlets will be distributed through marine supply
stores and sporting goods stores.

• Placing anchored buoys with warnings around key colonies seasonally to establish
protection zones and placing signs on selected offshore rocks and sensitive coastal
trails. The goal is to protect a small buffer (e.g., ¼ mile) around the colonies
described above for a few months during the breeding season.

• Continuing public outreach to promote awareness of seabird conservation needs

will be accomplished through seasonal presentations to community groups and
schools.

• Developing presentations for U.S. Coast Guard pilots, Highway Patrol, military
pilots, and general aviation and ultra-light pilots to increase awareness and
promote conformance with Department of Fish and Game Code Sections,
National Marine Sanctuary regulations, and USFWS regulations prohibiting low
altitude flights over State Ecological Reserves and Marine Sanctuaries. These
presentations will be repeated regularly for all agencies because of staffing
turnovers. Measures will be taken to encourage that aeronautical charts contain
current information about altitude restrictions over sensitive colony sites. Project
staff will monitor annual events involving aircraft, such as the Big Sur Marathon.

• Exploring the technical feasibility of video surveillance at key colonies.

• Developing wildlife interpretive programs and materials to promote public

awareness and using these materials to provide seabird viewing opportunities at
selected coastal vantage points.

99
 • Educating sport fishing charter boat crews to encourage party boats to maintain an
appropriate distance from colonies and to advise them on ways to reduce hooking
and entanglement conflicts.

• Restoration project staff will coordinate with staff from the BLM California Coast
National Monument, CDFG, National Marine Sanctuaries, PRNS, USFWS,
California Coastal Commission, State Parks, and the California Coastal
Conservancy to work towards accommodating the protection needs of seabird
colonies and roost sites and in planning activities for public coastal access.

• Improving surveillance at key colonies to identify unauthorized actions, measure

potential impacts upon the colonies, and prioritize future project actions.
Coordination between the project staff and CDFG, USFWS, NPS, BLM and
NOAA agents will promote more effective enforcement of state and federal
regulations. Project staff will also explore the possibility of providing funds for
additional enforcement time at select colonies.

• Monitoring compliance by the public and implementing appropriate modifications

if necessary.

In addition to the outreach and education component, the program also includes a
comprehensive adaptive management program. The results of each year of the project
will be analyzed and evaluated prior to the next year’s actions. At that time the
program will consider alterations and improvements to existing components as well
as augmenting the program with additional measures. One additional measure that
will be evaluated and considered in the future is the limited removal of problem
ravens as needed, primarily at the colonies shown in Figure 11 above. If this measure
is determined to be appropriate it will be conducted in accordance with applicable
environmental requirements, including a MBTA permit.

Budget
This project will cost approximately $563,207/year for outreach and education, buoy
maintenance, surveillance, and monitoring. To fund the project for 20 years, the total
cost (in 2007 dollars) will be $9,526,603 (future years have been discounted to account
for interest earned at an annual rate of 1.5% above inflation). Costs are based upon the
pre-existing pilot project and similar work conducted on behalf of the Apex Houston
Trustee Council.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

This project was scaled using a population model of the central California murre
population, comparing the benefits of increasing nest success to the loss of breeding birds
associated with the oil spills. Specifically, the modeling shows that a project that lasts 20
years, and increases fecundity by 5 percent, would compensate for 38 percent of the
injuries to this species from the spill. Two other projects (described below) will seek to
address the remaining injury.

100
Appendix I provides additional details regarding the bird REA for all projects associated
with the Common Murre.

Affected Environment
This project will be located throughout the impacted area (from Pt. Sur to Pt. Reyes),
which is described in section 2.0.

Environmental Consequences (Adverse and Beneficial)

The actions implemented by this project will increase public awareness of seabird habitat
requirements and educate the public about the potential impacts of seabird/human
interactions. By educating the public in ways to safely observe seabirds while engaged in
recreation, the Trustees can reduce the impacts of disturbance to nesting populations of
Common Murres and other seabirds, thereby aiding in the recovery of these populations
to historical levels. Disturbance caused by planes, helicopters, and kayakers are known
to have resulted in eggs and chicks being lost, and adult abandonment, from Common
Murre colonies in central California. Decreasing or eliminating these disturbances will
likely have a direct impact on the reproductive output of these colonies.

In addition, this project may benefit Brown Pelicans and other seabird species by
enhancing important non-breeding habitat. Although Brown Pelicans do not breed in this
area, this project will protect some coastal roosts along the California mainland.
Improvements in the existing network of communal roosts along the coast will have a
positive influence on the energy budgets of pelicans and other seabirds by reducing
energy costs associated with: (1) commuting between foraging areas and roosts, (2)
flushing and relocating due to human disturbance, and (3) use of suboptimal
microclimates within roosts. Pelicans migrating along the California mainland will also
benefit from increased availability, quality, and capacity of stopover sites. Additionally,
some cormorants nest among or in the vicinity of the murre colonies and will also benefit
from colony protection.

This proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts. The
restriction of recreational activities around sensitive areas may be perceived by some to
limit the enjoyment and scope of the public’s recreational experience. However, given the
small number of seabird colonies in the region and the limited nesting season, the actual
size and time of any restrictions is expected to be minimal. Wherever these colonies are
located, there exist similar recreational opportunities nearby that do not have seabird
colonies and that may be utilized by anglers, kayakers, and other ocean users. Signs used
in any of the above projects will be carefully designed and placed so as not to detract
from the natural aesthetics of any area.

Probability of Success
The Trustees expect this project will mirror the success of the similar Oregon project to
protect nesting seabirds at Three Arches National Wildlife Refuge. Monitoring during
the breeding season following the implementation of the disturbance reduction program

101
(using a 500-foot buffer closure during the breeding season) revealed a 39 percent
reduction in disturbance events (Reimer and Brown 1997).

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The impact of the program will be monitored through ground-based surveys in
conjunction with the surveillance for disturbance events. Monitoring methods will build
upon those developed by the Apex Houston Trustee Council project and will include the
following:

• Seabird population size, breeding success, and attendance patterns at colonies and
roosts will be monitored before and during implementation of the project to
evaluate effectiveness and guide project efforts.

• The types and degree of human disturbance throughout the restoration area will be
documented in order to identify specific colonies and roost sites that require
specific protection and educational outreach efforts, and to measure levels of
annual change in disturbance levels.

Evaluation
Implementation of this project should result in positive benefits to Common Murres by
reducing the impact of human disturbance to their nesting colonies. The Trustees have
evaluated this project against all threshold and additional screening criteria developed to
select restoration projects and concluded that this project is consistent with and meets the
objectives of these selection factors. The Trustees determined that this type and scale of
project will provide appropriate compensation (in part) for the Common Murres injured
as a result of the spills and have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

Final Selected Project

Corvid Management at Point Reyes National Seashore
The Common Murre colonies at the Point Reyes Headlands are one of the largest colony
complexes in California, with over 20,000 pairs. However, these colonies have been
subject to regular egg and chick predation by Common Ravens (Knechtel et al. 2003).
Moreover, some of the smaller sub-colonies have been abandoned after raven predation
events (Roth et al. 1999; McChesney, pers. comm.). Ravens have been observed working
in pairs. For example, while one raven shoves a murre off its egg, or pulls its tail, the
other raven takes the egg. For several recent years for which data are available, Common
Murre nest productivity at study plots in the Point Reyes Headlands has been less than
that of murre colonies at the Farallon Islands or at Devil’s Slide Rock (Parker et al. 2000;
Parker et al. 2001; Knechtel et al. 2003). High levels of nest predation by ravens appear
to be a primary factor.

A recent raven telemetry study at Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) demonstrated
that the ravens responsible for the colony predation are strongly affiliated with nearby
cattle ranches, where they feed on grain and carcasses from ranch operations (Roth et al.
1999). The ranches, which are dairy farms with free range cattle, pre-date the national
seashore and continue to function under lease agreements made during the creation of

102
PRNS. Raven densities around these ranches are the highest in the Bay Area (Kelly and
Etienne 2002) and possibly the state. The telemetry report describes the ravens as
“subsidized” predators: their populations are inflated by anthropogenic food sources,
which in turn lead to unnaturally high levels of predation on other species (e.g., the
Common Murre). The report concludes that “changes in land-use practices… preventing
ravens’ access to food resources at ranches may be the most viable and lasting way to
reduce numbers of ravens.”

This project seeks to implement the recommendation of the telemetry report with regard
to land management, as well as other components of PRNS’s raven management efforts.
The project will be implemented by PRNS. Specifically, this project will include the
following components:
• Development of voluntary land management alternatives at dairy ranches (e.g.
reduced silage acreage, reduced cattle, and/or changes in cattle feeding practices);
and
• Removal of non-native trees near the head of Drake’s Estero that are used by over
400 roosting ravens.

As a form of adaptive management, the possible removal of certain ravens known to

specialize in depredation of murre colonies will be evaluated and considered after the
project implementation has commenced. The specific method of raven removal and any
required permits or environmental compliance will be completed by the implementing
agency (PRNS).

Budget
Sufficient funds to compensate ranchers for changes in land use will be required to
implement this project. Thus, the cost is subject to negotiations with willing participants;
no specific terms have been agreed upon at this time. The costs of the tree and raven
removal, which can be estimated with greater certainty, are relatively small components
of the total project cost. Based on current knowledge of the value of the dairy operations,
the Trustees estimate that $500,000 may be necessary to implement the entire project.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

As described above, the injury to Common Murres was calculated using a population
model of the central California murre population. This project, which may increase nest
success approximately 10 percent at the Point Reyes Headlands, would compensate for
21 percent of the injuries to this species from the spill. Two other projects (described
above and below) address the remaining injury.

Appendix I provides additional details regarding the bird REA for all projects associated
with the Common Murre.

Affected Environment
This project will be located at PRNS, which is described in section 2.0.

103
 Environmental Consequences (Adverse and Beneficial)
By restoring ranchland at PRNS to a more natural system, the Trustees can reduce the
raven population to more natural levels and thereby reduce predation of Common Murre
eggs and chicks. This, in turn, will help speed the recovery of the murre population to
historical levels. Predation by ravens is known to have a negative impact on the
Common Murre nesting colony at Point Reyes. Decreasing or eliminating this predation
will likely have a direct impact on the reproductive output of this colony.

In addition, this project will benefit other species and the habitat as a whole. Several
other species of seabirds nest at Point Reyes Headlands that may also benefit from raven
reduction. These include cormorants, Black Oystercatchers, and Pigeon Guillemots. To
the extent that dairy operations are modified, other benefits include reduced erosion,
improved water quality, and native habitat recovery.

Snowy Plovers at PRNS are also subject to high levels of raven predation. The Trustees
examined the extent to which this project may simultaneously benefit plovers. Raven
telemetry studies have identified that most of the ravens that depredate plover nests
originate from northern Point Reyes (i.e., the McClure’s and Abbotts Lagoon region).
Unfortunately, land-use changes in that region are not feasible at this time. Thus, this
project will likely have a minimal effect on those ravens and provide minimal benefits to
Snowy Plovers.

This proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts. The
Monterey pine trees to be removed are from an old Christmas tree farm. They are located
adjacent to Home Bay within Drake’s Estero. Their removal is consistent with PRNS
goals and ongoing efforts. Under any scenario, the houses and cypress trees associated
with the ranches at PRNS will remain, as these are historical landmarks. The historical
trees around the ranch houses also provide shelter for migrating birds, as well as
significant recreation value for birdwatchers, as these trees are well-known for attracting
species that are not usually found in the western United States. This project will not
affect those trees.

To the extent that cattle feed is removed, birds that frequent the cattle feed will be forced
to forage elsewhere. While this intentionally includes Common Ravens, it may also
include others, such as Brewer’s, Red-winged, and Tricolored Blackbirds, and various
species of sparrows. However, such impacts are expected to be minor because all of
these species will find similar habitat at other dairy ranches at PRNS or elsewhere in
Marin County that are not included in this project and are farther from the murre
colonies.

It is possible that removal of a few ravens that specialize in murre colony depredation
will become necessary to supplement the other activities, although this is a deferred
component of the project. Given that ravens are abundant in California, any such small-
scale removal will not adversely impact any regional raven populations. Because ravens
are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, appropriate permits from the USFWS
Migratory Bird Permit Office are required prior to any raven removal. It will be the

104
responsibility of PRNS to secure any necessary permits and to comply with other
applicable environmental requirements.

Probability of Success
Because of the telemetry study, the Trustees have a detailed understanding of raven
behavior, territories, and movements at PRNS. This will enable PRNS to target efforts in
the most effective ways, with a clear understanding of the likely impact on ravens and
murres. A key component of this project involves reaching agreements with local
ranchers on changes in land use and feeding practices. Assuming that can be done, the
Trustees expect this project to be successful and for raven predation at the murre colony
to substantially decrease.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The impact of the program will be monitored through surveys for the Murre Colony
Protection Project described above. Thus, the monitoring for that project will
simultaneously cover this project as well.

Evaluation
Implementation of this project should result in positive benefits to Common Murres by
reducing the impact of raven predation on their nesting colonies along the Point Reyes
Headlands. The Trustees have evaluated this project against all threshold and additional
screening criteria developed to select restoration projects and concluded that this project
is consistent with and meets the objectives of these selection factors. The Trustees
determined that this type and scale of project will provide appropriate compensation (in
part) for the Common Murres injured as a result of the spills and have selected this
project as a preferred alternative.

Final Selected Project

Reading Rock Common Murre Colony Restoration
This project will restore a depleted Common Murre colony on Reading Rock (also
spelled Redding Rock), which is located 4 miles off Gold Bluff Beach in Humboldt
County. This offshore rock is part of the California Coastal National Monument and is
managed by BLM in cooperation with the Yurok Tribe. Common Murres nest on the
rock, and California and Steller Sea Lions haul out on the rock. While murre numbers at
most colonies in northern California have been stable or increasing, Reading Rock is a
notable exception. Numbers of breeding murres were variable between 1979 and 1989
(ranging from 800 to 2,100 birds; Carter et al. 2001) but have declined since 1995. By
2002, numbers were reduced to less than a hundred birds (G. McChesney, pers. comm.).

The depletion of the colony is thought to be a result of the following: human disturbance
by U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) personnel servicing an automated light; probable aircraft
and boat disturbances; California Sea Lions hauling out high on the rock; and mortality
from the 1997 Kure and 1999 Stuyvesant oil spills. Natural re-colonization or recovery
likely will not occur in the near future without restoration efforts.

105
 Figure 12: Reading Rock viewed from above. The dark brown objects are California Sea Lions.

Restoration actions may include:

• Cooperation between USCG, FAA, CDFG, and other state and federal agencies, as
well as the Yurok Tribe, to prevent human disturbance of murres during the
nesting season (possibly including restrictions on landing and low overflights and
the installation of buoys to mark boat closures within approximately 200 m of the
rock);
• Use of social attraction techniques (e.g., decoys, recorded vocalizations, and
mirrors) to attract murres to Reading Rock (especially recent breeders that are
more likely to rapidly re-colonize);
• Installation of small barriers to keep California Sea Lions off the top areas of the
rock (barriers have been used elsewhere for sea lions and topography at Reading
Rock would assist their effectiveness).

The education and outreach regarding disturbance at the rock may also include other
murre breeding rocks in the vicinity.

Budget
The total cost is estimated at $1,200,000, assuming social attraction will be employed.
However, approximately $950,000 is expected to come from other sources of funding.
The total project cost associated with this plan is estimated at $225,307.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

For restoration scaling, the Trustees relied on data from the Devil’s Slide Rock Common
Murre Recolonization Project off the Central California coast. This project has many
similarities to the Reading Rock project: (1) both projects seek to re-colonize murres to
offshore rocks; (2) the potential colony size on each rock is quite similar; and (3) the
techniques to be used are similar. Using data from the first nine years (1996-2004) of
the Devil’s Slide Rock project (Knechtel et al. 2003), and assuming continued growth (at

106
5% per year) in colony size until maximum colony size (1,800 nests) is reached, such a
project would generate 53,772 additional bird-years over the course of 100 years. Given
that this project will contribute 19 percent of the funding, 19 percent of the gained bird
years (i.e., 10,217 bird-years) are credited toward compensating for the injuries from the
spills.

Appendix I provides additional details regarding the bird REA for all projects associated
with the Common Murre.

Affected Environment
This project will be located at Reading Rock in Humboldt County, which is described
above. The general marine environment is similar to the impacted area, described in
section 2.0. Reading Rock is also of cultural importance to the Yurok Tribe, which
traditionally hunted sea lions there. Today, the Yurok Tribe and BLM have a
Stewardship Agreement regarding cooperation in management of the rock.

Environmental Consequences (Adverse and Beneficial)

This project is designed to reestablish a Common Murre colony. In the long run, this will
lead to an overall increase in the number of murres in Humboldt County, as well as an
increase in the number of colonies. Education of government agencies and the public
will also be achieved as part of this project, which may lead to greater awareness
regarding human disturbances at other seabird colonies in the vicinity.

This proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts.
USCG’s maintenance of the automated navigational light should not be affected. The
USCG recently reached an agreement with BLM regarding the maintenance of the light.
Under the terms, USCG maintenance will be scheduled for periods outside of the
Common Murre nesting season and will seek to minimize disruption of the natural
resources. Sea lions will continue to have access to much of the lower reaches of the
rock, where the majority of them haul out. Any restriction of recreational fishing around
the rock will be small and limited to the nesting season. Moreover, a balance will be
sought between minimizing the impacts on the resource and preserving quality
opportunities for recreation. Anglers and boaters from Humboldt Bay to Eureka will be
notified of any buoys and restricted areas in order to minimize inconvenience.

Probability of Success
Social attraction techniques (e.g., the use of decoys) to reestablish a murre colony have
been successfully used in central California (McChesney et al. 2005). This project will
replicate those techniques. Because murres have used Reading Rock in the recent past
and because there are many murres in the area, the Trustees believe this project will be
successful. The educational components of this project will draw on materials and
methods developed for a successful human disturbance reduction project in Oregon (and
described in the Common Murre colony protection project above).

107
By employing these restoration techniques in the next few years, permanent colony
extirpation should be avoided and the colony should eventually return to the highest
levels since 1979, given the amount of suitable nesting habitat available.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

The project will include 10 years of monitoring in order to measure increases in murre
attendance at the rock. Because of the remote location of the rock, the monitoring will
rely on aerial photographs. This is a standard method for documenting murre breeding
population sizes. The use of a remote video-based monitoring approach may be
evaluated as well.

Evaluation
Implementation of this project should result in positive benefits to Common Murres by
restoring a depleted nesting colony. The Trustees have evaluated this project against all
threshold and additional screening criteria and concluded that this project is consistent
with and meets the objectives of these selection factors. The Trustees determined that
this type and scale of project will provide appropriate compensation (in part) for the
Common Murres injured as a result of the spills and have selected this project as a
preferred alternative.

4.3.9 Marbled Murrelets

Background
The Marbled Murrelet is a small seabird in the alcid family found along the Pacific Coast
from Alaska to California. At sea, it feeds by diving for small fish in near-shore waters,
typically within 5 km of the coastline. Unlike most alcids, the Marbled Murrelet nests up
to 50 km (most within 30 km) inland in late-successional and old-growth coniferous
forests. In California, it nests almost exclusively in redwoods (Sequoia sempervirens)
greater than 200 years old (Nelson 1997). Like most alcids, the Marbled Murrelet is a
long-lived slow-reproducing species, laying only one egg per year.

Conservation Issues
The Marbled Murrelet is listed as a federally threatened and state endangered species.
The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan considers it a species of “high
concern,” while the National Audubon Society has placed it on its “red list.” In
California, fewer than 5,000 birds nest in Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, while a
small population of approximately 500 birds nests in the Santa Cruz Mountains south of
the San Francisco Bay area.

108
 Figure 13: Marbled Murrelet breeding range in California.

Excessive timber harvest in nesting habitat was the primary reason for listing the species
(Miller et al. 1997). In addition to logging, potential causes of murrelet decline include
nest predation by corvids (ravens, jays) and other predators, oil spills; marine pollution,
and possibly prey availability as a function of oceanographic events (Miller et al. 1997;
Nelson 1997). Predation of eggs and chicks by corvids (e.g. ravens and jays) is a major
cause of nest failure (Nelson and Hamer 1995; Nelson 1997, Peery et al. 2004). Nelson
and Hamer (1995) further predict that even small increases in predation can have
deleterious effects to population viability due to the murrelet's low reproductive rate.

109
 Total Detections Occupied Site Detections

90

80

70
Average no. detections

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Year

Figure 14: Average number of Marbled Murrelet detections on dawn surveys at Redwood
Meadow/Big Basin State Park Headquarters for 1998-2005.

In the Santa Cruz Mountains, the decline in murrelets at certain breeding sites has been
pronounced. At-sea surveys have shown relatively stable population numbers, although
very few juveniles were present (Peery et al. 2005).

The reason for the current decline is thought to be low reproductive success, likely
compounded by low reproductive effort during years when foraging conditions are poor.
Marbled Murrelets lay a single egg per year, though they may re-nest if they suffer an
early nest failure. Recent studies of the Santa Cruz Mountain population suggest that
reproductive success has fallen to near zero. Peery et al. (2005) estimates annual
fecundity at 0.04, implying that only 4 young are produced per 100 pairs each year.
Given that the species’ adult annual survival rate is likely between 87 percent and 90
percent (Peery et al. 2005), the Santa Cruz Mountain population, without immigration
from other populations, will be extirpated within 25 years. The most recent review of the
species, requested by the USFWS, concluded that there was a 100 percent chance that the
Santa Cruz Mountain sub-population would be extinct within 40 years, given current
trends (McShane et al. 2004).

In an effort to counter current trends, several Trustee agencies have implemented a corvid
management program to improve murrelet nest productivity (Command Trustee Council
2004; see also Stuyvesant Trustee Council 2004). Preservation of old growth habitat in
the Santa Cruz Mountains also remains a conservation goal. In some cases, murrelet
nesting habitat in private lands is especially important because it is located far from
campgrounds and may have lower corvid densities.

110
 Injury Calculations
A total of 3 Marbled Murrelets were collected during the spills that occurred from 1997
to 2003. Another oiled bird was sighted during this period but was unable to be captured.
It is not known if additional birds were collected from 1990 to 1996 because species
composition regarding collected birds is limited for this period.

Because so few birds were collected, the results of the Beached Bird Model are subject to
considerable uncertainty. Instead, the Trustees relied upon a Swept-Through Model that
estimated the number of oiled birds from the number of birds that were present in the
path of the oil. Extensive aerial and boat surveys for this species provided the data for
the number of birds in the area. The estimated oiling rate for Marbled Murrelets (i.e., the
percentage of birds in the path of the oil that are likely to become oiled) was extrapolated
from data on Western Grebes. Western Grebes occur in large numbers in the same
regions of the ocean as Marbled Murrelets (usually outside the breaking waves but within
5 km of the shore). This is an important consideration, given that the source of the oil
was far at sea. By the time the oil drifted into the areas of Western Grebe and Marbled
Murrelet concentrations, it had spread into widely dispersed tar patties, thus reducing the
oiling rate for these nearshore species. The surveys for Marbled Murrelets also recorded
grebes, providing data on their numbers in the vicinity. Because so many grebes were
collected, the Beached Bird Model provided a reasonable estimate of the proportion of
grebes impacted in the area. This proportion was then applied to the number of Marbled
Murrelets in the area. The total estimated dead from all spills is 45. Details on the
number of birds collected during each spill event are in Appendix B and in Ford et al.
(2006).

Lost bird-years were calculated relying on the demographic characteristics of the

Marbled Murrelet (e.g., annual survival, reproductive success), focusing on data from the
Santa Cruz Mountains population when possible. See Appendix J for details. Because
Marbled Murrelets are a declining species, the Trustees applied specialized population
model to calculate lost bird-years.

Total Total
Species Collected* Estimated Dead
Marbled Murrelet 3 45
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

Lost bird-years were calculated within the model simultaneously with restoration project
benefits (gained bird-years). Because multiple simulations of the model were used (i.e.,
Monte Carlo simulations), there is no single estimate of lost bird-years.

Restoration Alternatives
Although many potential projects to restore Marbled Murrelets have been suggested over
the years, few have been tried, largely due to feasibility concerns. The primary goal by
Trustee agencies has been the protection of nesting habitat via acquisition of old-growth
forests in danger of being logged. Additionally, there are some projects that seek to
minimize corvid predation of murrelet nests by managing corvid populations around

111
human habitations and campgrounds. The table below lists the restoration concepts
considered by the Trustees.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Old-growth Forest Acquisition and Protection Marbled Murrelet
Corvid Management in the Santa Cruz Mountains Marbled Murrelet
Silviculture of second growth forest to create nesting habitat Marbled Murrelet
Captive breeding Marbled Murrelet
Artificial nest platforms Marbled Murrelet

The Trustees have selected two projects as preferred: The corvid management program
will extend a current project with limited funds, and the old growth acquisition project
will seek to protect important murrelet nesting habitat. Both of these projects have been
identified by experts as critical to the survival of the species in central California (see
discussion of public comments regarding this issue in Appendix N). The silviculture
project was not selected because it would not begin to provide benefits for over a hundred
years. By this time, much other second-growth habitat, already in conservation hands,
should be suitable for murrelet nesting. Captive breeding and a project to create artificial
nest platforms were not selected because these actions have never been done with this
species and have large feasibility concerns.

Final Selected Project

Old-growth Forest Acquisition and Protection
The goal of this project is to protect and enhance nesting habitat of the Marbled Murrelet
in the Santa Cruz Mountains of central California. The status of the Marbled Murrelet in
the Santa Cruz Mountains is explained in detail in the Corvid Management Project
description below. In that section, it is noted that historic logging of old growth
redwoods has severely reduced available nesting habitat in the Santa Cruz Mountains.
This habitat loss has severely restricted the number of Marbled Murrelets that this region
can support. Moreover, the habitat loss has caused the remaining Marbled Murrelets to
nest in smaller and more marginal parcels, possibly subjecting them to greater nest
predation and lower fecundity. Although the Corvid Management Project aims to
address immediate needs and recent trends regarding nest productivity, this project
focuses on the long-term needs of the species to have suitable nesting habitat. Protection
of old growth forest is recommended as a primary goal toward the long-term survival of
the Marbled Murrelet in the Santa Cruz Mountain (Baker et al. 2005).

Given that habitat loss is a major cause of the long-term decline of Marbled Murrelets in
the Santa Cruz Mountains, this project will protect and enhance Marbled Murrelet nesting
habitat through the acquisition and management of up to 140 acres of forest land that
supports nesting Marbled Murrelets. Surveys indicate that there are no remaining parcels
in private hands that contain 100 percent virgin old growth. However, there are some
parcels that contain some uncut old growth suitable for Marbled Murrelet nesting and that
have been confirmed to host Marbled Murrelets. A recent study of murrelet nests in the
Santa Cruz Mountains found that 24 percent were on private property (Baker et al. 2005).

112
This project has no pre-identified parcels selected for acquisition and protection. Based
on current research and the past experiences of other oil spill trustee councils,
opportunities to acquire property containing Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat are
extremely limited and unpredictable. This lack of availability is due to a number of
factors. These include, for example, the highly specialized nature of habitat (e.g., old
growth forests), limited suitability of location (e.g., sufficiently near current populations
of Marbled Murrelets to serve as breeding habitat) and infrequency with which such
properties are made available for acquisition (e.g., willing sellers). Working within these
limitations, this project seeks to set aside funds from the NPFC for a period of five years
for the purpose of acquiring appropriate habitat. Should land with suitable Marbled
Murrelet nesting habitat become available, the Trustees will use the funds to acquire and
protect the land. Should the five years elapse with no acquisition opportunities, the
project will be deemed infeasible and the funds returned to (or remain with) the NPFC.
The five-year period shall begin upon NPFC approval of this project.

Should suitable land become available, the funds may be used for the following tasks: (1)
acquisition of fee title or conservation easement by a Trustee agency or other entity in
accordance with habitat management guidelines for managing the parcel to protect and
enhance Marbled Murrelet habitat; (2) development of the habitat management
guidelines; (3) periodic monitoring of the habitat to ensure that all management
guidelines are implemented and enforced and for the presence of murrelets; and (4)
enforcement of the management guidelines and/or terms of the conservation easement, as
necessary.

Budget
The Trustees have estimated the cost for this project to protect 140 acres. Assuming an
average acquisition cost of $12,000/acre, plus $50,000 for five years of monitoring and
$15,000 for the development of a habitat management plan, the total cost of this project
will be $1,745,000. Changing land values may necessitate a revised budget in the future.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

This project was scaled using a population model of the Santa Cruz Mountains Marbled
Murrelet population, examining the benefits of protecting nests from logging or other
incompatible uses. To account for uncertainty in some parameters, the model used
multiple simulations (i.e., a Monte Carlo approach) to explore the range of results from a
range of parameters. The results (between the 25th and 75th percentiles) show that 5.7 to
7.7 nests should be protected to compensate for the injury. Assuming an average of 20
acres/nest (Conroy et al. 2002), 114 to 154 acres of nesting habitat would be needed. The
Trustees’ goal is to protect 140 acres. Appendix J provides additional details regarding
the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
This project will be located in the Santa Cruz Mountains, immediately inland from the
impacted area described in section 2.0. The Santa Cruz Mountains rise from the Pacific
Coast in southern San Mateo and northern Santa Cruz Counties. The entire mountain
range is approximately 80 miles long and 10 to 20 miles wide, with a maximum elevation

113
of 3,806 feet at Loma Prieta Peak. The habitats include mixed coniferous forests
(including Coast Redwood and Douglas-Fir) as well as riparian corridors and some open
grassland. Much of the forests have been historically logged, such that relatively little
old growth forest remains. Although much of the range is protected by state and county
parks or is otherwise undeveloped, there are small towns, roads, and a scattering of
homesteads, private and public campgrounds, and retreat centers located throughout the
range. Many parts of the range have been declared critical habitat for the Marbled
Murrelet.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

This project will protect nesting Marbled Murrelet habitat and guarantee that it remains in
existence into the future. Because the project focuses on the entire habitat, all other
species associated with old growth forests should benefit as well.

This proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts. Given
that only parcels currently in private hands will be considered, there are currently no
public uses and thus there will be limited adverse impacts to recreational uses.

Probability of Success
The success of this project is uncertain because it depends on the availability of suitable
land from a willing seller. Although the number of privately-held parcels is not high,
there are several potential parcels with suitable habitat. The Trustees are optimistic that
some protection can be achieved over a five-year period. Once acquisition is achieved,
the likelihood of success in protecting murrelet nests is quite high. Such land
acquisitions have been done in the past (e.g., by the Apex Houston and Command Oil
Spill Trustee Councils) and such lands remain protected and still contain nesting Marbled
Murrelets (see discussion of public comments regarding this issue in Appendix N). There
is no reason to expect Marbled Murrelets to abandon suitable nesting habitat.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

If acquisition is achieved, the land will be monitored annually for several years for the
presence of Marbled Murrelets, as well as for the status of the habitat and the
implementation of the habitat management guidelines.

Evaluation
Habitat acquisition is an effective and practical method to achieve the restoration of
injured Marbled Murrelets. However, opportunities to acquire property containing
Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat are extremely limited and make opportunities for
Marbled Murrelet habitat acquisition unpredictable.

The Trustees have evaluated this project against all threshold and additional screening
criteria and concluded that this project is consistent with and meets the objectives of these
selection factors. The Trustees determined that this type and scale of project will
effectively provide appropriate compensation (in part) for Marbled Murrelets injured as a
result of the spills and have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

114
 Final Selected Project
Corvid Management in the Santa Cruz Mountains
This project is designed to extend a current project to increase Marbled Murrelet
productivity in the Santa Cruz Mountains by managing corvid populations (i.e., ravens
and jays) in certain campgrounds where breeding murrelets, human trash, and corvids
coincide. That project is described in Command Trustee Council (2004). Funding for
that project will continue through 2009. This project will continue it.

The Marbled Murrelet population of the Santa Cruz Mountains is small, isolated, and
declining. At present, their rate of reproduction is insufficient to sustain the population.
Nesting is largely limited to five adjacent watersheds: Pescadero Creek, Butano Creek,
Gazos Creek, Waddell Creek, and Scott Creek. The nesting area thus encompasses
approximately 15 miles from north to south and 10 miles from east to west. Within this
area, most nesting is thought to occur in five public parks or on adjacent private lands
where suitable habitat still exists (Baker et al. 2005). The five parks are Big Basin
Redwoods State Park, Butano State Park, Portola State Park, Memorial County Park, and
Pescadero Creek County Park (Figure 15). Campgrounds are located within all but the
last park.

115
 SANTA CLARA
COUNTY

SAN MATEO
COUNTY

PESCADERO CREEK
COUNTY PARK PORTOLA
STATE PARK

Pe
s c ad ek
ero C r e

Bu ta
no C
re e
k

BUTANO STATE PARK

SANTA CRUZ
ek
COUNTY
e
Cr

BIG BASIN REDWOODS

os

STATE PARK
Ga z

k
re e
lC
d el
ad

Legend
W

County Line
ek
re

Creek
tC
ot
Sc

Campground and
Legend
picnic area
County Line
1 mile radius
Creek
State Park

0 1 2 4 6 8
Miles

Figure 15: Location of campgrounds with a one-mile radius where corvids may range while foraging.

Nest predation by corvids is thought to be one of the primary causes for the lack of
reproduction of the Santa Cruz Mountains Marbled Murrelets. In the Santa Cruz
Mountains, both Steller’s Jays and Common Ravens are common. Although the former
have been present historically, the latter were apparently absent from the region until the
mid-1970s. Raven numbers began to increase markedly by the late 1980s, and the raven
population exploded in the 1990s to the point where the species has become very
numerous and widespread (Suddjian pers. com., Figure 16)

116
 Santa Cruz Ano Nuevo Chrystal Springs
San Francisco Palo Alto Moss Landing

2.5
No. ravens per party hour

1.5

0.5

0
1973-74
1975-76

1977-78
1979-80

1981-82
1983-84

1985-86
1987-88

1989-90
1991-92

1993-94
1995-96

1997-98
1999-00

2001-02
2003-04
Year

Figure 16: Common Ravens have increased dramatically in all six Christmas Bird Count circles in the
Santa Cruz Mountains region. (Note: Data presented as a 3-year running mean.) (Figure from Suddjian
2005b).

It is suspected that the recent increase in ravens, especially around campgrounds within
the parks where Marbled Murrelets nest, is a significant reason for the decline in the
Marbled Murrelet population. Within the small region where nesting occurs, four public
campgrounds (or complexes of adjacent campgrounds) are located, one within each of the
public parks (not including Pescadero Creek County Park) (Figure 15 and Table 6).
These campgrounds are also located within stands of old growth trees suitable for
Marbled Murrelet nesting. In addition to the campgrounds, there are some private youth
and group camps located in the area.

117
 Table 6: Santa Cruz Mountains Campgrounds by Park

PARK REGULAR CAMPSITES GROUP SITES PICNIC AREAS

Butano State Park 38 0 1
Memorial County Park 153 5 13
Portola State Park 67 4 4
Big Basin Redwoods
183 2 4
State Park

Surveys from 2002 to 2005 have demonstrated that corvid density is especially elevated
in campgrounds (Figure 16). Jay densities are 8 to 10 times higher in the campgrounds
than at control sites in the forest, while raven densities have been 2 to 6 times higher
(Suddjian 2005b). These findings come as no surprise because these species readily
scavenge human garbage, discarded food, and spilled food around picnic tables and other
outdoor locations (Liebezeit and George 2002). Although trash receptacles are accessible
to raccoons, squirrels, and foxes, corvids may feed off spilled food or directly from the
trash cans. As a result, ravens have been termed “classic subsidized predators” (Boarman
2002).

Treatment Control Treatment Control

12 1
Avg no. ravens/ha
Avg no. jays/ha

10 0.8
8
0.6
6
4 0.4
2 0.2
0 0
2002 2003 2004 2002 2003 2004
Year Year

Steller’s Jay Common Raven

Figure 17: Average relative abundance of corvids in campgrounds (“treatment”) and away from
campgrounds (“control”) at Big Basin, Butano, Portola, and Memorial Parks combined (Figures from
Suddjian 2005b).

Corvid predation of Marbled Murrelet chicks and eggs around the campgrounds in the
Santa Cruz Mountains has been witnessed on several occasions (Singer et al. 1991;
Suddjian 2003). Given the difficulty in observing such an event, it is likely that these few
observations are symptomatic of regular occurrences, rather than chance observations of
unusual events. Recent research in Redwood National Park has demonstrated that corvid
predation of Marbled Murrelet nests is a serious problem (R. Golightly, pers. com.).

Raven predation of endangered species is not a new problem. It has been widely
documented in the Mojave Desert with respect to the Desert Tortoise. In that context, a
comprehensive program to address anthropogenic food sources that support ravens is

118
being recommended to supplement lethal control efforts (Boarman 2002). The problem
of corvid management has also been addressed in a recent statewide Corvid Management
Plan, which reviews many potential management options (Liebezeit and George 2002).
Corvid management projects specifically designed to benefit Marbled Murrelets have
been implemented at Redwood National Park, Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park,
Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park, and Mill Creek State Park beginning in 2003.

This project builds upon a current project already being implemented by the California
Department of Parks and Recreations (Command Trustee Council 2004). It takes
advantage of several restoration actions that have already been implemented. These
include improved garbage collection systems and new garbage bins at several
campgrounds; the development of education materials; staff training and the hiring of a
project administrator; and targeted raven removal.

This project will continue these efforts. Specifically, restoration actions will include the
following:
Public education. This task includes the ongoing use of educational materials for
campground users, explaining the problems associated with human waste, corvids and
other wildlife, and Marbled Murrelets, and offering instructions on how to keep food and
garbage from animals. These materials include (1) a brochure for campers and
picnickers; (2) signs posted on picnic tables, storage lockers, trash disposal areas, and
elsewhere; and (3) a short video and presentation devices for use in visitor centers.
Additionally, this task will include continual training of park staff regarding these issues,
such that park staff may develop campfire programs on the topic as well as answer
questions from the public.

Augmented seasonal staff. Despite educational materials and improved trash receptacles,
campers and picnickers will need reminding about proper food storage and waste
disposal. This task includes the hiring of seasonal campground staff between Memorial
Day and Labor Day. These staff will walk the campgrounds and picnic areas daily,
monitoring for compliance of camping regulations and educating the public with regard
to food storage and wildlife impacts from human actions. The project will fund two full-
time seasonal staff both at Big Basin and at Memorial Park, and partially fund a position
at Portola and Butano.

Removal of ravens and nests. Based on field observations, it is estimated that

approximately one pair of ravens is associated with each campground. It is thought that
these ravens, which reside primarily among Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat, are the
primary sources of nest predation. This task involves the removal of ravens and is
intended to remove only those ravens immediately associated with the campgrounds.
The specific method of raven removal and any required permits or environmental
compliance will be completed by the implementing agency (CDPR). Because ravens are
long-lived species, this component of the plan is necessary to achieve benefits in the
short term (see Liebezeit and George 2002). It is hoped that, by combining this action
with the other program components that limit human food waste, immigration of
“replacement” ravens into the campgrounds will be minimized. Because the Memorial

119
 Park and Big Basin campgrounds are actually a complex of several adjacent
campgrounds, more than one pair of ravens may be present at these sites. Removal of
ravens will likely achieve considerable benefits. In the Mojave Desert, it was determined
that nesting ravens spend most of their time foraging within 0.8 km of their nests
(Sherman 1993). Likewise, evidence from the Mojave Desert suggested that certain
ravens were responsible for taking relatively large numbers of tortoises (Boarman 2002).
Removal of any nests of ravens that immigrate into the campgrounds will also be done to
the extent feasible. Removal of nests with eggs is likely to discourage re-nesting or
reduce nest success (Boarman 2002). Nest removal will include all areas within an
appropriate radius of Marbled Murrelet nesting habitat near the campgrounds. Thus far,
raven removal has been limited to Big Basin State Park. This project will continue that
plan as needed. Raven removal at any of the other parks or campgrounds will be
evaluated later as part of adaptive management.

Additional measures may include:

• improvements to camper education and food waste control efforts
• installation of food waste receptacles at water spigots (grates)
• improved garbage protection at Butano State Park
• improved food storage lockers
• additional removal of ravens at parks other than Big Basin State Park
• efforts to limit corvid use of landfills
• expansion of education and other project components to private camps

Budget
This project will cost an estimated $149,788/year for five years, commencing in 2010, for
a total of $695,363 (future years have been discounted to account for interest earned at an
annual rate of 1.5% above inflation).

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

Because of limited data, project-specific scaling was not directly done for this project.
Rather, the implementation of this project simultaneously with the land acquisition
project was used to support certain assumptions in the scaling of the land acquisition
project. Specifically, the land acquisition scaling assumes that the nests protected will be
“good nests” (i.e., they will produce enough fledglings to support nesting pairs at these
sites over a long time horizon). The corvid management project, by improving nest
productivity, addresses this critical assumption regarding nest success in the land
acquisition scaling. The Trustees may seek other sources of funding for the project to
continue beyond the five-year period of this project.

Appendix J provides additional details regarding the bird REA for Marbled Murrelets.

Affected Environment
This project will be located in the Santa Cruz Mountains, in the campground areas
described above. See the previous project for more description of this area.

120
 Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)
This project is intended to improve Marbled Murrelet nest success through a decrease in
predation caused by jays and ravens. Any improvement in nest success will help forestall
the extirpation of the Marbled Murrelet from the Santa Cruz Mountains. Sustaining the
Marbled Murrelet population through the next few decades will enable future Marbled
Murrelets to access increasing amounts of protected old growth forest and second growth
forest as it matures into suitable nesting habitat.

The educational components of the project will teach the public about imbalances in the
ecosystem that may be caused as different species respond positively and negatively to
human actions. Specifically, the public will learn how seemingly innocuous interactions
with wildlife (e.g., feeding jays at a picnic table) or poor housekeeping at a campsite
(e.g., leaving a bag of chips on a table) sustains corvid populations at unnaturally high
levels, which in turn can have long-term negative consequences for the Marbled
Murrelet. The educational message may carry beyond the campgrounds to local
residences and other human gathering places in the Santa Cruz Mountains (e.g.,
conference centers and private camps), resulting in increased awareness at those locations
as well.

This project will have direct impacts upon both campers at these four campground areas
and upon jays, ravens, and possibly other animals that scavenge food waste at
campgrounds. However, this project is not expected to result in any significant adverse
impacts.

Campers may experience more rules and restrictions upon their food management and
may be subject to an enforcement action should they fail to comply. Although this may
inconvenience some campers, such measures are commonplace in campgrounds where
bears pose a threat to campers (e.g., Yosemite National Park, Redwood National Park,
Olympic National Park) and do not impact abundance of or access to recreational
opportunities. Because locations with bear problems are popular camping destinations,
most campers are accustomed to dealing with the inconveniences associated with food
management restrictions. As it is most effective to address the root causes of raven
predation pressure rather than to simply remove ravens, efforts to control anthropogenic
food sources are critical in the long term (Goodrich and Buskirk 1995).

Ravens will experience the most direct impacts. However, the overall raven population
in Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties will not be significantly affected. Because ravens
are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, appropriate permits from the USFWS
Migratory Bird Permit Office will be required for removal. Although jays and other
animals such as raccoons will not be trapped and removed, they will likely experience a
reduction in their available food supply. For jays, this may lead to decreased fledgling
survival and lower reproductive success. It may also cause jays to wander and leave the
area, possibly subjecting them to increased predation and lower nesting success. These
potential adverse impacts are an inevitable part of the lowering of artificially elevated
population levels to more natural population levels. But the overall jay populations in

121
Santa Cruz and San Mateo Counties should not be significantly affected. Jays, raccoons,
and other animals living outside of the campgrounds will not be impacted.

Experience gained from the first two years of implementation of corvid management
programs in summer 2005 and 2006 revealed no adverse consequences and no public
complaints.

Probability of Success
The success of this project relies on several linkages: the link between project tasks and
an actual reduction in food waste; the link between a reduction in food waste and an
actual reduction in corvid numbers; and the link between a reduction in corvid numbers
and an actual reduction in nest predation.

The first two linkages have been demonstrated at other campgrounds dealing with bear
problems. For example, daily camper education, constant enforcement, and improved
food waste receptacles at Yosemite National Park severely limits the amount of food
available to wildlife. In the Santa Cruz Mountains, corvid density has been correlated
with the level of campground occupancy (D. Suddjian, pers. com.).

Additionally, the elevated corvid levels already demonstrated in the Santa Cruz
Mountains campgrounds suggest that corvids do depend on human food waste, and thus
corvid numbers may be reduced by a reduction in food waste. The final link between
corvid numbers and actual nest predation is difficult to measure directly because Marbled
Murrelet nests are difficult to find and study. However, experiments with artificial eggs
have found that predation pressure declines with decreasing corvid density (Raphael et al.
2002). Thus, the project has a reasonable probability of success.

Preliminary results from the first year of the Command Trustee Council funded project in
summer 2005 are inconclusive. Corvid numbers appear unchanged from previous years,
although some project elements (e.g., new dumpsters at Big Basin and new garbage cans
at Memorial Park) were not implemented due to unexpected delays. Targeted raven
removal may have been responsible for low raven nest success (D. Suddjian, pers.
comm.). Data from summer 2006 is not yet available.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

Because Marbled Murrelet nests are so difficult to find, and nest predation so difficult to
study directly, the success of the project will be monitored through Marbled Murrelet
surveys, corvid surveys, and annual progress reports from State Parks on the
implementation of the corvid management tasks.

To build on existing data sets and confirm the presence of nesting murrelets, audio/visual
Marbled Murrelet surveys will be done at Big Basin Redwoods State Park, Butano State Park,
Portola State Park, and Memorial County Park (see Suddjian 2005a for an example of the current
murrelet monitoring).

122
Jay and raven surveys will also be conducted at all four campground areas (see Suddjian 2005b
for an example of the current corvid monitoring). To identify problem areas and monitor the
success of the project, there will be a number of survey sites in high human activity areas plus
several control sites spread through the parks where feasible. These surveys will be conducted
several times per summer, approximately every month from May through August.

The quantitative results of the surveys and monitoring studies described above will be
evaluated. If the ratio of corvid densities within the campgrounds relative to the control
sites decreases significantly, the project will be considered to be making progress.

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all initial and additional screening
criteria and concluded that this project is consistent with and meets the objectives of these
selection factors. The trustees determined that this type and scale of project will
effectively provide appropriate compensation (in part) for injuries to Marbled Murrelets
that occurred as a result of the spills and have selected this project as a preferred
alternative.

4.3.10 Other Alcids

Background
In addition to the Common Murre and Marbled Murrelet, three other species of small
alcids were significantly impacted by the spills: Ancient Murrelet, Cassin’s Auklet, and
Rhinoceros Auklet. Very small numbers of Pigeon Guillemots and Tufted Puffins were
also impacted. Like other alcids, these are long-lived, slow-reproducing species that
spend much of their lives at sea where they dive for fish. They come ashore only to nest,
typically on remote offshore islands, where they nest in soil burrows, in rock crevices,
and in caves or under structures such as logs.

These species occur regularly along the California coast, primarily offshore and beyond
sight of land. Ancient Murrelets only nest from the northern Asian Pacific Coast to
British Columbia, while the auklets’ breeding range includes California.

Conservation Issues
In recent decades, Ancient Murrelet populations have been reduced by more than half due
to predation by introduced mammalian predators (e.g., rats, foxes, raccoons) on their
nesting islands (Gaston 1994). Human disturbance and light pollution are also
considered significant threats. The Ancient Murrelet is classified as “vulnerable” in
Canada and considered a species of “high concern” by the North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan.

The Cassin’s Auklet is perhaps the most flexible alcid, nesting from Baja California to
Alaska. Nevertheless, it too has been much reduced in recent years due to impacts on
nesting islands and oceanographic conditions affecting the dynamics of prey populations
(i.e., krill). Declines have been noted at the Farallon Islands (Pyle 2001) as well as in
Baja California. It is proposed to be listed as a California Species of Special Concern.

123
The Rhinoceros Auklet is a scarce breeder in California, nesting at scattered locations
from the Farallon Islands to San Miguel Island. It has only recolonized these areas since
the 1970s, after largely disappearing as a breeding species for over a century, presumably
due to disturbance and egging. Nevertheless, the species remains vulnerable to human
disturbance, trampling, and non-native predators on islands. It is currently considered a
California Species of Special Concern.

Injury Calculations
A total of 96 small alcids were collected during the spills that occurred from 1997 to
2003. It is not known if additional birds were collected from 1990 to 1996, because
species composition regarding collected birds is limited for this period. The total
estimated dead from all spills is 2,763. The dead bird multiplier for these species is high
because they are small species that primarily occur far offshore. Thus, there is a low
probability of discovering their carcasses. Details on the number of birds collected
during each spill event and the estimate of total mortality are in Appendix B and in Ford
et al. (2006). Details regarding the calculation of lost bird-years are presented in
Appendix G for Cassin’s Auklet, in Appendix K for Ancient Murrelets, and in Appendix
L for Rhinoceros Auklets.

Total Total Total Lost

Species Collected* Estimated Dead Bird-Years
Ancient Murrelet 21 428 1,867
Cassin’s Auklet 36 1,509 10,773
Rhinoceros Auklet 37 593 4,095
other alcids 13 233
* 1997-2003 only. Prior to 1997, data regarding the species composition of collected birds are limited.

These lost bird-years represent the interim losses from the time of the spills to the return
of this population to pre-spill conditions. Thus, any restoration project benefiting these
species should seek to replace 1,867 lost bird-years for Ancient Murrelets, 10,773 lost
bird-years for Cassin’s Auklets, and 4,095 lost bird-years for Rhinoceros Auklets.

Restoration Alternatives
Restoration for these species primarily involves their breeding grounds. Protection from
disturbance, habitat loss, and non-native introduced predators are top priorities.
Regarding Ancient Murrelets, the Trustees used outside experts to assist in identifying
the most cost-effective projects, focusing on at-risk colonies in British Columbia and
Alaska. The table below provides a list of restoration concepts considered by the
Trustees.

124
 PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS
ANCIENT MURRELETS
Rat Eradication in the Queen Charlotte Islands, Canada Ancient Murrelets
Saunders Island (Canada) raccoon eradication Ancient Murrelets
Murchison and Faraday Islands (Canada) rat eradication Ancient Murrelets (also Cassin’s Auklets,
Pigeon Guillemots, Pelagic Cormorants,
Glaucous-winged Gulls)
Rat Island (Alaska) rat eradication Ancient Murrelets (also Cassin’s Auklet,
Leach’s Storm-Petrel)
Langara Island (Canada) rat quarantine project Ancient Murrelets
CASSIN’S AUKLETS
Seabird Colony Restoration on Baja California Islands, Mexico Cassin’s Auklet (also Brown Pelican,
Brandt’s and Double-crested
Cormorants, and Western Gull)
Habitat improvements at the Farallon Islands Cassin’s Auklet, Ashy Storm-Petrel
RHINOCEROS AUKLETS
Nesting Habitat Restoration on Año Nuevo Island Rhinoceros Auklet (also Western Gull)

The Trustees have selected one project that will benefit Ancient Murrelets, one that will
benefit Cassin’s Auklets, and one that will benefit Rhinoceros Auklets.

For Ancient Murrelets, the Ellen and Bischof Islands project was compared with the other
projects from Canada and Alaska, all of which were proposed for the Trustees by outside
experts conducting a restoration planning study. The Murchison/Faraday and Rat Island
projects are quite large and expensive and exceed what is necessary to compensate for the
injury from the spills. After a site visit, the Saunders Island project was ruled out because
the risk of recolonization by raccoons is high and monitoring the island is difficult due to
its remote location. The Langara Island project aims to protect an earlier rat eradication
project (see Taylor et al. 2000) by installing quarantine measures to prevent
reintroduction of rats. This project was less-preferred because it stands a higher chance
of obtaining alternative funding. Ellen Island and Bischof Islands were selected because
of their ease of access for implementation and monitoring, opportunities for partnership
in monitoring from Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve rangers, and relatively low cost.
Both Ellen and the Bischofs were selected because each alone is too small to provide
sufficient benefits. Additionally, because of their proximity, cost-savings will be realized
by implementing them together.

Cassin’s Auklets potentially benefit from some of the projects considered above. The
Trustees concluded that the Baja California islands project, which also benefits pelicans
and cormorants, provides sufficient compensation for Cassin’s Auklet and is the most
cost effective. The Año Nuevo Island project and the Farallon Island projects, while
benefiting Cassin’s Auklets, do not provide sufficient restoration to address the degree of
injury.

Because Rhinoceros Auklets nest at only a few sites in California, restoration options
within the state are limited. The Trustees have been aware of the ongoing restoration
efforts for this species at Año Nuevo Island, which is located in the middle of the oil spill

125
zone. Since this project met all threshold and selection criteria and no other viable
projects were known, the Trustees did not seek out alternative projects for this species.

While no Xantus’s Murrelets were collected during the spill response, they may have
been present in the spill area in small numbers and subject to impacts. While no Xantus’s
Murrelet mortality was modeled and no restoration projects were selected that target this
species, Xantus’s Murrelet will benefit in several ways from the Baja California islands
project. Additional details on how Xantus’s Murrelets may benefit from the project are
in Appendices N and O.

Final Selected Project for Ancient Murrelets

Rat Eradication in the Queen Charlotte Islands, Canada
This project will remove non-native Norway rats from Ellen Island and the Bischof
Islands, Canada, to enable Ancient Murrelets to recolonize these islands for nesting.
Ellen Island (approximately 50 acres) and the small archipelago of the Bischof Islands
(approximately 160 acres) are small forested islands along the western coast of the Queen
Charlotte Islands (also known as Haida Gwaii), British Columbia. The Queen Charlottes
support as much as 25 percent to 50 percent of the total population (Gaston 1994).

Alaska

British
Columbia

Queen Charlotte Islands

(Haida Gwaii)

Washington

Figure 18: The approximate locations of Ellen Island (yellow dot) and the Bischof Islands (red dot).

Norway rats are not native to any of the Queen Charlotte Islands. They have spread to
islands worldwide through transport on ships and boats. Throughout the Queen
Charlottes, non-native mammalian predators have devastated seabird colonies,
depredating eggs, chicks, and adults. The Birds of North America species account for the
Ancient Murrelet (Gaston 1994) describes control of introduced predators in the Queen
Charlotte Islands as “the most urgent issue for the species’ conservation.” At Ellen
Island and the Bischof Islands, Ancient Murrelets formerly nested, but have been
extirpated. Because many murrelets still nest on other nearby islands, it is thought they
will recolonize these islands once the rats are removed (B. Keitt, pers. comm.).

126
This project will involve one field season of eradication (using boxes with poisoned bait)
followed by monitoring the next two years to ensure successful eradication. Additional
bait boxes could then be used if necessary.

These islands are within the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, with joint oversight by
the Council of the Haida Nation and the Government of Canada. Prior to selecting this
project for this restoration plan, the Trustees consulted the park reserve and the Council
of the Haida Nation. Eradicating non-native species and restoring the natural resources
of these islands are consistent with the goals of the park reserve and the Council of the
Haida Nation, both of whom are supportive of the project (see public comment letter
from Parks Canada in Appendix O).

Budget
The total cost of this project is estimated at $188,405, discounted to present-value 2007
dollars. This includes additional project planning and permitting, implementation, and
post-eradication monitoring. The Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve will contribute
in-kind services to assist in monitoring.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

As described above, the total injury to Ancient Murrelets was 1,867 lost bird-years. For
restoration scaling, the Trustees calculated that if the elimination of rat predation results
in recolonization from adjacent colonies at a rate of just 2 nests per year, beginning in the
year 2010 and continuing through 2100, full compensation for the injury would be
achieved. This calculation also assumes a 1 percent annual risk of rat reintroduction for
the first 10 years, increasing by 1 percent in each of the following decades. This
effectively incorporates uncertainty into the discount rate. It is possible that benefits will
be greater than this, which would then compensate for injuries to other alcids (e.g.,
Tufted Puffin, which nest in the area) for which no specific restoration project is planned.

Appendix K provides additional details regarding the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
Although implemented by an American company (with Canadian partners), this project
will be located at several relatively remote islands within the Queen Charlotte Islands,
Canada. The islands, all part of the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve, are briefly
described above. The project will comply with all applicable local laws.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

This project is anticipated to have a significant beneficial effect on Ancient Murrelets.
Consistent with past experiences in removing non-native predators from seabird nesting
islands, the Trustees expect the murrelets to respond quickly in terms of increased nests
and breeding success in the years after rat removal. Historically (i.e., 1974), there were at
least 500 nests on the Bischofs, and probably similar numbers on Ellen Island. Thus,
over time, murrelets are expected to gain from traditional breeding habitat re-opened for
use.

127
This proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts.
Because of the small size of these islands and because bait boxes specially targeted for
rats will be used, there is little risk of impacting non-target species. Other species will
have difficulty accessing the poison bait, and past experience has shown that most of the
rats die in their burrows. Thus, no adverse impacts are anticipated.

Probability of Success
In the past few decades, conservation biologists have successfully eradicated non-native
mammalian predators (e.g., rats, mice, cats, raccoons) from over 200 islands around the
world (Taylor et al. 2000; B. Tershy, pers. comm.). Because of the small size of these
islands, this project represents a relatively “easy” introduced species removal project.
The Trustees expect it to be successful.

Past efforts to restore Ancient Murrelets and remove non-native predators from their
nesting islands have been successful. Almost all major islands in the Aleutians have been
cleared of foxes, where Ancient Murrelet populations recovered quickly on islands where
they still occurred (Gaston 1994). In Canada, efforts to eradicate rats and raccoons have
also had success.

Ellen Island will likely be recolonized with birds from Anthony Island (Sgaang Gwaii),
six miles away, where 400 birds nest, and Rankine Island, eight miles away, where
52,000 birds nest. The Bischofs are likely to be recolonized from Ramsay Island, five
miles away, where 36,400 birds nest.

Because both islands are within the Gwaii Haanas National Park Reserve and have easy
ranger access, monitoring for rat reintroduction and murrelet nesting will be easy. The
park reserve has informed the Trustees that removing non-native species is part of their
mandate and has volunteered in-kind services to support the project and assist with
monitoring.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

There are two performance goals: (1) the removal of rats; and (2) the recovery of
Ancient Murrelets. Specifically, the criterion for the first goal is 100 percent removal.
For the second goal, commensurate with the project scaling, the goal is recolonization by
the year 2010 with an annual increase of at least three nests. The monitoring plan calls
for a follow-up visit the year after the removal to check for the presence of rats.
Continued monitoring for murrelets will be done by the Gwaii Haanas National Park
Reserve.

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all initial and additional screening
criteria and concluded that this project is consistent with these selection factors. The
trustees determined that this type and scale of project will effectively provide appropriate
compensation for injuries to Ancient Murrelets that occurred as a result of the spills and
have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

128
 Final Selected Project for Cassin’s Auklets
Seabird Colony Restoration on Baja California Islands, Mexico
This project is described in the pelican, cormorant, and gull section above (section 4.3.5).

Final Selected Project for Rhinoceros Auklets

Nesting Habitat Restoration on Año Nuevo Island
The main goal of this restoration project is to continue and expand ongoing efforts to
restore native vegetation on Año Nuevo Island to protect and expand breeding habitat for
Rhinoceros Auklets. Año Nuevo Island is located about a half mile offshore at the
southern end of San Mateo County and is part of Año Nuevo State Reserve. The small
island is a valuable site for many seabirds and marine mammals.

Pt. Reyes
San Francisco
Bay

Año Nuevo Island Santa

Cruz

Monterey Bay

Figure 19: Location of Año Nuevo Island.

Rhinoceros Auklets were extirpated as breeders in California in the 1800s. Since the
early 1970s, they have begun to recolonize island habitats. Año Nuevo Island represents
one of the few nesting sites for Rhinoceros Auklets in the state. In 2005, there were
approximately 106 breeding pairs (PRBO, pers. comm.). They burrow in the island’s
topsoil among plants. However, the future of this colony is tenuous.

When Rhinoceros Auklets began colonizing the island in the early 1980s, the central
marine terrace was dense with vegetation, mainly exotic species (Lewis and Tyler 1987).
Heavy use of the island for government facilities (e.g., a lighthouse) for over a century
had changed the vegetation community. After evaluating the condition of island natural
resources, the Año Nuevo State Reserve management plan recommended revegetation
with native plants to provide additional bird habitat and slow topsoil erosion (Lewis and
Tyler 1987). However, no habitat restoration or direct erosion control was implemented.
By the mid 1990s, the density of vegetation began to thin and was dominated by exotic
Malva and Tetragonia species in areas used by burrowing auklets (Hester 1998).

129
These plant species have proved poorly adapted to extreme variations in climate and
wildlife use. Weather conditions brought on by the 1998 El Niño (a dry summer
followed by heavy winter rains that washed away the remaining seed bank) resulted in a
massive die-off of these non-native plants. As a result, there was a rapid increase in
erosion and an almost complete disappearance of vegetation in auklet breeding areas. In
addition, the non-native plants were not adapted to sporadic seasonal trampling by
California sea lions and roosting Brown Pelicans, which often occurs during warm-water
conditions such as El Niños.

Massive soil erosion then threatened the auklet colony. The number of auklet burrows
that collapsed due to soil erosion during the nesting season increased from 11 percent in
1997 to 56 percent in 2001 (J. Thayer, pers. comm.). Some collapses caused adults and
chicks to be trapped underground, resulting in death. The amount of effort currently
expended by researchers repairing and stabilizing collapsing burrows during the breeding
season is not sustainable. It is clear that the auklet colonies will decline due to loss of
soil if action is not taken promptly. In many areas, soil is eroding at a rate of 6 inches per
year. At this rate, virtually all the topsoil will be gone within 10 years. At present, the
population has been aided by the maintenance of artificial nest boxes. The breeding
population in natural burrows, however, has not increased since 1996 (PRBO unpubl.
data). Unfortunately, no other predator-free habitat exists in the region to support the
burrowing seabirds if current nesting areas become uninhabitable.

The main goal of this restoration project is to revegetate the central marine terrace, the
main habitat for burrowing auklets, with a diversity of native grasses, dune plants, and
possibly shrubs. The vegetation provides protective cover for the burrows, stabilizes the
soil with roots to allow digging tunnels and protects the topsoil from erosion.

Figure 20: Revegetation area, on the left, is Figure 21: A Rhinoceros Auklet is weighed and
protected by young plants and protective burlap. On measured at an artificial burrow. Even these nest
the far right, wind erosion has resulted in the loss of boxes require topsoil to secure them and protect
several inches of topsoil in the course of one year. them from over-heating.
Breeding Western Gulls are present in this photo.

130
Revegetation efforts will benefit nesting Western Gulls, as well as protect the auklets
from them. Improved gull habitat translates into a reduced need for aggressive
territoriality that result in death of near-fledging auklet chicks entering gull territories on
their excursions outside burrows and transits to and from the sea. Given the current
condition of a denuded marine terrace, almost every board and piece of debris on the
island attracts auklets, providing some structure they can dig under, and nesting gulls,
protecting them from wind. Gulls often build nests at auklet tunnel entrances due to the
lack of any other habitat structure. Particularly on clear moon-lit nights, the majority of
Rhinoceros Auklets arriving with bill-loads full of fish are chased and/or
kleptoparasitized by gulls (Hester pers. obs.). On other islands, differences in
kleptoparasitism rates, auklet chick growth, timing of breeding, and attendance patterns
have been found between vegetated and denuded plots demonstrating that ground-nesting
gulls and burrowing auklets can coexist with limited negative interactions in vegetated
habitats (Watanuki 1990; Wilson 1993; Miyazaki 1996; and Finney et al. 2001).

In these ways, the vegetation restoration efforts will directly prevent the loss of topsoil
and nesting habitat, as well as enhance and increase the habitat available for breeding,
thereby potentially increasing the number of chicks fledged.

This project builds upon several years of restoration actions, which began in 2002. This
preliminary work accomplished field testing for appropriate plant species and erosion
control methods. Some of the specific methods developed are described below:

• Plant selected mature native plants (salt grass Distichlis spicata, American dune
grass Leymus mollis) with a density of 2 feet on center;
• Spread site-specific native seed (beach bur Ambrosia chamissonis, lizardtail
Eriophyllum staechadifolium) collected from the mainland northern elephant seal
colony, between mature plants;
• Distribute straw over seed and between mature plants, to hold moisture, provide
temporary structure, and provide an alternative source of nesting material for Western
Gulls;
• Wrap erosion control matting on top of the plant and seed layers, stapled down
securely;
• Design areas to encourage new burrowing (recruitment); and
• Open entrances to burrows occupied by auklets in previous years.

Efforts have resulted in reduced erosion and encouraging survival of three native plant
species: salt grass Distichlis spicata, American dune grass Leymus mollis, and beach bur
Ambrosia chamissonis. Based on the success of the habitat work thus far, significant
improvements can be accomplished with intensive planting and erosion control, as well
as adaptive upkeep.

Budget
The project will fund additional vegetation restoration for two years, followed by eight
years of adaptive management and monitoring, to ensure the survival of the plants. The

131
total cost of the project is estimated at $974,037. Future years have been discounted to
account for interest earned at an annual rate of 1.5 percent above inflation.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

As described above, the total injury to Rhinoceros Auklets was 4,095 lost bird-years. For
restoration scaling, the Trustees assumed that, without the project, the colony will be
completely lost to erosion in approximately 20 years. With the project, the colony would
be maintained and the number of nests would increase slightly. Thus, the restoration
benefits derive from the difference between modest colony growth with the project and
total loss of the colony without the project.

Appendix L provides additional details regarding the bird REA for this project.

Affected Environment
This project will be located at Año Nuevo Island, which is within the impacted area
described in section 2.0.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

Establishing an island marine terrace plant community will improve soil stability, reduce
erosion and potentially increase protective cover from predators. This should decrease
the loss of nesting areas and increase the amount of suitable habitat for additional colony
growth. This should result in an increased number of chicks fledged from the island.
Upon establishment of a native plant community in these areas, the number of
Rhinoceros Auklet nests may potentially double in size.

Restoring the plant community on a portion of Año Nuevo Island has numerous
additional benefits beyond the Rhinoceros Auklet. A small number of Cassin’s Auklets
also nest at the island and may benefit as well. The restored area may also provide
songbirds, shorebirds, and other species nesting and migratory stop-over habitat free from
exotic predators. White-crowned Sparrows and Killdeer (Le Boeuf and Kaza 1981) once
bred on the island before vegetation disappeared. Other benefits may include increasing
habitat for amphibians, pollinators, and other terrestrial invertebrates that once inhabited
the island.

This proposed action is not expected to result in any significant adverse impacts.
Pinnipeds do not pup on the central terrace, but use the beaches and rock islets. Habitat
restoration will not reduce the space currently available for roosting Brown Pelicans and
cormorant species.

Probability of Success
Due to logistical difficulties with access and transport, as well as extreme weather
conditions, islands pose unique challenges for vegetation restoration. Nevertheless,
restoration efforts thus far at Año Nuevo Island have demonstrated the techniques that are
successful (as well as others that have not been successful). Initial results have suggested
that an aggressive approach with grown plants in dense concentrations and erosion

132
control material is the best way to succeed at establishing a native plant community on
island.

Pinnipeds (e.g., sea lions, harbor seals, and elephant seals) are a concern and are often the
first to be blamed for the loss of vegetation. The northern and southern portions of the
island, which are easily accessible to sea lions, are heavily used by them seasonally and
bare of vegetation. However, recent field work and long-term pinniped census data
indicate that the central portion of the marine terrace, where the project will occur, is not
regularly used by seals or sea lions. Nevertheless, because California sea lion density and
distribution can be sporadic and unpredictable, contingency plans for potential sea lion
exclusion are in development.

As the jewel of Año Nuevo State Reserve, the island is protected (with access only
allowed for researchers), and this project has the support of the management.

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

Success of this project will be measured by auklet nesting success and vegetation and soil
characteristics. The monitoring period will extend for 10 years. Some of the parameters
to be evaluated are listed below.

• The proportion of occupied auklet burrows that collapse will be measured annually
and compared with proportions from 1993 to present.
• Auklet burrows and gull nests will be mapped to determine distribution and density of
breeding birds relative to habitat characteristics.
• The proportion of auklet burrows occupied by breeding pairs will be determined with
a burrow camera to quantify breeding population size and prospecting activity.
• The density and distribution of plant species will be documented.
• Changes in topsoil will be measured at standardized locations.
• Auklet chick growth rates in relation to proximity to gulls and habitat structures will
be measured.

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all initial and additional screening
criteria and concluded that this project is consistent with and meets the objectives of these
selection factors. The trustees determined that this type and scale of project will
effectively provide appropriate compensation for injuries to Rhinoceros Auklets that
occurred as a result of the spills and have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

4.3.11 Sea Otters

Background
Sea Otters are perhaps the most charismatic and beloved marine mammal in California.
Hunted nearly to extinction from 1741 to 1900, Sea Otters in California have since
rebounded from fewer than 100 to approximately 2,500 individuals today. The historical
population has been estimated at 20,000 individuals. They occur in nearshore waters off
the central California coast, typically from Half Moon Bay south to Point Conception. A

133
small population has also been re-established off San Nicolas Island. Because Sea Otters
rely on their fur rather than blubber for insulation from cold ocean water, they are at far
greater risk of death from oiling than sea lions or seals.

Conservation Issues
In California, the Sea Otter is listed as a threatened species under the federal Endangered
Species Act and as a “fully protected” species by the state of California. Despite steady
population increases through much of the 20th century, the rate of population growth has
been less than that of other recovering otter populations (e.g., in Alaska) (Estes 1990),
and the population actually declined between 1995 and 1999 (Gerber et al. 2004). This
has put the recovery of the Sea Otter in California in jeopardy and resulted in
considerable research regarding why the population is currently stalled. California Sea
Otters apparently suffer from higher juvenile and adult mortality rates than Sea Otters in
Alaska (T. Tinker, pers. comm.). Modeling has demonstrated that this, especially with
regard to adult females, is an important factor in slowing population growth.

A recent analysis of causes of otter mortality in California concluded that many of the
most significant causes appear to be related to human activities. These include
introduced disease causing organisms (pathogen pollution), primarily protozoa like
Toxoplasma gondii and Sarcocystis neurona, fecal bacteria and parasites, chemicals and
contaminants, and to a lesser degree various forms of direct take such as boat strikes,
shooting, and entanglement in fishing gear (Gerber et al. 2004). A significant and
growing body of evidence shows that many of these diseases and chemicals are coming
from the land, probably via runoff, and are tied to human activities (Miller et al. 2002,
Jessup et al. 2004).

Injury Calculations
During the spills, four dead oiled Sea Otters were found on beaches. All of these came
from similar locations and times that oiled birds were collected. Because of the tenuous
status of the Sea Otter in California, all Sea Otter carcasses reported on beaches
throughout the state are collected and analyzed as a matter of routine work by the
California Department of Fish and Game. At the same time, the population is closely
monitored. Analyses of carcass recovery data on otter carcasses shows that
approximately 46 percent of the otters expected to die each year are recovered (Gerber et
al. 2004). Thus, if four Sea Otters were detected as having died from oil exposure, it is
likely that approximately 8 were actually similarly effected.

Total Total
Species Collected Estimated Dead
Sea Otter 4 8

Restoration Alternatives
The Trustees consulted with well-known Sea Otter researchers to select and design an
appropriate restoration project. They suggested the project listed in the table below.

PROJECT CONCEPTS BENEFITS

Sea Otter Pathogens Education and Outreach Sea Otters

134
The Trustees selected this project because it addresses the leading anthropogenic cause of
otter mortality, and thus one of the primary factors impacting Sea Otter recovery. Many
of the problems with fishing gear entanglement have already been addressed in recent
years through new restrictions on commercial fishing activities in Monterey Bay and
elsewhere.

Final Selected Project

Sea Otter Pathogens Education and Outreach
This project aims to educate the public regarding the connection between anthropogenic
sources of pollution, Sea Otter diseases and mortality, and Sea Otter population recovery.
Since the discovery of the connection between these pollution sources and otter mortality
(in 2002), this will be the first large-scale coordinated attempt to enlist the cooperation
and support of the public regarding this issue.

Dairy farmers, boat owners, homeowners, and cat owners are examples of those who will
be targeted with educational messages. Some examples of the messages include the
following:

• Domestic house cat feces contain pathogens that cause fatal diseases in Sea
Otters; do not dispose of cat feces or kitty litter in locations where it can enter
waterways (e.g., the toilet).
• Human feces may contain pathogens that can cause gastrointestinal illness and
death in Sea Otters; direct discharge of sewage from boats, leaking septic systems,
and inadequately treated municipal sewage are potential sources of problems.
• Dairy wastes may contain organisms that are potentially harmful to Sea Otters;
best management practices (BMP’s), improved monitoring, and improvement of
existing infrastructure on coastal farms and dairies may improve Sea Otter health.
• Nutrients and elemental pollution from non-point sources may facilitate harmful
algal blooms that kill Sea Otters and other marine mammals; improved handling
of agricultural, storm, and street runoff could improve this situation.

Specifically, the project will include the following elements:

• Synthesize existing data on non-point source pollution (pathogens and chemicals)
and other causes of mortality in Sea Otters;
• Use the information to create graphic and multimedia educational materials for
public outreach, such as:
o improvements and additions which cover pollution and direct take to the
website www.seaotterresearch.org, which already has excellent general
information on Sea Otter biology and health, as well as pictures and films
of otters;
o creation of a public display kiosk at the Long Marine Lab Seymore Marine
Discovery Center in Santa Cruz, which has 50,000 visitors per year;
o hosting two half-day symposiums (in cooperation with Defenders of
Wildlife-Sea Otter Awareness Week 2006 and 2007) and participate in up
to six public outreach town hall meetings;

135
 o distribution of hard copy and electronic information, data tables, graphics
and maps (such as those shown in attachment A) to organizations such as
the Monterey Bay Aquarium, UCSC-Seymore Marine Discovery Center,
Elkhorn Slough National Estuarian Sanctuary, as well as to other
conservation organizations that focus on Sea Otters and marine issues
(e.g., Defenders of Wildlife, Friends of the Sea Otter, Otter Project); and
o publication of a full color article in “Outdoor California” and perhaps in
other outdoor-focused magazines.

Through this coordinated approach involving other organizations, the project should
reach several million people.

Budget
The budget for this project is estimated at $121,155.

Scaling for Primary and Compensatory Restoration

Because the restoration project aims to save otters of the same demographic age classes
as those lost in the spills (i.e., all age classes), there is no need to resort to otter-years as a
metric for comparing injuries and benefits. Instead, lost and gained otters (discounted to
2006) are compared. To compensate for the injury to 8 Sea Otters, this project must save
two Sea Otters per year for six years that would otherwise die from diseases related to
human pollution. The Trustees have calculated that this goal can be achieved if the
pollution-related mortality of Sea Otters was reduced by just 4 percent per year. The
Trustees believe this project can achieve this goal.

Appendix M provides additional details regarding the otter REA for this project.

Affected Environment
This project will be located in the Monterey Bay area, which is within the impacted area
described in section 2.0.

Environmental Consequences (Beneficial and Adverse)

Reducing disease-related mortality associated with terrestrial sources of pathogens and
pollutants is thought to be one of the most significant ways to facilitate Sea Otter
population recovery (Gerber et al. 2004). Reducing pathogens and pollution in the
environment will likely benefit other species as well.

Because this is an education and outreach project that relies upon voluntary actions by the
public to reduce pollution, this proposed action is not expected to result in any significant
adverse impacts.

Probability of Success
The project will be implemented by the California Department of Fish and Game in
cooperation with several other agencies and organizations (such as the U.S. Geological
Survey, the UC Davis Wildlife Health Center, UC Santa Cruz, and the Monterey Bay
Aquarium). These organizations have a history of working together on Sea Otter issues.

136
Thus, the Trustees anticipate that there will be no problems in implementing the outreach
components of the project.

The probability of success with regard to changes in pathogens and pollutants in the
environment, and changes in Sea Otter mortality rates, has greater uncertainty. The
Trustees have taken this into account and made conservative assumptions regarding the
benefits in project scaling (see above and Appendix M).

Performance Criteria and Monitoring

Because this project focuses on public outreach, its effectiveness will be measured by the
number of people to whom the message is delivered. This can be done by totaling the
numbers of recipients of hardcopy information, numbers of “hits” to the website (and
comparison with previous years), and numbers of patrons visiting facilities where graphic
displays and verbal presentations of this information are provided. Monitoring of water
quality in Monterey Bay and monitoring of Sea Otter populations and causes of mortality
are ongoing through other agencies and funding mechanisms and need not be included as
a component of this project. The Trustees will review the results of these monitoring
efforts to evaluate the success of the project.

Evaluation
The Trustees have evaluated this project against all initial and additional screening
criteria and concluded that this project is consistent with and meets the objectives of these
selection factors. The trustees determined that this type and scale of project will
effectively provide appropriate compensation for injuries to Sea Otters that occurred as a
result of the spills and have selected this project as a preferred alternative.

4.4 “No Action” Alternative

NEPA requires the Trustees to consider a “no action” alternative, and the OPA
regulations require consideration of a somewhat equivalent natural recovery alternative.
Under this alternative, the Trustees would take no direct action to restore injured natural
resources or to compensate for lost services. Instead, the Trustees would rely on natural
processes for recovery of the injured natural resources.

The principal advantages of the natural recovery approach are the ease of implementation
and the absence of monetary costs. However, while natural recovery may occur over
time for many of the injured resources, the interim losses suffered by those resources
would not be compensated under the “no action” alternative. OPA clearly establishes
Trustee responsibility to seek compensation for interim losses pending recovery of
natural resources. Losses were, and continue to be, suffered during the period of
recovery from the spills. Furthermore, technically feasible project alternatives exist to
compensate for these losses. Thus, the Trustees reject the “no action” alternative and
instead have selected the appropriately scaled restoration projects described above as the
preferred alternatives.

137
 4.5 Cumulative Impacts

The Trustees examined a variety of alternatives to restore resources and/or services lost
as a result of the Luckenbach releases. Anticipated environmental consequences arising
from each of the selected projects are provided in section 4.3. As required by NEPA, this
section addresses the potential overall cumulative impacts of implementing this
restoration plan.

Cumulative environmental impacts are those combined effects on the quality of the
human environment that result from the incremental impact of the alternative when added
to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what
federal or non-federal agency or person undertakes the other actions (40 CFR 1508.7,
1508.25(a), and 1508.25(c)).

Seabirds
The Trustees believe that the projects selected in this restoration plan to address the
injuries to seabirds, in conjunction with other existing and anticipated seabird restoration
projects, including those funded from damage recoveries from other OPA cases, will
have a local and regional, long term, moderate beneficial impact on seabird populations.

Corvids
The Trustees have selected three projects that will affect local jay and raven numbers
near seabird nesting and roosting sites in and around PRNS, the Santa Cruz Mountains,
and Common Murre colonies south of Point Reyes. Project components include (1)
public education and outreach, (2) removing anthropogenic food sources, (3) removing
raven roosting or nesting areas, and (4) lethally removing a small number of Common
Ravens.

Throughout the region, ravens are more common in urban and suburban environments
than in rural areas, and have increased dramatically in recent decades (Kelly and Etienne
2002). Thus, they have not been subject to loss of habitat. Relatively small numbers of
ravens have been killed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Wildlife Services
Program in recent years, but most of this has been done in the Mojave Desert to protect
endangered Desert Tortoises (Boarman 2002). From 2001 to 2004, Wildlife Services
killed 185 to 277 in all of California. Ravens are also subject to impacts by West Nile
Virus, although no substantial declines have yet been documented.

The corvid management project in the Santa Cruz Mountains, when considered in
conjunction with an on-going project that it will supplement, is expected to have local,
medium term, minor negative effects on corvids in the Santa Cruz region. Likewise, the
corvid management project at PRNS will control Common Ravens in the vicinity of the
seabird colonies near the Point Reyes Lighthouse. Common Ravens are abundant
throughout the Point Reyes area and continue to increase slightly. The project, in
conjunction with ongoing efforts to control the Raven population, is expected to have a
minor, local, medium term negative impact on this species. The Seabird Colony
Protection Project also includes a small component to remove specific “problem” ravens

138
around murre colonies (e.g. at Castle Rock/Hurricane Point, Devil’s Slide, and at PRNS).
It also is expected to have a local, medium term, minor negative impact on ravens.

Because the selected projects are focused on relatively small geographical regions (e.g.
four campground areas in the Santa Cruz Mountains, the outer point of the Point Reyes
Penninsula, and some scattered murre colonies), and because only small numbers of
Common Ravens would be removed relative to their regional populations levels, the
Trustees believe that these alternatives will have a minor, medium term negative impact
on the local and regional population of corvids.

House Mice
The Trustees are unaware of any other past or reasonably foreseeable projects that will
impact the House Mouse, and therefore do not believe there are cumulative effects to be
considered regarding this species. However, as discussed previously, since this project
will undergo further environmental review, should other projects become known, the
cumulative effects may be addressed in that subsequent NEPA process.

Human Use
The Trustees have selected six projects that may limit or change human use of natural
resources in Monterey Bay, Santa Cruz Mountains, various northern California lakes,
Kokechik Flats, Alaska, and on islands off Baja California, Mexico. Project components
include (1) public education and outreach, and (2) limiting access to sensitive areas.

The selected alternatives occurring in Monterey Bay, the Santa Cruz Mountains, and
Kokechik Flats areas will augment existing restoration projects and will therefore expand
or extend, the local, minor negative impacts on human use arising from those existing
projects.

The selected project at northern California lakes will involve education and outreach and
create a few small exclusions zones, impacting existing regulated waters and activities.
These limitations on recreational and other human uses, in conjunction with existing
fishing and boating regulations, will have local, medium term, and minor impacts.

In summary, these projects are expected to have only localized, minor, negative impacts
on recreational opportunities given that extensive alternate areas for human recreation are
available in the immediate proximity to each of them.

Summary
The Trustees believe that, overall, the alternatives selected in this restoration plan, when
considered along with past and reasonably foreseeable future projects, will have long
term local and regional beneficial impacts to natural resources, as well as short term,
minor negative impacts to human recreation.

139
5.0 References

Abbott, S., and C. Peterlein. 2001. Distribution, protection and nest success of snowy
plovers at Point Reyes National Seashore in 2001. A report of PRBO to the National
Park Service.

Ainley, D.G. 1995. Ashy Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa). In The Birds of

North America, No. 185 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America,
Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Ainley, D.G. and R.J. Boekelhide. 1990. Seabirds of the Farallon Islands: Ecology,
Structure and Dynamics of an Upwelling System Community. Stanford University
Press. Palo Alto, CA.

Ainley, D. G., and W. T. Everett. 2001. Black Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma melania). In

The Birds of North America, No. 577 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

Ainley, D.G., D.N. Nettleship, H.R. Carter, and A.E. Storey. 2002. Common Murre
(Uria aalge). In The Birds of North America, No. 666 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).
The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

Allen, S., S. Waber, W. Holter and D. Press. 2004. Long-term monitoring of harbor
seals at Point Reyes, California: Five year annual report 1997-2001. National Park
Service Technical Report.

Anderson, D. W., and F. Gress. 1983. Status of a northern population of California brown
pelicans. The Condor 85:79-88.

Anderson, D. W., and J. O. Keith. 1980. The human influence on seabird nesting success:
conservation implications. Biological Conservation 18:65-80.

Atkinson, I.A.E. 1985. The spread of commensal species of Rattus to oceanic islands and
their effects on island avifaunas. In: P.J. Moors (ed.) Conservation of Island Birds,
pp.35-81. International Council for Bird Preservation Technical Publication No.3.

Baker, L.M., M.Z. Peery, S.R. Beissinger, E.E. Burkett, S.W. Singer, and D.L Suddjian.
2006. Nesting habitat characteristics of the Marbled Murrelet in Central California
redwood forests. Forthcoming in Journal of Wildlife Management.

Barr, J.F., C. Eberl, and J.W. McIntyre. 2000. Red-throated Loon (Gavia stellata). In
The Birds of North America, No. 513 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.
Beissinger, S.R. 1995. Population Trends of the Marbled Murrelet Projected From
Demographic Analysis. In Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet.
USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-152.

140
Boarman, W.I. 2002. Reducing predation by common ravens on desert tortoises in the
Mojave and Colorado Deserts. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Geological
Survey, Western Ecological Research Center. San Diego, California.

Bonnell et al. 1983. Pinnipeds and sea otters of central and northern California, 1980-
1983: status, abundance and distribution. Final report prepared by Center for
Marine Studies, University of California, Santa Cruz, for the Minerals Management
Service, Contract 14-12-0001-29090. OCS Study MMS 84-0044.

Briggs, K. T. and E. W. Chu. 1986. Sooty Shearwaters off California: Distribution,

abundance, and habitat use. Condor 88: 355-364.

Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis and D.R. Carlson. 1987. Bird communities at sea
off California: 1975-1983. Studies in Avian Biology 11.

Brown, P.W. and L.H. Fredrickson. 1997. White-winged Scoter (Melanitta fusca). In
The Birds of North America, No. 274 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

Burness, G. P., K. Lefevre, and C. T. Collins. 1999. Elegant Tern (Sterna elegans). In
The Birds of North America, No. 404 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

Cam, E., L. Lougheed, R. Bradley, and F. Cooke. 2003. Demographic analysis of a

marbled murrelet population from capture-recapture data. Conservation Biology 17:
1118-1126.

Carney, K.M. and W.J. Sydeman. 1999. A review of human disturbance effects on
nesting colonial waterbirds. Waterbirds 22: 68-79.

Carter, H.R. 1997. Oiled seabird rescue at the J.V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, San
Mateo County, California, 1968-1995. Journal of Wildlife Rehabilitation 20: 3-6, 11-
14.

Carter, H.R., A.L. Sowls, M.S. Rodway, U.W. Wilson, R.W. Lowe, G.J. McChesney, F.
Gress and D.W. Anderson. 1995. Population size, trends and conservation
problems of the double-crested cormorant on the Pacific Coast of North America.
Colonial Waterbirds 18 (Special Publication 1):189-215.

Carter, H.R., Wilson, U.W., Lowe, R.W., Rodway, M.S., Manuwal, D.A., Takekawa, J.E.
& Yee, J.L. 2001. Population trends of the Common Murre (Uria aalge californica).
Pages 33-132 in Manuwal, D.A., Carter, H.R., Zimmerman, T.S. & Orthmeyer,
D.L., editors. Biology and conservation of the Common Murre in California, Oregon,
Washington, and British Columbia. Volume 1: Natural history and population
trends. U.S. Geological Survey, Information and Technology Report
USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0012, Washington, D.C.

141
Carter, H.R. and R.T. Golightly, editors. 2003. Seabird injuries from the 1997-1998 Point
Reyes Tarball Incidents. Unpublished report, Humboldt State University, Department
of Wildlife, Arcata, CA. Available at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/organizational/scientific/nrda/point%20reyes%20tarball
%20incidents.pdf

Command Trustee Council. 2004. Final Restoration Plan and Environmental

Assessment. Prepared by United States Fish and Wildlife Service, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, California Department of Fish and Game,
California Department of Parks and Recreation, California State Lands Commission.
Available at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/organizational/scientific/nrda/NRDAcommand.htm.

Conant, B. and D.J. Groves. 2003. Alaska-Yukon waterfowl breeding population survey:
May 16 to June 9, 2003. Unpublished report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Juneau,
AK.

Conroy, C.J., V. Bahn, M.S. Rodway, L. Ainsworth, and D. Newsom. 2002. “Estimating
Nest Densities for Marbled Murrelets in Three Habitat Suitability Categories in the
Ursus Valley, Clayoquot Sound”. In Multi-Scale Studies of Populations, Distribution
and Habitat Associations of Marbled Murrelets in Clayoquot Sound, British
Columbia. Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Victoria BC. pp. 121-137.

Copson, G.R. 1986. The diet of introduced rodents Mus musculus and Rattus rattus on
subantarctic Macquarie Island. Australian Wildlife Resources 13: 441-445.

Crafford, J.E. 1990. The role of feral house mice in ecosystem functioning on Marion
Island. In: Antarctic Ecosystems. Ecological Change and Conservation. K.R. Kerry
and G. Hempel (eds.). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

Crafford, J.E. and C.H. Scholtz. 1987. Quantitative differences between the insect faunas
of Sub-Antarctic Marion and Prince Edward Islands: A result of human intervention?
Biological Conservation. 40:255-262.

DeWeese, L. R., and D. W. Anderson. 1976. Distribution and breeding biology of

craveri's murrelet. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 18:155-
168.

Donlan, C. J., B. R. Tershy, B. S. Keitt, B. Wood, J. A. Sanchez, A. Weinstein, D. A.

Croll, and J. L. Alguilar. 2000. Island conservation action in northwest Mexico. Pages
330-338 in D. H. Browne, H. Chaney, and K. Mitchell, editors. Proceedings of the
Fifth California Islands Symposium. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History, Santa
Barbara, CA.

142
Drost, C. A., and D. B. Lewis. 1995. Xantus' Murrelet (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus). In
A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 164. The Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union,
Washington, D.C.

Estes, J.A. 1990. Growth and equilibrium in Sea Otter populations. Journal of Animal
Ecology 59: 385-401.

Everett, W. T., and D. W. Anderson. 1991. Status and conservation of the breeding
seabirds on offshore Pacific islands of Baja California and the Gulf of California. In J.
P. Croxall, editor. Seabird Status and Conservation : A Supplement. ICBP Technical
Publication No. 11. International Council for Bird Preservation, Cambridge, U.K.

Finney, S. K., S. Wanless, M.P. Harris, and P. Monaghan. 2001. The impact of gulls on
puffin reproductive performance: an experimental test of two management strategies.
Biological Conservation 98:159-165.

Ford, R.G., G.W. Page and H.R. Carter. 1987. Estimating mortality of seabirds from oil
spills. 1987 Oil Spill Conference Proceedings. Baltimore, MD.

Ford, R.G., M.L. Bonnell, D.H. Varoujean, G.W. Page, H.R. Carter, B.E. Sharp, D.
Heinemann and J.L Casey. 1996. Total Direct Mortality of Seabirds from the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill. American Fisheries Society Symposium 18:684-711.

Ford, R.G. and J.C. Ward. 1999. Carcass scavenging rates study following the M/V
Kure/Humboldt Bay Oil Spill. Draft report to the CDFG OSPR, Sacramento, CA.
R.G. Ford Consulting Company, Portland, OR.

Ford, R.G., D.G. Ainley, J.L. Casey, C.A. Keiper, L.B. Spear, and L.T. Ballance. 2004.
The biogeographic patterns of seabirds in the central portion of the California
Current. Marine Ornithology 32: 77-96.

Ford, R.G., N. A. Strom, and J. L. Casey. 2006. Acute seabird mortality resulting from
the S.S. Luckenbach and associated mystery oil spills, 1990-2003. Report prepared
for the Luckenbach Trustee Council.

Ford, R.G., B. Sharp, and M. Zafonte. 2006. The efficiency of searchers recovering
seabirds and waterfowl killed in the 1997 M/V Kure oil spill in central California.
Submitted to American Midland Naturalist.

Gaston, A.J. 1994. Ancient Murrelet (Synthliboramphus anitquus). In The Birds of North
America, No. 132 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA.

143
Gaston, A.J. and S.B.C. Dechesne. 1996. Rhinoceros Auklet (Cerorhinca monocerata).
In The Birds of North America, No. 212 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of
North Amierca, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Gerber L.R., M.T. Tinker, D.F. Doak, J.E. Estes, D.A. Jessup. 2004. Mortality sensitivity
in life-stage simulation analysis: A case study of Southern Sea Otters. Ecological
Applications 14: 1154-1165.

Gericke, S.M. 2006. Western & Clark’s Grebe Conservation and Management at Clear
Lake, California: Annual Report for Year One. Unpublished report. Prepared for
American Trader Trustee Council and National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Gress, F., R.W. Risebrough, D.W. Anderson, L.F. Kiff and J.R. Jehl, Jr. 1973.
Reproductive failures of double-crested cormorants in southern California and Baja
California. Wilson Bulletin 85:197-208.

Gress, F., E. Palacios, A.L. Harvey, L. Alfaro, D.W. Anderson and E. González. 2005.
Status of brown pelicans and three species of cormorants in the Mexican portion of
the Southern California Bight, 2002-2003. Unpublished report prepared for US
Geological Survey. California Institute of Environmental Studies, Davis, CA.

Hamilton, S. 1998. Determining burrow occupancy, fledging success and land-based

threats to mainland and near-shore island sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) colonies.
New Zealand Journal of Zoology 25: 443-453.

Hamilton, S. and H. Moller. 1995. Can PVA models using computer packages offer
useful conservation advice? Biological Conservation 73: 107-117.

Hampton, S. and M. Zafonte. 2005. An analysis of factors influencing beached bird

collection during the Luckenbach 2001-2002 oil spill. Proceedings of the Pacific
Seabird Group and The Waterbird Society Annual Meeting. Portland, OR.

Hampton, S., P.R. Kelly, and H.R. Carter. 2003. Tank vessel operations, seabirds, and
chronic oil pollution in California. Marine Ornithology 31:29-34.

Hampton, S., R.G. Ford, H.R. Carter, C. Abraham, and D. Humple. 2003. Chronic
oiling and seabird mortality from the sunken vessel S.S. Jacob Luckenbach in central
California. Marine Ornithology 31:35-41.

Hatch, S.A. and D.N. Nettleship. 1998. Northern Fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis). In The
Birds of North America, No. 361 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

Hatch, Jeremy J. and D.V. Weseloh. 1999. Double-crested Cormorant (Phalacrocorax

auritus). In The Birds of North America, No. 441 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The
Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

144
Hester, M. M. 1998. Abundance, reproduction, and prey of Rhinoceros Auklet,
Cerorhinca monocerata, on Año Nuevo Island, California. Master's Thesis. San
Francisco State University.

Holt, R. D. 1977. Predation, apparent competition, and the structure of prey communities.
Theoretical Population Biology 12:197-229.

Ivey, G.L. 2004. Conservation Assessment and Management Plan for Breeding Western
and Clark’s Grebes in California. Prepared for American Trader Trustee Council.
Available at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/organizational/scientific/nrda/FINAL%20GREBE%20RE
PORT.pdf .

Jaques, D.L. 1994. Range expansion and roosting ecology of non-breeding brown
pelicans. Unpublished M.S. thesis. University of California, Davis, California. 49
pp.

Jaques, D.L. and D.W. Anderson. 1987. Conservation implications of habitat use and
behavior of wintering Brown Pelicans. Unpublished report. UC Davis, PSRDP
program. 49 pp.

Jaques, D.L. and C. Strong. 2002. Disturbance of brown pelicans at communal roosts in
Southern and Central California. Prepared for the American Trader Trustee Council,
California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. October 2002.

Jehl, J. R. 1973. Studies of a declining population of brown pelicans in northwestern Baja

California. The Condor 75: 69-79.

Jessup, D.A., M. Miller, J. Ames, M. Harris, P. Conrad C. Kreuder and J.A.K. Mazet.
2004. The southern Sea Otter (Enhydra lutris nereis) as a sentinel of marine
ecosystem health. Ecohealth 1: 239-245.

Jones, C. 2000. Sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) breeding colonies on mainland South
Island, New Zealand: Evidence of decline and predictors of persistence. New Zealand
Journal of Zoology 27: 327-334.

Jones, C. 2002. A model for the conservation management of a 'secondary' prey: Sooty
shearwater (Puffinus griseus) colonies on mainland New Zealand as a case study.
Biological Conservation 108: 1-12.

Jones, C., S. Bettany, H. Moller, D. Fletcher, P. Lyver, and J. de Cruz. 2003. Burrow
occupancy and productivity at coastal sooty shearwater (Puffinus griseus) breeding
colonies, South Island, New Zealand: Can mark-recapture be used to estimate
burrowscope accuracy? Wildlife Research 30: 377-388.

145
Kaeding, H. B. 1905. Birds from the West coast of Lower California and adjacent
islands. The Condor 7.

Keiper, C.A., D.G. Ainley, S.G. Allen, and J.T. Harvey. 2005. Marine mammal
occurrence and ocean climate off central California, 1986 to 1994 and 1997 to 1999.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 289: 285-306.

Keitt, B. S., B. R. Tershy, and D. A. Croll. 2000. Black-vented Shearwater (Puffinus

opisthomelas). In The Birds of North America, No. 521 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.).
The Birds of North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

Keitt, B. S., C. Wilcox, B. R.Tershy, D. A. Croll and C. J. Donlan. 2002. The effect of
feral cats on the population viability of black-vented shearwaters (Puffinus
opisthomelas) on Natividad Island, Mexico. Animal Conservation 5: 217-223.

Kelly, J.P., K.L. Etienne. 2002. Abundance and distribution of the Common Raven and
American Crow in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. Western Birds 33: 202-
217.

Knechtel, H.A., N.M. Jones, M.A. Murphy, A.H. Robinson, K.J. Vickers, G.J.
McChesney, M.W. Parker, J. Buffa, H.R. Carter, S.W. Kress, R.T. Golightly, and
K.A. Peluso. 2003. Restoration of Common Murre Colonies in Central California:
Annual Report 2002. Unpublished report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, San
Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Newark, CA (prepared for the
Apex Houston Trustee Council).

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson,
L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S.
Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J.E. Saliva, W.J. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler,
and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbirds for the Americas. The North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbirds for the Americas Initiative, Washington,
DC, U.S.A.

Le Boeuf, B.L. and S. Kaza. 1981. The Natural History of Año Nuevo. The Boxwood
Press, Pacific Grove, CA.

Lewis, D.B. and B. Tyler. 1987. Management recommendations for coastal terrace and
island resources at Año Nuevo State Reserve. Unpublished Report to California
Department of Parks and Recreation, Año Nuevo State Reserve. Institute of Marine
Sciences, University of California Santa Cruz.

146
Liebezeit, J.R. and T.L. George. 2002 “A Summary of Predation by Corvids on
Threatened and Endangered Species in California and Management
Recommendations to Reduce Corvid Predation”. California Department of Fish and
Game, Species Conservatoin and Recovery Program Rpt. 2002-02, Sacramento, CA.
Available at http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/info/bm_research/bm_pdfrpts/2002_02.pdf.

Lyver, P. O.’B., Robertson, C. J. R., and Moller, H. 2000. Predation at Sooty Shearwater
(Puffinus griseus) colonies on the mainland, is there safety in numbers? Pacific
Conservation Biology 5: 347-357.

Manuwal, D. A. 1978. Effect of man on marine birds: a review. Pages 140-160 in

Wildlife and People: The Proceedings of the John S. Wright Forestry Conference.
Department of Forestry and Natural Resources and the Cooperative Extension
Service. Purdue University, Indiana.

Manuwal, D.A. and A.C. Thoresen. 1993. Cassin’s Auklet (Ptychoramphus aleuticus).
In The Birds of North America, No. 50 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of
North America, Inc. Philadelphia, PA.

McChesney, G.J. and D.L. Whitworth. 1995. Reoccupation and extension of the
southern breeding limits of tufted puffins and rhinoceros auklets in California.
Colonial Waterbirds 18: 79-90.

McChesney, G. J., and B. R. Tershy. 1998. History and status of introduced mammals
and impacts to breeding seabirds on the California Channel and northwestern Baja
California Islands. Colonial Waterbirds 21: 335-347.

McChesney, G.J., N.M. Jones, T.B. Poitras, K.J. Vickers, L.E. Eigner, H.R. Carter, R.T.
Golightly, S.W. Kress, M.W. Parker, K. Studnicki, P.J. Capitolo, and J.N. Hall. 2005.
Restoration of Common Murre Colonies in Central California: Annual Report 2004.
Unpublished report. US Fish and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National
Wildlife Refuge Complex. Newark, CA (prepared for the Apex Houston Trustee
Council).

McIntyre, J.W. and J.F. Barr. 1997. Common Loon (Gavia immer). In The Birds of
North America, No. 313 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington,
D.C.

Mckechnie, S. 2002. Decline of Sooty Shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) at Taiaroa Head,

South Island, New Zealand. Unpublished Report 837900. Available from Dept. of
Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, NZ

147
McShane, C., T. Hamer, H. Carter, G. Swartzman, V. Friesen, D. Ainley, R. Tressler, K.
Nelson, A. Burger, L. Spear, T. Mohagen, R. Martin, L. Henkel, K. Prindle, C.
Strong, and J. Keany. 2004. Evaluation report for the 5-year status review of the
marbled murrelet in Washington, Oregon, and California. Unpublished report.
EDAW, Inc. Seattle, Washington. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Region 1. Portland, OR.

Miller, G.S., S.R. Beissinger, H.R. Carter, B. Csuti, T.E. Hamer, and D.A. Perry. 1997.
Recovery Plan for the Threatened Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus)
in Washing, Oregon, and California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.

Miller, M.A.,I.A. Gardner, D. Paradies, K. Worcester, D. Jessup, E. Dodd, M. Harris, J.

Ames, A. Packham, and P.A. Conrad 2002. Coastal freshwater runoff is a risk factor
for Toxoplasma gondii infection of southern Sea Otters (Enhydra lutris nereis).
International Journal for Parasitology 32: 997-1006

Mills, K.L. 2001. Summary of owl pellet collection and analysis on Southeast Farallon
Island, CA. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. Unpublished report.

Miyazaki, Masamine. 1996. Vegetation cover, kleptoparasitism by diurnal gulls, and

timing of arrival of nocturnal rhinoceros auklets. Auk 113: 698-702.

Moors, P.J. 1985. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) on noises and Motukaqao Islands,
Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 8: 37-54.

Montrose Settlements Restoration Program. 2005. Final Restoration Plan and

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report.
Report of the Montrose Settlements Restoration Program, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service,
California Department of Fish and Game, California Department of Parks and
Recreation, and California State Lands Commission. Available at
http://www.montroserestoration.gov/pdf/msrpfinalrestorationplan.pdf

Moskoff, W. 2000. The impact of oil spills on birds: Looking back at the Exxon Valdez.
Birding, February, 2000: 44-49.

NPS. 2005. Monitoring Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area Network of National Parks.
DOI, NPS technical report.

Nelson, S.K. 1997. Marbled Murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus). In The Birds of

North Amierca, No. 313 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural
Sciences, Philadelphia, PA and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington,
D.C.

148
Nelson, S.K. and T.E. Hamer. 1995. Nest success and the effects of predation on
marbled murrelets. In: C.J. Ralph, G.L. Hunt, M.G. Raphael, and J. F. Piatt (Tech.
eds.), Ecology and Conservation of the Marbled Murrelet. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-
GTR-152. Albany, California: Pacific Southwest Experiment Station, Forest Service,
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture; 420 pp.

Newman, S.H., R.T. Golightly, E.N. Craig, H.R. Carter, and C. Kreuder. 2004. The
effects of petroleum exposure and rehabilitation on post-release survival, behavior,
and blood health indices: A Common Murre (Uria aalge) case study following the
Stuyvesant petroleum spill. Final Report. Oiled Wildlife Care Network, Wildlife
Health Center, UC Davis, CA.

NOAA. 1995. “Habitat Equivalency Analysis: An Overview.” Policy and Technical

Paper Series, No. 95-1, (Revised 2000).

NOAA. 1997. “Natural Resource Damage Assessment Guidance Document: Scaling

Compensatory Restoration Actions (Oil Pollution Act of 1990).” NOAA Damage
Assessment and Restoration Program, Washington, D.C., December, 1997.

NOAA. 1999. “Discounting and the Treatment of Uncertainty in Natural Resource

Damage Assessment.” NOAA Damage Assessment and Restoration Program,
Washington, D.C., February, 1999.

Nevins, H.R. and H.R. Carter. 2003. Age and sex of Common Murre Uria aalge
recovered during the 1997-98 Point Reyes Tarball Incidents in Central California.
Marine Ornithology 31:51-58.

Nur, N. 1993. Establishing the Demographic Parameters of the Marbled Murrelet: A

Report of the Point Reyes Birds Observatory to the Marbled Murrelet Recovery
Team.

Nur, N., R.G. Ford, and D.G. Ainley. 1994. Final Report: Computer Model of Farallon
Seabird Populations. Point Reyes Bird Observatory.

Nur, N., W.J. Sydeman, P. Pyle, L.E. Stenzel, D.G. Ainley, and T.G. Schuster. 1997.
Temporal, spatial, and species-specific patterns of chronic oiling as revealed by the
Beached Bird Survey, Farallon Oiled Bird Survey and bird rescue programs in central
California. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, California (prepared for
the California Department of Fish and Game).

Nur, N., W.J. Sydeman, D. Girman, T.B. Smith, D. Gilmer. 1999. Population status,
prospects, and risks faced by two seabirds of the California Current: the Ashy Storm-
Petrel, Oceanodromoa homochroa, and Xantus’s Murrelet, Synthliboramphus
hypoleucus. Final Report to the U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources
Division, 15 November 1999.

149
Nur, N. and W.J. Sydeman. 2002. Statistical Analysis of the 'k' Correction Factor Used in
Population Assessment of Murres: Implications for Monitoring. Unpublished report,
Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, California (prepared for U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex).

Oka, N. and M. Okuyama. 2000. Nutritional status of dead oiled rhinoceros auklets
(Cerorhinca monocerata) in the Southern Japan Sea. Marine Pollution Bulletin
40(4): 340-347.

Page, G.W., H.R. Carter, and R.G. Ford. 1990. Numbers of seabirds killed or debilitated
in the 1986 Apex Houston oil spill in central California. Studies in Avian Biology 14:
164-174.

Page, G. W., J. S. Warriner, J. C. Warriner, and P. W. C. Paton. 1995. Snowy Plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 154 (A. Poole and F.
Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and the American
Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.

Palacios, E. and E. Mellink. 2000. Nesting waterbirds on Islas San Martín and Todos
Santos, Baja California. Western Birds 31:184-189.

Parker, M., J. Boyce, R. Young, N. Rojek, C. Hamilton, V. Slowik, H. Gellerman, S.

Kress, H. Carter, G. Moore, and L.J. Cohen. 2000. Restoration of Common Murre
Colonies in Central California: Annual Report 1999. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Newark, CA (prepared for the Apex Houston Trustee Council).

Parker, M., C. Hamilton, I. Harrald, H. Knechtel, M. Murphy, V. Slowik, H. Carter, R.

Golightly, S. Kress, G. Moore, and S. Boehm. 2001. Restoration of Common Murre
Colonies in Central California: Annual Report 2000. Unpublished report. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex.
Newark, CA (prepared for the Apex Houston Trustee Council).

Peery, M.Z., S.R. Beissinger, and S. Newman. 2003. Post-breeding season movements
and distribution of Marbled Murrelets in Central California. Report prepared for the
Oiled Wildlife Care Network and the California Department of Fish and Game.

Peery, M.Z, S.R. Beissinger, S.H. Newman, E.B. Burkett, and T.D. Williams. 2004.
Applying the declining population paradigm: diagnosing causes of poor reproduction
in the marbled murrelet. Conservation Biology 18: 1088-1098.

Peery, M.Z., S.R. Beissinger, B.H. Becker, S.H. Newman, and E. Burkett. 2005.
Survival rates and rates of population change for marbled murrelets in central
California: Evidence for sink population? Proceedings of the Pacific Seabird Group
and The Waterbird Society Annual Meeting. Portland, OR

150
Peterlein, C.R. 2004. Distribution, protection and reproductive success of snowy plovers
at Point Reyes National Seashore in 2004. A report of PRBO Conservation Science,
Stinson Beach, CA.

Pickart, A. and J. Sawyer. 1999. Planning and monitoring dune restoration

projects. Fremontia 27:21-28.

Pyle, P. 2001. Age at first breeding and natal dispersal in a declining population of
Cassin's Auklet. Auk 118:996-1007.

Pyle, P. and R.P. Henderson. 1991. The birds of Southeast Farallon Island: Occurrence
and seasonal distribution of migratory species. Western Birds 22:41-84.

Raphael, M.G., D.E. Mack, J.M. Marzluff, and J.M. Luginbuhl. 2002. Effects of forest
fragmentation on populations of the marbled murrelet. Studies in Avian Biology 25:
221-235.

Record, C.R. and R. E. Marsh. 1988. Rodenticide residues in animal carcasses and their
relevance to secondary hazards. Proceedings of the Vertebrate Pest Conference,
University of California, Davis. 13:163-168.

Reidman, M. 1990. The Pinnipeds: Seals, Sea Lions, and Walruses. University of
California Press, Berkeley, CA.

Roletto, J., J. Mortenson, I. Harrald, J. Hall, and L. Grella. 2003. Beached bird surveys
and chronic oil pollution in central California. Marine Ornithology 31:21-28.

Roth, J.E., J.P. Kelly, W.J. Sydeman, M.W. Parker, and S.G. Allen. 1999. Ecosystem-
level Management of Common Ravens on the Point Reyes National Seashore. Report
to Point Reyes National Seashore.

Ruhlen M, and J. White. 1999. Distribution, protection and nest success of snowy
plovers at Point Reyes National Seashore. A report of PRBO to the National Park
Service.

Russell, R.W. 2002. Pacific Loon (Gavia pacifica) and Arctic Loon (Gavia arctica). In
The Birds of North Amierca, No. 657 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Savard, J.-P.L., D. Bordage, and A. Reed. 1998. Surf Scoter (Melanitta perspicillata). In
The Birds of North Amierca, No. 363 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

Schwarzbach, S.E., M. Stephenson, T. Ruhlen, S. Abbott, G.W. Page, and D. Adams. (in
press). Elevated mercury concentrations in failed eggs of Snowy Plovers at Point
Reyes National Seashore. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50: 1433-1456.

151
Sharp, B.E. 1996. Post-release survival of oiled, cleaned seabirds in North America.
Ibis 138: 222-228.

Shields, M. 2002. Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis). In The Birds of North

Amierca, No. 609 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc.,
Philadelphia, PA.

Sperduto, M.B., S.P. Powers, and M. Donlan. 2003. Scaling restoration to achieve
quantitative enhancement of loon, seaduck, and other seabird populations. Marine
Ecology Progress Series, 264:221-232.

Stuyvesant Trustee Council. 2004. Stuyvesant/Humboldt Coast Oil Spill Draft Damage
Assessment and Restoration Plan. Prepared by California Department of Fish and
Game, California State Lands Commission, and United States Fish and Wildlife
Service. Available at
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ospr/organizational/scientific/nrda/NRDAstuy.htm.

Suddjian, D.L. 2003. Summary of 2002 Marbled Murrelet Monitoring Surveys at Big
Basin and Portola State Parks. Unpublished report prepared for the California
Department of Fish and Game.

Suddjian, D.L. 2005a. Summary of 2005 Marbled Murrelet Monitoring Surveys in the
Santa Cruz Mountains. Unpublished report prepared for the California Department of
Fish and Game.

Suddjian, D.L. 2005b. Summary of 2005 Corvid Monitoring Surveys in the Santa Cruz
Mountains. Unpublished report prepared for the Command Oil Spill Trustee Council.

Swartzman, G. 1996. Resource modeling moves into the courtroom. Ecological

Modeling 92: 277-288.

Sydeman, W.J., N. Nur, E.B. McLaren, and G.J. McChesney. 1998. Status and trends of
the Ashy Storm-petrel on Southeast Farallon Island, California, based upon capture-
recapture analyses. The Condor, 100: 438-447.

Sydeman, W.J. and S.G. Allen. 1999. Pinnipeds in the Gulf of the Farallones; 25 years
of monitoring. Marine Mammal Science 15: 446-461.

Takekawa, J. 2005. Finding the needle in a big haystack: Locating Surf Scoter nests in
the northern boreal forest. Sound Waves (August 2005): 1-2. Available at
http://soundwaves.usgs.gov/2005/08/.

Taylor, R.W. 1993. The feasibility of rat eradication on Langara Island, British
Columbia. Unpublished report. Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service,
Pacific and Yukon Region, Delta, British Columbia.

152
Taylor, R.W., G.W. Kaiser, and M.C. Drever. 2000. Eradication of Norway rats for
recovery of seabird habitat on Langara Island, British Columbia. Restoration
Ecology 8: 151-160.

Tershy, B. R., C. J. Donlan, J. A. Sanchez-Pacheco, B. Wood, G. Howald, M. A.

Hermosillo, and N. Biavaschi. 2002. Island conservation in north-west Mexico: a
conservation model integrating research, education, and exotic mammal eradication.
In C. R. Veitch and M. N. Clout, editors. Turning the Tide: The Eradication of
Invasive Species. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.

Thayer, J.A., W.J. Sydeman, N.P. Fairman, and S.G. Allen. 1999. Attendance and effects
of disturbance on coastal Common Murre colonies at Point Reyes, California.
Waterbirds 22: 130-139.

Thayer, JT, et al. (in prep). Long-term responses of a marine bird Cerorhinca monocerata
to bottom-up and top-down forces: adult survival in the central California Current
system.

Torr, N. 2002. Eradication of rabbits and mice from subantarctic Enderby and Rose
Islands. In Veitch, C.R. and Clout, M.N. (eds.). Turning the Tide: The Eradication
of Invasive Species. IUCN SSC Invasive Species Specialist Group. IUCN, Gland,
Switzerland and Cambridge, UK.

Tracy, D.M., D. Schamel, and J. Dale. 2002. Red Phalarope (Phalaropus fulicarius). In
The Birds of North America, No 698 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North
America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

USFWS. 2001. Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) Pacific coast
population draft recovery plan. Portland, Oregon.

Veit, R.R., P. Pyle, and J.A. McGowan. 1996. Oceanic warming and long-term change
in pelagic bird abundance within the California current system. Marine Ecology
Progress Series 139:11-18.

Veit, R.R., McGowan, J.A., Ainley, D.G., Wahl, T.R., and P. Pyle. 1997. Apex marine
predator declines ninety percent in association with changing oceanic climate. Global
Change Biology 3:23-28.

Wallace, E. A. H., and G. E. Wallace. 1998. Brandt’s Cormorant (Phalacrocorax

penicillatus). In The Birds of North America, No 362 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The
Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, PA.

153
Warzybok, P.M., R.W. Bradley, and W.J. Sydeman. 2003. Population size and
reproductive performance of seabirds on Southeast Farallon Island, 2003. Report to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Farallon National Wildlife Refuge. Point Reyes
Bird Observatory. Stinson Beach, CA.

Watanuki, Yutaka. 1990. Daily activity pattern of Rhinoceros Auklets and

kleptoparasitism by Black-tailed Gulls. Ornis Scandinavica 21: 28-36.

White, J and S.G. Allen. 1999. Western Snowy Plover Management Plan.
Report to the National Park Service, Point Reyes National Seashore.

Whitworth, D.L., H.R. Carter, R.J. Young, J.S. Koepke, F. Gress, and S. Fangman. 2005.
Initial recovery of Xantus’s Murrelets following rat eradication on Anacapa Island,
California. Marine Ornithology 33: 131-137.

Wiese, F.K.. 2002. Estimation and impacts of seabird mortality from chronic marine oil
pollution off the coast of Newfoundland. PhD thesis, Department of Biology,
Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John’s , Newfoundland, Canada.

Williams, L.E., Jr., and T. Joanen. 1974. Age of first nesting in the brown pelican. Wilson
Bulletin 86: 279-280.

Wilson, Ulrich W. 1993. Rhinoceros Auklet burrow use, breeding success, and chick
growth: gull-free vs. gull-occupied habitat. Journal of Field Ornithology 64: 256-
261.

Wolf, S. 2002. The relative status and conservation of island breeding seabirds in
California and Northwest Mexico. Master of Science. UCSC, Santa Cruz.

Wright, H. W. 1913. The birds of San Martin Island, Lower California. The Condor 15:
207-210.

Zafonte, M. and S. Hampton. 2005. Lost bird-years: Quantifying injuries from acute
mortality events. Proceedings of the 2005 International Oil Spill Conference, May
15-19, 2005, Miami, FL.

154
6.0 Preparers

The following Trustees participated in the development of this DARP/EA:

Steve Hampton
Matt Zafonte
Kathy Verrue-Slater
Lisa V. Wolfe
California Department of Fish and Game
Office of Spill Prevention and Response
P.O. Box 944209
Sacramento, CA 94244-2090

Jennifer Boyce
NOAA Restoration Center
501 West Ocean Blvd., Suite 4470
Long Beach, CA 90802

Dan Welsh
Melanie Markin
Jim Haas
Charlene Andrade
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2800 Cottage Way, W-2605
Sacramento, CA 95825

Sarah Allen
National Park Service
Point Reyes National Seashore
1 Bear Valley Road
Point Reyes Station, CA 94956

Tammy Whittington
Joe Carriero
National Park Service
Restoration Program Office
P.O. Box 25287
Denver, CO 80225-0287

Chuck McKinley
U.S. Department of the Interior
Office of the Solicitor
1111 Jackson Street, Suite 735
Oakland, CA 94607

155
7.0 Agencies and Persons Consulted

The Trustees acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals for providing
expertise during injury assessment and restoration planning:

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES UNIVERSITIES

California Department of Fish and Game Humboldt State University

Esther Burkett Harry Carter
Dave Jessup Rick Golightly
Paul Kelly
University of California at Berkeley
California Department of Parks and Recreation Steve Beissinger
Portia Halbert Zach Peery
Joanne Kerbavez
Gary Strachan University of California at Davis
Dan Anderson
Golden Gate National Recreation Area
Daphne Hatch University of California at Santa Cruz
Breck Tyler
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine
Sanctuary
Maria Brown PRIVATE ORGANIZATIONS
Leslie Grella
Kelley Higgason Island Conservation and Ecology Group
Karen Reyna Greg Howald
Jan Roletto Brad Keitt
Jacob Sheppard
Oiled Wildlife Care Network Berny Tershey
Scott Newman
Mike Ziccardi PRBO Conservation Science
Chris Abraham
Point Reyes National Seashore Diana Humple
Dawn Adams Nadav Nur
Ben Becker Gary Page
Don Neubacher Lynne Stenzel
Jane Rodgers Bill Sydeman
Julie Thayer
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Dan Audet Sempervirens Fund
Mark Bertram Brian Steen
Fred Broerman
Joelle Buffa Oikonos
Jesse Irwin Michelle Hester
Gerry McChesney Hannah Nevins
Roy Lowe And the following consultants:
Mike Parker Kim Cooper
Bob Platte Glenn Ford, R.G. Ford Consulting Company
Mike Reardon Tom Hamer, Hamer Environmental
Doug Staller Laird Henkel, HT Harvey and Associates
Michael Swaim Sean McAllister, Mad River Biologists
US Geological Survey Catherine Peterlein
Margaret Petersen Dave Press
John Takekawa Steve Singer
David Suddjian, Biological Consulting Services

156
157