Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment

Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Draft May 2012

1 2 3 4 5

6 Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment 7 For Naval Base Coronado, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field 8 San Clemente Island 9 Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 10 Los Angeles County, California 11 12 13

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 July 2012

22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29

Abstract i 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This Page Intentionally Blank 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment

2 For the Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 3 4 Naval Base Coronado 5 Naval Auxiliary Landing Field 6 San Clemente Island 7 Los Angeles County, California 8

9 Abstract

10 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Department of the Navy 11 (Navy) to determine if an Environmental Impact Statement or Finding of No Significant Impact 12 (FONSI) should be prepared for the management strategies proposed in the Final Revised 13 Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) for Naval Auxiliary Landing Field 14 San Clemente Island (SCI), California. The purpose of the Revised INRMP is to meet statutory 15 requirements under the Sikes Act Improvement Act (Sikes Act [as amended]), Public Law 105- 16 85, Div. B Title XXIX, 18 November 1997, 111 Stat 2017-2019, 2020-2022, as well as the 17 requirements of various U.S. Department of Defense and Navy Instructions. The Revised 18 INRMP is designed to provide for the continuation of military activities while preserving, 19 protecting, and enhancing the natural resources and biodiversity of SCI. This Draft EA evaluates 20 the environmental consequences of the Action Alternative and a No Action Alternative. The 21 Action Alternative will implement the Revised INRMP for SCI. The No Action Alternative 22 would continue implementation of the existing INRMP for SCI completed in 2002 and current 23 management strategies. Implementation of the Revised INRMP will not violate the Anti- 24 Deficiency Act, 31 U.S. Code § 341, et seq.

25 For further information, contact:

26 Rebecca Loomis 27 Environmental Planner 28 U.S. Department of the Navy 29 Naval Facilities and Engineering Command Southwest 30 2730 McKean Street Bldg. 291 31 San Diego, CA 92136 32

Abstract i Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This Page Intentionally Blank 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

ii Abstract Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations

Acronym Phrase °C degree(s) Celsius °F degree(s) Fahrenheit µg/L microgram(s) per liter CFR Code of Federal Regulations CNPS California Native Plant Society CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DoD U.S. Department of Defense EA Environmental Assessment ER-L Effects Range Low ER-M Effects Range Medium FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact INRMP Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan m meter(s) NALF Naval Auxiliary Landing Field Navy U.S. Department of Navy NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration SCB Southern California Bight SCI San Clemente Island SHOBA Shore Bombardment Area SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board U.S.C. U.S. Code USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations iii Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This Page Intentionally Blank 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

iv List of Acronyms and Abbreviations Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Table of Contents

2 1.0 Purpose and Need ...... 1-1 3 1.1 Introduction ...... 1-1 4 1.2 Project Location ...... 1-1 5 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Project Action ...... 1-4 6 1.4 Decision to be Made ...... 1-4 7 1.5 Scope of Analysis ...... 1-5 8 1.6 Intergovernmental Coordination ...... 1-9 9 1.7 Public/Agency Involvement ...... 1-11 10 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives ...... 2-1 11 2.1 Reasonable Alternatives Screening Factors ...... 2-1 12 2.2 Description of Alternatives ...... 2-1 13 2.2.1 Proposed Action – Adopt and Implement the Revised INRMP 14 (Preferred Alternative) ...... 2-2 15 2.2.2 No Action Alternative – Retain 2002 INRMP and Current 16 Management Strategies ...... 2-2 17 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ...... 3-1 18 3.1 Biological Resources ...... 3-2 19 3.1.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-2 20 3.1.2 Vegetation Communities ...... 3-2 21 3.1.3 Marine Habitats ...... 3-2 22 3.1.3.1 Sandy Beaches ...... 3-2 23 3.1.3.2 Rocky Intertidal and Surfgrass Habitat ...... 3-6 24 3.1.3.2.1 Splash Zone ...... 3-6 25 3.1.3.2.2 Upper Intertidal ...... 3-6 26 3.1.3.2.3 Middle Intertidal ...... 3-6 27 3.1.3.2.4 Lower Intertidal ...... 3-6 28 3.1.3.3 Subtidal Habitats ...... 3-7 29 3.1.3.3.1 Soft Bottom ...... 3-7 30 3.1.3.3.2 Eelgrass ...... 3-7 31 3.1.3.3.3 Rocky Habitat and Kelp Forests ...... 3-8 32 3.1.3.4 Deep Water Habitats ...... 3-10 33 3.1.3.4.1 Rocky Habitat ...... 3-10 34 3.1.3.4.2 Soft Bottom ...... 3-10 35 3.1.3.5 Offshore Rocks and Islets ...... 3-11 36 3.1.4 Species Assemblages ...... 3-13 37 3.1.4.1 Plants ...... 3-13 38 3.1.4.2 Cryptogams ...... 3-13 39 3.1.4.3 Macroalgae ...... 3-13 40 3.1.4.3.1 Giant Kelp ...... 3-13

Table of Contents v Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 3.1.4.3.2 Bull Kelp ...... 3-13 2 3.1.4.4 Terrestrial Invertebrates ...... 3-14 3 3.1.4.4.1 Insects ...... 3-14 4 3.1.4.4.2 Fairy Shrimp ...... 3-14 5 3.1.4.4.3 Land Snails ...... 3-15 6 3.1.4.5 Marine Invertebrates ...... 3-15 7 3.1.4.6 Fishes ...... 3-15 8 3.1.4.6.1 Essential Fish Habitat ...... 3-16 9 3.1.4.7 Terrestrial Reptiles ...... 3-16 10 3.1.4.8 Birds ...... 3-16 11 3.1.4.8.1 Landbirds ...... 3-17 12 3.1.4.8.2 Shorebirds ...... 3-17 13 3.1.4.8.3 Seabirds ...... 3-17 14 3.1.4.9 Mammals ...... 3-18 15 3.1.4.9.1 Terrestrial Mammals ...... 3-18 16 3.1.4.9.2 Marine Mammals...... 3-18 17 3.1.4.9.3 Marine Mammals at San Clemente Island ...... 3-20 18 3.1.4.9.4 California Sea Lion...... 3-23 19 3.1.4.9.5 Northern Elephant Seal ...... 3-23 20 3.1.4.9.6 Pacific Harbor Seal ...... 3-23 21 3.1.4.10 Non-Native Invasive Species ...... 3-23 22 3.1.4.10.1 Invasive Terrestrial Plants ...... 3-24 23 3.1.4.10.2 Marine Invasive Species ...... 3-24 24 3.1.4.10.3 Non-native Terrestrial Wildlife Species ...... 3-25 25 3.1.5 Special Status Species ...... 3-26 26 3.1.5.1 Federally Listed Plant Species ...... 3-26 27 3.1.5.1.1 San Clemente Island Lotus ...... 3-26 28 3.1.5.1.2 San Clemente Island Indian Paintbrush ...... 3-27 29 3.1.5.1.3 San Clemente Island Larkspur ...... 3-27 30 3.1.5.1.4 San Clemente Island Woodland-Star ...... 3-29 31 3.1.5.1.5 San Clemente Island Bush-Mallow ...... 3-30 32 3.1.5.1.6 Santa Cruz Island Rock-Cress ...... 3-30 33 3.1.5.2 Non-Federally Listed Plant Species ...... 3-31 34 3.1.5.3 Federally Listed Wildlife Species ...... 3-35 35 3.1.5.3.1 White Abalone ...... 3-36 36 3.1.5.3.2 Black Abalone ...... 3-37 37 3.1.5.3.3 Island Night Lizard ...... 3-38 38 3.1.5.3.4 San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike ...... 3-39 39 3.1.5.3.5 San Clemente Sage Sparrow ...... 3-40 40 3.1.5.3.6 Western Snowy Plover ...... 3-41 41 3.1.5.4 Xantus’s Murrelet ...... 3-42

vi Table of Contents Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 3.1.5.4.1 Sea Turtles ...... 3-43 2 3.1.5.5 Non-Federally Listed Wildlife Species ...... 3-45 3 3.1.5.5.1 San Clemente Island Fox ...... 3-45 4 3.1.6 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-46 5 3.1.6.1 Proposed Action ...... 3-46 6 3.1.6.2 No Action Alternative ...... 3-48 7 3.2 Topography, Geology, and Soils ...... 3-48 8 3.2.1 Affected Environment ...... 3-48 9 3.2.1.1 Topography ...... 3-48 10 3.2.1.2 Geology and Soils ...... 3-49 11 3.2.1.2.1 Soil Erosion ...... 3-50 12 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-51 13 3.2.2.1 Proposed Action ...... 3-51 14 3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative ...... 3-52 15 3.3 Water Resources ...... 3-53 16 3.3.1 Regulations ...... 3-53 17 3.3.1.1 Clean Water Act ...... 3-53 18 3.3.1.2 State Water Quality Control Board ...... 3-53 19 3.3.2 Affected Environment ...... 3-54 20 3.3.2.1 Nearshore Marine Water Quality ...... 3-54 21 3.3.2.2 Nearshore Sediment Quality ...... 3-55 22 3.3.2.3 Freshwater Water Quality ...... 3-56 23 3.3.2.3.1 Surface Water ...... 3-56 24 3.3.2.3.2 Groundwater ...... 3-56 25 3.3.2.4 Wetlands, Vernal Pools, and Other Aquatic Habitats ...... 3-56 26 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences ...... 3-57 27 3.3.3.1 Proposed Action ...... 3-57 28 3.3.3.2 No Action Alternative ...... 3-58 29 4.0 Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...... 4-1 30 4.1 Cumulative Effects ...... 4-1 31 4.1.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts ...... 4-1 32 4.1.2 Geographic Boundaries for Cumulative Impacts Analysis ...... 4-1 33 4.2 Other Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions ...... 4-1 34 4.2.1 San Clemente Island Fuel Storage and Distribution System ...... 4-1 35 4.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts by Resource Area ...... 4-2 36 4.3.1 Climate Change ...... 4-2 37 4.3.2 Biological Resources ...... 4-3 38 4.3.3 Topography, Geology, and Soils ...... 4-3 39 4.3.4 Water Resources ...... 4-3 40 5.0 Other NEPA Considerations ...... 5-1

Table of Contents vii Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 5.1 Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative, 2 and the Objectives of Federal, State, Local, and Regional Land Use Plans, Policies, 3 and Controls ...... 5-1 4 5.2 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Various Alternatives and 5 Mitigation Measures being considered ...... 5-1 6 5.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Natural or Depletable Resources ...... 5-1 7 5.4 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environmental and Long-Term 8 Productivity ...... 5-2 9 5.5 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be Avoided and Are 10 Not Amenable to Mitigation ...... 5-2 11 6.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted ...... 6-1 12 7.0 List of Preparers ...... 7-1 13 8.0 References ...... 8-1 14 Appendix A: Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-1

15 List of Maps 16 Map 1-1. San Clemente Island regional location...... 1-2 17 Map 1-2. Naval Auxiliary Land Field San Clemente Island Revised Integrated Natural Resources 18 Management Plan planning footprint...... 1-3 19 Map 3-1. Vegetation communities of San Clemente Island...... 3-3 20 Map 3-2. Nearshore Habitat and Kelp Forests at San Clemente Island ...... 3-9 21 Map 3-3. San Clemente Island and the California Coastal National Monument ...... 3-12 22 Map 3-4. Marine Mammal Haul Out Locations on San Clemente Island...... 3-22

23 List of Tables 24 Table ES-1-1. Summary of potential environmental effects by alternative...... x 25 Table 3-1. Potential impacts on resource areas by alternative...... 3-1 26 Table 3-2. Vegetation alliances on San Clemente Island (Institute of Wildlife Studies 2011, 27 unpublished data)...... 3-4 28 Table 3-3. Species known to occur in nearshore waters of San Clemente Island based on published 29 sources for which Essential Fish Habitat must be reviewed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act...... 3-16 30 Table 3-4. Marine mammal species (Navy 2009)...... 3-19 31 Table 3-5. Density of marine mammals encountered in waters adjacent to SCI during aerial 32 surveys in 1998 and 1999 (Carretta et al. 2000)...... 3-21 33 Table 3-6. Federally Endangered Plant Species found on San Clemente Island...... 3-26 34 Table 3-7. Non-Federally Listed Plant Species on San Clemente Island...... 3-31 35 Table 3-8. Federally listed wildlife species found, or potentially, on San Clemente Island...... 3-36 36 Table 3-9. Summary of potential environmental effects on biological resources...... 3-46 37 Table 3-10. Summary of potential environmental effects on topography, geology, and soil resources. . 3-51 38 Table 3-11. Water pollutant concentrations in surface waters at San Clemente Island (Navy 2006)...... 3-54 39 Table 3-12. Contaminant concentrations in bottom sediments at San Clemente Island (National 40 Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 1999; Navy 2006)...... 3-56 41 Table 3-13. Summary of potential environmental effects on water resources...... 3-57 42

viii Table of Contents Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Executive Summary

2 This Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) addresses the potential environmental impacts 3 associated with the proposed implementation of the Revised Integrated Natural Resources 4 Management Plan (INRMP) for Naval Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island (SCI), Los 5 Angeles County, California. This EA will determine if an Environmental Impact Statement or 6 Finding of No Significant Impact should be prepared for the implementation of the Revised 7 INRMP. This Draft EA has been prepared in compliance with the: 8 . National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 United States Code § 4321, as 9 amended); 10 . Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 11 of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations §§ 1500-1508 [1997]); 12 . Navy Procedures Implementing NEPA (32 Code of Federal Regulations Part § 775 [2004]); 13 and 14 . Chief of Naval Operations Guidance for preparing NEPA documents for INRMPs (Navy 15 INRMP Guidance, April 2006). 16 . Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C Change Transmittal 1, Environmental 17 Readiness Program Manual (July 2011). 18 The INRMP must meet statutory requirements under the Sikes Act Improvement Act, Public Law 19 105-85, Div. B Title XXIX, 18 November 1997, 111 Stat 2017-2019, 2020-2022. Under the Sikes 20 Act (as amended) the Secretary of Defense is directed to “carry out a program to provide for the 21 conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources on military installations.” Therefore, each 22 military installation in the United States is required to develop and implement an INRMP, unless it 23 has been determined that the installation has an “absence of significant natural resources.” 24 The current INRMP, completed in 2002, was updated to address recent changes in U.S. 25 Department of Defense and Navy guidelines, new federally listed and candidate species, the 26 expansion of the marine management footprint, and to integrate new natural resources 27 management strategies for SCI since the 2002 INRMP was written. 28 The range of reasonable alternatives in this EA was identified by evaluating their ability to meet 29 the purpose and need for action (Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C) and: 30 . Are based on the principles of ecosystem management; 31 . Provide for sustainable multipurpose use of natural resources; 32 . Maintain compliance with relevant environmental regulations; 33 . Provide for public access for the use of natural resources subject to safety and military 34 security considerations; 35 . Establish specific natural resources management objectives and timeframes for the Proposed 36 Action; and 37 . Prevent no net loss in the capability of military lands to support the military mission of the 38 installation. 39 The alternatives considered in this EA are:

Executive Summary ix Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 . Alternative 1 – Proposed Action/Preferred Alternative: Implementation of the Revised 2 INRMP. 3 . Alternative 2 – No Action Alternative: Continued implementation of the 2002 INRMP and 4 current natural resources management strategies. 5 The Proposed Action would adopt the Revised INRMP and implement management strategies for 6 a variety of resource areas. The specific projects proposed are shown in Appendix A of this EA.

7 Table ES-1-1. Summary of potential environmental effects by alternative. No Action Alternative – Proposed Action – Resource Area Retain the 2002 INRMP and Adopt Revised INRMP Current Management Strategies Biological Resources Biological resources would benefit through surveys and Biological resources would be affected monitoring projects. These projects would help to by minor disturbance to resources improve understanding of habitats and plant and wildlife during monitoring, invasive species species on SCI, which can lead to improved control, and fire management. Would management strategies and priorities. Restoration/ create long-term benefits to federally enhancement would increase habitat function. Minor protected species that were listed prior disturbance to resources during survey/monitoring and to 2002. restoration/ enhancement projects would occur. Long- term benefits to all biological resources in the SCI footprint through fire and invasive species management. Topography, Geology, Topography, geology, and soil resources would benefit Topography, geology, and soil and Soil Resources through erosion control, habitat resources would benefit from erosion restoration/enhancement, and fire management. These control and fire management. Best projects would help to prevent erosion around the island. management practices would be used Monitoring and survey activities could produce a small to protect and restore soil productivity amount of erosion from utilizing unpaved roads and on SCI. other project areas. However, the long-term benefits of improved management strategies and priorities of biological resources outweigh these potential effects. Best management practices would be implemented to minimize potential impacts. Water Resources Water resources would benefit through water quality Water resources would benefit though surveys. These surveys help improve understanding of water conservation practices and water quality issues on SCI and can lead to improved erosion control procedures. management strategies and priorities. Benefits to water resources would also occur with increased erosion control of unnatural run-off though habitat restoration/enhancement activities.

x Executive Summary Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 1.0 Purpose and Need

2 1.1 Introduction

3 This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared by the U.S. Department of the Navy 4 (Navy) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and other 5 applicable laws. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island (SCI) proposes to adopt 6 and implement a Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan (INRMP) (Navy 7 2012). This EA evaluates potential impacts that may be associated with the implementation of 8 the natural resources management strategies outlined in the Revised INRMP for SCI. The overall 9 natural resources management objectives in the Revised INRMP include vegetation 10 management, wildland fire management, fish and wildlife management, land (including surface 11 water) management, marine ecosystem management, and outdoor recreation.

12 This EA analyzes two alternatives: the Proposed Action, which proposes adoption and 13 implementation of the Revised INRMP, and a No Action Alternative that would continue to use 14 the current INRMP and maintain current approaches to natural resources management. The Navy 15 is the action proponent, land owner, and lead federal agency for NEPA compliance and 16 preparation of the EA.

17 1.2 Project Location

18 SCI, a Navy-owned and operated island, is the southernmost island in the Channel Islands, an 19 archipelago of eight islands located in the Southern California Bight. The Southern California 20 Bight is a recessed curve in the southwestern California coastline from Point Conception located 21 in Santa Barbara County to just south of the Mexican border. The island is located 68 nautical 22 miles (109 kilometers) west-northwest of the city of San Diego (Map 1-1). SCI is approximately 23 21 miles (34 kilometers) long and 4 miles (6 kilometers) at its widest point. The island contains 24 36,480 acres (14,763 hectares).

25 The Revised INRMP management footprint (Map 1-2) includes: all 56 square meters of land on the 26 island; 46 offshore rocks, varying in size; and the nearshore marine environment out to three 27 nautical miles. SCI has delineated safety zones around the island due to the expanded marine 28 footprint. This EA covers the documented habitats and natural resources conditions within this area.

Purpose and Need 1-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

2 Map 1-1. San Clemente Island regional location.

1-2 Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

2 Map 1-2. Naval Auxiliary Land Field San Clemente Island Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan 3 planning footprint.

Purpose and Need 1-3 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 1.3 Purpose and Need for the Project Action

2 The need for the Revised INRMP is to meet statutory requirements imposed by the Sikes Act 3 Improvement Act of 1997 (Sikes Act [as amended]; 16 United States Code [U.S.C.] § 670a et 4 seq.), regulatory mandates of the Endangered Species Act, and requirements of various 5 Department of Defense and Navy Instructions. The Sikes Act (as amended) requires 6 development of an INRMP for all Department of Defense military installations in the United 7 States that contain “significant natural resources.” An INRMP is a long-term planning document 8 designed to guide a natural resources manager in the management of natural resources to support 9 the military installation mission.

10 The current INRMP and associated EA were completed in 2002. The Revised INRMP is needed 11 to address changes to natural resources, projects, facilities, and military use patterns on SCI. The 12 Revised INRMP is also needed to provide natural resources management objectives for the 13 expanded marine footprint, as well as new federally listed, delisted, and candidate species.

14 The Revised INRMP is designed to implement an ecosystem-based conservation program that 15 would provide for the conservation and rehabilitation of natural resources in a manner consistent 16 with the military mission. The Revised INRMP would integrate and coordinate all natural resources 17 management activities, provide for sustainable multipurpose uses of natural resources, and provide 18 for public access to marine safety zones for the use of natural resources, which are subject to safety 19 and military security considerations. The Revised INRMP management objectives are to integrate 20 vegetation management, wildland fire management, fish and wildlife management, land (including 21 surface water) management, marine ecosystem management, and outdoor recreation as practical and 22 consistent with the military mission and established land and marine water uses.

23 The purpose of the Revised INRMP is to provide the Navy with a long-term strategy for 24 managing the natural resources on SCI with an integrated, ecosystem-based approach while 25 providing for “no net loss” in the capability of installation lands to support the military mission.

26 1.4 Decision to be Made

27 The decision to be made as a result of the analysis in this EA is whether preparation of an 28 Environmental Impact Statement is necessary. An Environmental Impact Statement is needed if 29 it is anticipated that the Proposed Action would have significant impacts on the human or natural 30 environment. Should an Environmental Impact Statement be deemed unnecessary, the Proposed 31 Action or an Alternative Action from this EA would be selected for implementation. This 32 selection would be documented in a Finding of No Significant Impact.

1-4 Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 1.5 Scope of Analysis

2 The NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality regulations, and Navy NEPA procedures specify 3 that an EA should only carry forward detailed analysis of those resource areas potentially subject 4 to impacts from one or more of the alternatives. This EA includes an analysis of potential 5 environmental impacts and beneficial effects associated with the Proposed Action and No Action 6 Alternative. Resources carried forward for detailed analysis in this EA include: topography, 7 geology and soil resources; water resources; and biological resources.

8 The following resource areas do not warrant detailed analysis in this EA. It is anticipated that 9 there would be no effects, or only minimal effects, to these resource areas upon implementation 10 of the alternatives.

11 Air Quality 12 Only short-term, ephemeral effects on air quality are expected from heavy equipment operation 13 associated with restoration and from vehicles used for travel to and from sites. Machinery and 14 vehicles used and the amount of emissions produced while performing activities would vary by 15 the activity. The net effect of restoration work in the long-term would be an improvement in air 16 quality through erosion control by native vegetation.

17 Any air quality impacts to natural resources are expected to be minor and to have no significant 18 impacts; therefore, this category is not carried forward for analysis.

19 Noise 20 The noises associated with the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would be from 21 surveying, monitoring, and small natural resources improvement projects. Noises from these 22 activities would be generated from mechanical equipment, motor vehicles, and human traffic. 23 Machinery used and the amount of noise produced while performing activities would vary by the 24 activity. Any noises associated with the alternatives are anticipated to be short-term and to take 25 place during daylight hours.

26 Any noise impacts to natural resources are expected to be minor and to have no significant 27 impacts; therefore, this category is not carried forward for analysis.

28 Cultural Resources 29 Compliance with Section 106 and conformance with the 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 30 800 process for the Revised INRMP is accomplished under the Programmatic Agreement among 31 the Commanding Officer, Naval Base Coronado, California State Historic Preservation Officer, 32 and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regarding Operation and Developmental 33 undertakings at San Clemente Island, California. The SCI Programmatic Agreement streamlines 34 compliance with Section 106 by authorizing SCI to define an undertaking’s area of potential

Purpose and Need 1-5 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 effect, and to make determinations of effect without further consultation with the California State 2 Parks Office of Historic Preservation.

3 In accordance with the Programmatic Agreement, the SCI Cultural Resources Management 4 Program has initially determined that the publishing of the SCI Revised INRMP is an 5 undertaking that meets the standard under 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1) for being a type of activity that 6 does not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Accordingly, publishing the 7 SCI Revised INRMP has no further obligations under Section 106.

8 However, implementation of future and emergent projects as outlined in Chapter 6 of the SCI 9 Revised INRMP are indeterminate and will require further review by qualified SCI cultural 10 resources personnel. Such review will proceed in accordance with Stipulation Number 1 of the 11 SCI Programmatic Agreement, which guides determination of effect consistent with 36 CFR 12 800.4 and 800.5 required to demonstrate compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic 13 Preservation Act.

14 Implementation of the alternatives would not result in any impact to cultural resources, and 15 would not in itself have the potential to affect historic properties; therefore, this category is not 16 carried forward for detailed analysis.

17 Socioeconomics 18 No census data are available for SCI because the installation is fully owned and operated by the 19 Department of Defense and on-island personnel are stationed there temporarily. Most personnel 20 who work on SCI are stationed in San Diego, either at Naval Base Coronado, Naval Station San 21 Diego, or Naval Base Point Loma.

22 SCI is isolated from direct social and economic ties with surrounding communities since it is a 23 remote island. However, SCI has indirect social and economic impacts to the mainland. The city 24 of San Diego has the largest concentration of military in the world. The military has been an 25 important part of San Diego’s economy by employing local civilians, contracting with local 26 companies, and investing in research. In Fiscal Year 2009, defense-industry activities contributed 27 $30.5 billion to the economy and helped to sustain approximately 354,627 jobs with an earnings 28 impact of $16.3 billion. These impacts represent 15.1%, 8.1%, and 10.9% increases, 29 respectively, from Fiscal Year 2008 (San Diego Military Advisory Council 2011).

30 Implementation of the alternatives would not impact socioeconomics. There would be no 31 disproportionately high environmental or health impacts on low-income or minority populations 32 from implementation of the alternatives. Therefore, this resource area is not carried forward for 33 detailed analysis.

34 Land Use 35 The primary function of SCI has been to support the research and development of many of the 36 Navy’s weapon systems. The island is the Navy’s only remaining live fire range and is part of

1-6 Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 the Southern California Range Complex, which is the principle training range located in southern 2 California (Navy 2012). Land, air, and sea ranges provide the Navy, Marine Corps, and other 3 military services space and facilities to conduct readiness training and test and evaluation 4 activities. Activities encompass a wide range of military mission exercises, including aviation 5 training, air warfare, surface warfare, undersea warfare, and amphibious warfare, among others.

6 Implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would not change any land 7 use patterns or land ownership in the area. There would be no impact to land use on SCI; 8 therefore, this resource is not carried forward for further analysis.

9 Coastal Zone Management 10 The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) of 1972 (16 U.S.C. Section 1451) encourages 11 coastal states to be proactive in managing coastal zone uses and resources. The CZMA 12 established a voluntary coastal planning program and participating states submit a Coastal 13 Management Plan to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration for approval. Under 14 the CZMA, federal agency actions within or outside the coastal zone that affect any land or water 15 use or natural resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner that is consistent to 16 the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of the approved state management 17 programs. Each state defines its coastal zone in accordance with the CZMA. Excluded from any 18 coastal zone are lands the use of which by law is subject solely to the discretion of the federal 19 government, or which is held in trust by the federal government (16 U.S.C. 1453). Additionally, 20 this project is located in a designated security zone, which is under the exclusive jurisdiction of 21 the Navy and is not open to the public.

22 Due to the programmatic nature of the Revised INRMP, no consultation with the California 23 Coastal Commission is required at this time. There are, however, specific actions/projects 24 discussed within the Revised INRMP that may require additional environmental analysis, per 25 NEPA, prior to being implemented. If and when such projects are to be carried forward, the 26 Navy would, as necessary, engage in consultation with the California Coastal Commission 27 should the project have potential to affect any coastal use or resource (even if conducted entirely 28 within a federal enclave).

29 Transportation/Traffic 30 SCI is serviced by a network of roads, mostly unpaved, connecting the north end of the island 31 with the south. San Clemente Island Ridge Road is the main transportation line through the 32 island. The majority of secondary roads are not maintained. Wilson Cove and the area around the 33 airport consist of the most utilized roads; however, traffic in this area is minimal.

34 None of the alternatives would change transportation or traffic routes due to their 35 implementation. There would be no impact to transportation on SCI; therefore, this resource is 36 not carried forward for further analysis.

Purpose and Need 1-7 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Utilities 2 Utilities are operated and maintained by the Public Works Center, located on the island. This 3 agency is responsible for water treatment, storage and distribution, sewage treatment, power 4 generation, maintaining the Public Works Center Transportation Center, and delivering diesel 5 fuel and potable water to island ranges that are not connected to the power or water utilities 6 systems.

7 Water 8 Fresh water is transported by barge weekly from the mainland since it is not available on the 9 island. The water is tested at Naval Station San Diego, prior to shipment. Water stored on SCI is 10 tested daily to comply with drinking water standards.

11 Industrial stormwater runoff from SCI into the ocean is regulated under the state-wide Industrial 12 Stormwater Permit. The Navy is complying with the requirements of that permit, including 13 implementation of relevant and appropriate Best Management Practices during construction 14 activities.

15 Sewage and Solid Waste 16 The San Clemente Island Landfill is operated under a solid waste facility permit issued by the 17 Los Angeles County Department of Health Services. Hazardous materials must be shipped in a 18 container to Naval Base Coronado by barge.

19 Sewage is treated on the island at the Wilson Cove Wastewater Treatment Plant and released 20 through an outfall pipe into the Pacific Ocean. The Navy is permitted to discharge an average of 21 95,000 liters per day (25,000 gallons per day) of treated domestic wastewater under National 22 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number CA110175. Comminution, aeration, 23 clarification, chlorination, and dechloration processes treat domestic sewage prior to its 24 discharge into the rocky intertidal zone. Some of the water is reclaimed for dust control on the 25 tank road. The Navy has requested authorization from the Regional Water Quality Control Board 26 to extend the discharge pipe beyond the rocky intertidal zone and to increase the discharge rate to 27 48,000 gallons per day (Navy 2006).

28 Electricity 29 The power plant, located in Wilson Cove, generates a majority of the power used at SCI. 30 Additional electricity is provided by wind turbines, which were installed in 1998 and 1999. The 31 wind turbines provide at least 25% of the island’s total electricity demand with optimum winds 32 (U.S. Department of Energy 2010).

33 Implementation of the Proposed Action or No Action Alternative would not change how utilities 34 are provided or their infrastructure. Therefore, there would be no impact, or only minor impacts, 35 to utilities at SCI.

1-8 Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Public Health and Safety 2 Public access to SCI is limited to in-water activities. Wilson Cove and Safety Zone G are 3 permanently closed to the public and other Safety Zones are intermittently closed for safety 4 during specific military activities. None of the alternatives would present health risks that affect 5 children or the public; therefore, this resource area is not carried forward for detailed analysis.

6 Visual Quality 7 There is relatively little human development aside from Wilson Cove, the airfield, and the 8 communications tower on Mount Thirst. The public does not have access to the island and 9 typically may only view the island from vessels. The east side of the island contains a high, steep 10 shore with numerous marine terraces and scrub vegetation. The northern end of the island is the 11 most developed; however, it contains much of the same landforms and vegetation found in other 12 areas of the island. The southern end is mostly composed of Pyramid Cove, which includes a 13 sandy beach and marsh, fronting a relatively steep rise in topography. The remainder of the 14 island’s shore is rocky. There are many small offshore rocks along the entire coast of the island.

15 Through implementation of the alternatives, minor improvements to aesthetics may result from 16 landscaping and vegetation management practices. Any additional impacts to vegetation would 17 be analyzed under biological resources. This resource is not carried forward for detailed analysis 18 because any aesthetic changes would be minor.

19 Public Services 20 Security requirements restrict public access to SCI given its location and the nature of its military 21 mission. Access on the island is limited to active and retired U.S. military and civilian personnel, 22 their immediate families, and their guests. Many areas on the island have additional limitations 23 and prohibited access. However, SCI currently has a golf driving range, bowling alley, 24 gymnasium, and numerous hiking and jogging trails. On-island personnel may also fish, swim, 25 or snorkel in approved nearshore areas.

26 Commercial and recreational fishermen and SCUBA divers utilize the waters around SCI 27 regularly. However, access is prohibited in Wilson Cove and Safety Zone G at all times, while 28 others areas are intermittently closed, due to military activities.

29 Implementation of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative would not result in any changes 30 to public services. Therefore, this resource area is not carried forward for detailed analysis.

31 1.6 Intergovernmental Coordination

32 Interagency cooperation contributed to the development of the Revised INRMP, as required by 33 the Sikes Act (as amended). Participation ensures the mutual agreement among these parties 34 concerning conservation, protection, and management of natural resources on SCI. 35 Representatives from the following agencies are solicited to comment on the Revised INRMP:

Purpose and Need 1-9 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 . U.S. Naval Facilities Engineering Command 2 . U.S. Navy Region Southwest 3 . National Marine Fisheries Service 4 . U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5 . Marine Protected Area Monitoring Enterprise 6 . National Park Service 7 . Bureau of Land Management 8 . Catalina Conservancy 9 . California Department of Fish and Game 10 . State Water Resources Control Board

11 This EA has been prepared pursuant to the following:

12 . NEPA of 1969 (42 U.S.C. § 4321, as amended) 13 . Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of 14 NEPA (40 CFR §§ 1500-1508 [1997]) 15 . Navy Procedures Implementing NEPA (32 CFR Part § 775 [2004]) 16 . Chief of Naval Operations Guidance for preparing NEPA documents for INRMPs (Navy 17 INRMP Guidance, April 2006) 18 . Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C Change Transmittal 1, Environmental 19 Readiness Program Manual (July 2011)

20 The NEPA requires consideration of potential impacts to the environment in the decision-making 21 process for federal actions. The Council on Environmental Quality regulations implement the 22 “action forcing” provisions of NEPA to ensure that federal agencies comply with NEPA. The 23 Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C provides specific guidance for the Navy in 24 preparing environmental documentation for proposed actions subject to NEPA.

25 In preparing this EA, the Navy has taken the following legal authorities into account.

26 . Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. §§ 1251-1387) 27 . CZMA (16 U.S.C. § 1451) 28 . Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1531-1544) 29 . Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1882) 30 . Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 703-712) 31 . Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. §§ 1361–1362, §§ 1371–1389, §§ 1401–1407) 32 . Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act (16 U.S.C. § 1431 et seq. & 33 U.S.C. § 1401 33 et seq.) 34 . National Historic Preservation Act ( 16 U.S.C. §§ 470-470x)

1-10 Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 . Sikes Act (as amended) (16 U.S.C. §§ 670a-670o, 74 Stat. 1052) 2 . Executive Order 11990 - Protection of Wetlands

3 1.7 Public/Agency Involvement

4 The Navy will publish a Notice of Availability of the Draft EA for three consecutive days (To Be 5 Determined) in the San Diego Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times newspapers. The Notice of 6 Availability will describe the Proposed Action, solicit public input, and announce that the Draft 7 EA will be available for public review for 15 days (To Be Determined) at the San Diego Public 8 Library, 820 E Street, San Diego, California 92101, and for public viewing online on the Navy 9 website (To Be Determined). The Notice of Availability and Finding of No Significant Impact, if 10 applicable, will also be published in the San Diego Union Tribune and Los Angeles Times 11 newspapers and available for public review at the San Diego Public Library. Copies of the EA in 12 CD-ROM format will be made available to any interested parties upon request.

Purpose and Need 1-11 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This Page Intentionally Blank 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

1-12 Purpose and Need Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 2.0 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives

2 The Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions 3 of the National Environmental Policy Act establishes a number of policies for federal agencies, 4 including “using the National Environmental Policy Act process to identify and assess the 5 reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that will avoid or minimize negative effects of 6 these actions on the quality of the human environment” (40 Code of Federal Regulation 1500.2 7 [e]). This chapter describes the two alternatives, the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative, 8 associated with this Environmental Assessment (EA).

9 2.1 Reasonable Alternatives Screening Factors

10 The range of reasonable alternatives for this EA was identified by evaluating their ability to meet 11 the purpose and need for action and their ability to meet certain criteria as defined by the Navy 12 guidance (Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 5090.1C). To be considered reasonable, an 13 alternative must be consistent with these criteria:

14 . Compatibility between military mission and potential resources use 15 . Compatibility and compliance with relevant applicable federal laws, Department of Defense 16 (DoD), and Navy policies 17 . Does not degrade or unnecessarily consume existing natural resources 18 . Compliance with all military land use security and safety requirements 19 . Does not result in a loss of the installation’s lands to support the military mission of the 20 installation 21 . Provides ecosystem sustainability

22 2.2 Description of Alternatives

23 Only the Proposed Action Alternative (Implement the Revised Integrated Natural Resources 24 Management Plan [INRMP]) and No Action Alternative (Retain 2002 INRMP) were deemed to 25 be reasonable and meaningful alternatives in this EA. The rationale for this is that the proposed 26 action of implementing the Revised INRMP would meaningfully encompass consideration of a 27 wide variety of resource management practices and projects, depending on current environmental 28 conditions and ecological considerations. Therefore, within the Revised INRMP itself, there are 29 many possible alternatives for management of the natural resources on the military installation. 30 Also, all resource management objectives in the Revised INRMP would only result in beneficial 31 effects to area resources, as good environmental stewardship is the purpose of INRMPs.

32 Due to the programmatic nature of the Revised INRMP and that it was developed as required by 33 the Sikes Act (as amended) with interagency cooperation, all issues of interest to other agencies 34 have been incorporated into the Proposed Action. Participation by the DoD, Navy, U.S. Fish and 35 Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game,

Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives 2-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 National Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Catalina Conservancy, State Water 2 Resources Control Board, and the Marine Protected Area Monitoring Enterprise ensures the 3 mutual agreement among these parties concerning conservation, protection, and management of 4 resources on the installation.

5 2.2.1 Proposed Action – Adopt and Implement the Revised INRMP 6 (Preferred Alternative)

7 The Proposed Action would adopt and implement the Revised INRMP for San Clemente Island. 8 The Revised INRMP continues to be consistent with the military use of the property and the 9 goals and objectives established in the Sikes Act (as amended), while providing further 10 improvement in natural resources management. The Revised INRMP includes many of the 2002 11 INRMP objectives and strategies. It will also integrate new guidance updated since the 2002 12 INRMP from the DoD and Navy, as well as add objectives and strategies to manage new 13 federally listed and candidate species and the expanded marine footprint.

14 The Revised INRMP contains resource management objectives and strategies for the following 15 areas:

16 . Vegetation management 17 . Wildland fire management 18 . Fish and wildlife management 19 . Land (including surface water) management 20 . Marine ecosystem management 21 . Outdoor recreation

22 Ongoing and foreseeable objectives are listed and addressed in the Revised INRMP management 23 chapters, and implementation recommendations are organized into a detailed Project 24 Implementation Table (Appendix A).

25 2.2.2 No Action Alternative – Retain 2002 INRMP and Current Management 26 Strategies

27 The No Action Alternative would continue implementation of the existing INRMP for San 28 Clemente Island, completed in 2002. The No Action Alternative would retain all natural 29 resources objectives and management practices detailed in the 2002 INRMP. This alternative 30 would manage natural resources according to the DoD and Navy guidance as of 2002 and the 31 previous marine management footprint and military use of the island.

2-2 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 3.0 Affected Environment and Environmental 2 Consequences

3 This chapter describes the environment on San Clemente Island (SCI) that may be affected by 4 each of the alternatives, analyzes the potential environmental consequences (Table 3-1), and 5 presents measures to reduce impacts, if necessary, for each potentially affected environmental 6 resources, as listed below.

7 . Biological resources (Section 3.1) 8 . Topography, geology, and soil (Section 3.2) 9 . Water resources (Section 3.3)

10 Table 3-1. Potential impacts on resource areas by alternative. No Action Alternative – Proposed Action – Resource Area Retain the 2002 INRMP and Adopt Revised INRMP Current Management Strategies Biological Resources Biological resources would benefit through surveys and Biological resources would be affected monitoring projects. These projects would help to improve by minor disturbance to resources understanding of habitats and plant and wildlife species during monitoring, invasive species on SCI, which can lead to improved management control, and fire management. Would strategies and priorities. Restoration/ enhancement would create long-term benefits to federally increase habitat function. Minor disturbance to resources protected species that were listed prior during survey/monitoring and restoration/ enhancement to 2002. projects would occur. Long-term benefits to all biological resources in the SCI footprint through fire and invasive species management. Topography, Geology, Topography, geology, and soil resources would benefit Topography, geology, and soil and Soil Resources through erosion control, habitat restoration/enhancement, resources would benefit from erosion and fire management. These projects would help to control and fire management. Best prevent erosion around the island. Monitoring and survey management practices would be used activities could produce a small amount of erosion from to protect and restore soil productivity utilizing unpaved roads and other project areas. However, on SCI. the long-term benefits of improved management strategies and priorities of biological resources outweigh these potential effects. Best management practices would be implemented to minimize potential impacts. Water Resources Water resources would benefit through water quality Water resources would benefit though surveys. These surveys help improve understanding of water conservation practices and water quality issues on SCI and can lead to improved erosion control procedures. management strategies and priorities. Benefits to water resources would also occur with increased erosion control of unnatural run-off though habitat restoration/enhancement activities.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 3.1 Biological Resources

2 3.1.1 Affected Environment

3 Biological resources include native or naturalized plant and wildlife species (i.e. non-native 4 species that have become established) and the habitats within which they occur. Habitat can be 5 defined as the resources and conditions present in an area that produces occupancy of a plant or 6 animal (Hall et al. 1997). The existence and preservation of biological resources are intrinsically 7 and ecologically valuable. This analysis focuses on species or habitat types that are important to 8 the functions of the SCI ecosystem, are of special public importance, or are protected under 9 federal or state law or statute. For purposes of this Environmental Assessment (EA), these 10 resources are divided into four major categories: vegetation communities, marine habitats, 11 species assemblages, and special status species.

12 3.1.2 Vegetation Communities

13 The vegetation communities of SCI were recently re-evaluated (Institute of Wildlife Studies 14 2011, unpublished data) to align the island’s vegetation map with the currently accepted 15 vegetation mapping system (Map 3-1; Table 3-2) for use in California, described in A Manual of 16 California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009).

17 3.1.3 Marine Habitats

18 The marine habitat and depth categories presented in the Integrated Natural Resources 19 Management Plan (INRMP) are based on the classification system utilized by the California 20 Department of Fish and Game Marine Life Protection Act Initiative (California Marine Life 21 Protection Act Initiative 2009).

22 3.1.3.1 Sandy Beaches 23 Sandy beaches are found near the northwestern end of the island at West Cove, Northwest 24 Harbor (BUD/S and Grad Beaches), and at the southern end of the island at Horse Beach Cove 25 and Pyramid Cove (Walcott 1897). Beach habitat on SCI is very limited and narrow, resulting in 26 periodic tidal inundation.

27 A variety of invertebrates live in the sand and in wracks of decaying seaweed and other detritus 28 on the sand surface. Snails, bivalves, crustaceans, insects, isopods, amphipods, and polychaetes 29 are among the organisms that inhabit sandy beaches, and several serve as food sources for 30 vertebrates, including the federally endangered western snowy plover (Charadrius nivosus). 31 Shorebirds, seabirds, and pinnipeds utilize sandy beaches for resting and/or rearing young.

3-2 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 2 Map 3-1. Vegetation communities of San Clemente Island.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-3 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Table 3-2. Vegetation alliances on San Clemente Island (Institute of Wildlife Studies 2011, unpublished data). Percent of Vegetation Alliances Acres Sensitive Plants Sensitive Wildlife Island Area Santa Cruz Ironwood 22.1 <0.1 SCI indian paintbrush, Island big-pod ceanothus, Thorne’s royal San Clemente loggerhead shrike, island night lizard, house Alliance larkspur, Channel Island tree poppy (if still on island), green finch, orange-crowned warbler, Allen’s hummingbird, Island Oak Alliance 21.4 <0.1 liveforever, SCI buckwheat, Nevin’s woolly sunflower, SCI bedstraw, horned lark, San Clemente island fox. showy Island snapdragon, southern island hazardia, toyon, island Big Berry Toyon Alliance Unmapped jepsonia, SCI woodland-star, SCI lotus, Santa Cruz Island ironwood, Catalina Island Cherry Unmapped SCI bush-mallow, SCI phacelia, island oak, Lyon’s phacelia, Island Alliance redberry, Santa Catalina figwort, Blair’s wirelettuce, SCI triteleia Lemonade Berry Alliance 1,232.4 3.4 SCI indian paintbrush, Island big-pod ceanothus, Thorne’s royal San Clemente loggerhead shrike, island night lizard, house larkspur, Channel Island tree poppy (if still on island), bright green finch, orange-crowned warbler, Allen’s hummingbird, dudleya, SCI buckwheat, Nevin’s woolly sunflower, SCI bedstraw, horned lark, San Clemente Island fox showy Island snapdragon, southern island hazardia, toyon, island jepsonia, SCI woodland-star, SCI lotus, SCI bush-mallow, SCI phacelia, Lyon’s phacelia, Island redberry, Santa Catalina figwort, Blair’s wirelettuce, SCI triteleia California Sage Brush 3,921.5 10.9 aphanisma, island sagebrush, SCI buckwheat, SCI lotus, golden San Clemente loggerhead shrike, island night lizard, San Alliance spined cereus, SCI indian paintbrush, Nevin’s woolly sunflower, SCI Clemente island fox Island Morning Glory Alliance 189.9 0.5 bedstraw, southern island hazardia, SCI bush-mallow, Blair’s wirelettuce San Clemente Island Tarplant 12.4 <0.1 Alliance Needlegrass Alliance 2,213.5 6.1 San Clemente Island brodiaea, SCI larkspur, Thorne’s royal larkspur, The open grasslands on SCI support large populations of the Nevin’s gilia, bobtail barley, pygmy leptosiphon, small flowered SCI deer mouse, house mouse, and various insect species. microseris, Palmer’s clover The San Clemente island fox, American kestrel, northern harrier, red-tailed hawk, common raven, and barn owl all forage throughout this habitat type. The federally endangered San Clemente loggerhead shrike also forages throughout the open grassland during the winter. This habitat provides nesting and foraging habitat for other more common avian species, including Say's phoebe, western meadowlark, horned lark, and savannah sparrow Wild Oat Alliance 2,533.7 7.0 SCI brodiaea, SCI larkspur, bobtail barley, island jepsonia, small San Clemente island fox, San Clemente loggerhead shrike, Ripgut Brome Alliance 1,023.7 2.8 flowered microseris, Palmer’s clover island night lizard Red Brome Alliance 292.3 0.8 Coyote Brush Alliance 1,134.8 3.1 SCI brodiaea, SCI evening primrose, SCI indian paintbrush, Nevin’s San Clemente loggerhead shrike, island night lizard, San woolly sunflower, Island apple-blossom, SCI tarplant, SCI larkspur, Clemente island fox bright green dudleya, SCI buckwheat, SCI bedstraw, showy Island snapdragon, Nevin’s gilia, island jepsonia, Blair’s wirelettuce Active Sand Dunes ~1.0 San Miguel Island milk vetch, SCI milk vetch, Trask’s cryptantha, SCI San Clemente island fox, ravens, kestrels, and harriers. evening primrose Sensitive invertebrates in the active sand dunes include the Channel Islands dune beetle and the San Clemente coenonycha beetle

3-4 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Percent of Vegetation Alliances Acres Sensitive Plants Sensitive Wildlife Island Area Stabilized Sand Dunes ~1.0 SCI milk vetch, SCI evening primrose, Trask’s cryptantha, island San Clemente island fox, and ravens, kestrels, and harriers mallow, leafy malacothrix also use the habitat on a limited basis for foraging Milk Vetch Alliance 17.3 <0.1 SCI milk vetch, San Miguel milk vetch, SCI evening primrose Silver Burr Ragweed Alliance 339.3 0.9 SCI milk vetch, San Miguel milk vetch Red Sand Verbena Alliance 33.1 0.1 Saltgrass Alliance Unmapped California Boxthorn Alliance 6,458.8 17.9 aphanisma, island sagebrush, San Clemente Island milk vetch, golden This habitat supports the highest densities of the island night spined cereus, San Clemente Island evening primrose, Nevin’s woolly lizard, which is especially abundant along the lowest sunflower, San Clemente Island tarplant, bright green dudleya, island elevation terraces on the west shore. This habitat is also poppy, San Clemente Island bedstraw, Nevin’s gilia, bobtail barley, prime habitat for the San Clemente house finch, the horned San Clemente Island bird’s-foot trefoil (Acmispon argophyllus var. lark, and the threatened San Clemente sage sparrow. This adsurgens), Guadalupe Island lupine, leafy malacothrix, Palmer’s species is most abundant in lower terraces occupied by this clover. habitat type along the west shore. The cover and vegetation in this habitat type also support the SCI deer mouse, which attract predators, such as island fox, American kestrel, and northern harrier Coast Prickly Pear Alliance 9,441.8 26.2 aphanisma, island sagebrush, SCI indian paintbrush, Island apple- Federally threatened island night lizard, San Clemente blossom, Channel Island tree poppy (if still on island), bright green loggerhead shrike, island fox, side-blotched lizard, northern dudleya, island poppy, Nevin’s gilia, southern island hazardia, toyon, mockingbird, house finch, and white-crowned sparrow SCI bird’s-foot trefoil, Guadalupe Island lupine, SCI bush-mallow, Blair’s wirelettuce Coastal Cholla Alliance 5,340.9 14.8 aphanisma, island sagebrush, SCI indian paintbrush, Island apple- San Clemente loggerhead shrike , island fox blossom, Channel Island tree poppy (if still on island), bright green dudleya, island poppy, Nevin’s gilia, southern island hazardia, toyon, SCI bird’s-foot trefoil, Guadalupe Island lupine, SCI bush-mallow, Blair’s wirelettuce Coast Prickly Pear – 173.6 0.5 aphanisma, SCI indian paintbrush, Island big-pod ceanothus, Nevin’s Island night lizard, San Clemente loggerhead shrike, and California Sagebrush Alliance woolly sunflower, Island apple-blossom, bright green dudleya, SCI island fox buckwheat, island poppy, SCI bedstraw, showy Island snapdragon, southern island hazardia, toyon, SCI bird’s-foot trefoil, Guadalupe Island lupine, SCI Island bush-mallow, Blair’s wirelettuce Coast Marshes aphanisma, San Clemente Island tarplant, Nevin’s gilia San Clemente island fox Coastal Strand 318.1 0.9 None The California brown pelican, western gull, and Heermann's gull frequently roost on the beach. Most shorebirds, such as western snowy plover, black-bellied plover, willet, godwit, and sanderlings, are common in the winter along beaches on the north and south ends of the island. Marginal breeding habitat for the federally threatened western snowy plover is present on the island 1

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-5 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 3.1.3.2 Rocky Intertidal and Surfgrass Habitat 2 The rocky intertidal is the portion of a rocky coastline that is periodically covered or exposed by 3 daily tidal changes. This habitat is unique among marine environments in that its inhabitants are 4 regularly exposed to air and must have some way to adapt to extremes of temperature and 5 desiccation, as well as physical disturbance from waves and tidal action.

6 Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) is a highly productive component of intertidal habitat, supporting 7 many species of alga (Stewart and Myers 1980) and providing shelter for many fish and 8 invertebrates, such as the California spiny lobster (Panulirus interruptus) (Engle 1979). 9 Surfgrass has an effective anchoring system to withstand tidal currents and moderate wave 10 action. As with most intertidal species, surfgrass is susceptible to dessication and heat stress 11 during low mid-day tides (Raimondi et al. 1999). It is also sensitive to sewage (Littler and 12 Murray 1975) and oiling (Foster et al. 1998).

13 The complex interaction of physical and biological factors in this community results in vertical 14 zonation of rocky intertidal species. A species is generally not found throughout the rocky 15 intertidal, but only within a particular zone, a certain distance from tide lines. The upper limit of 16 a species zone is determined by physical factors, while the lower limit is determined by 17 biological factors, such as competition and predation.

18 3.1.3.2.1 Splash Zone 19 The top of the shore from about mean high water to the highest area wet by splash is 20 characterized by the presence of lichens, algae, and barnacles.

21 3.1.3.2.2 Upper Intertidal 22 The shore from about mean high water to around mean higher water is often referred to as the 23 barnacle zone; dense populations of barnacles can be found. Limpets, chitons, snails, and crabs 24 limit algal populations by feeding on wrack. As a result, a good deal of open space is usually 25 present.

26 3.1.3.2.3 Middle Intertidal 27 This zone is also known as the mussel zone and is generally both submerged and exposed at least 28 once a day. It extends from about mean higher low water to about mean lower low water. The 29 majority of this zone is dominated by lush marine algae and a broad host of invertebrate species, 30 including black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii). Dense aggregations of the cloning anemone may 31 cover large areas of rock.

32 3.1.3.2.4 Lower Intertidal 33 This zone extends from about mean lower water to the lowest tide mark and is submerged most 34 of the time. Algae and seagrasses are generally the most conspicuous species. Sea urchins, sea 35 anemones, polychaete worms, and snails are among the many small animals that live among 36 seaweeds. Most intertidal fish live in this zone, including gobies, clingfishes, pricklebacks, and 37 sculpins.

3-6 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 3.1.3.3 Subtidal Habitats 2 Subtidal habitats are located below the low tide mark and are permanently flooded by tidal water. 3 In southern California, rocky, sandy, and muddy substrates occur in the coastal subtidal 4 environment. The Southern California Bight (SCB) contains several subtidal habitats, including 5 soft bottom habitat, eelgrass beds, and rocky habitat and kelp forests.

6 3.1.3.3.1 Soft Bottom 7 Soft bottom habitat is characterized by unstable, unvegetated sediment. Soft bottom habitat on 8 SCI is primarily located in the East Shore and Pyramid Ecoregions, and a small portion is present 9 in the North Island Ecoregion at Northwest Harbor, which is the location of BUD/S Camp 10 underwater detonation training. Environmental characteristics, such as sediment grain size and 11 dissolved oxygen, will affect the condition of this habitat and the type of organisms that utilize it. 12 These substrates shift in response to currents, winds, waves, tides, and activities by humans and 13 other organisms.

14 In shallow sandy bottom habitats, the epifauna (attached or motile species that inhabit rock or 15 sediment surfaces) is dominated by suspension feeders. Shallow waters allow epifaunal 16 suspension feeders to avoid predation by residing in the harsh physical environment 17 characterized by strong wave action. Since few plants and animals are able to attach themselves 18 to soft bottom habitat, this community contains many infaunal (species that live in rock or soft 19 sediments) species that can burrow or dig into the sediment.

20 The main primary producers in unvegetated soft bottom communities are diatoms and microscopic 21 alga growing on sand or mud particles. Due to the almost complete absence of plants and algae, 22 detritus is a very important food for many inhabitants of this community. The detritus is used by 23 microscopic animals that live among sediment particles. In muddy areas, larger benthic 24 invertebrates also feed on detritus. They are mostly burrowing deposit feeders, such as trumpet and 25 bamboo worms, some sea urchins, sand dollars, echiuran worms, peanut worms, sea cucumbers, 26 and ghost shrimps. Along the sandy bottoms, where oxygen is more concentrated, filter feeders 27 actively filter the water to obtain the detritus and plankton drifting in the water column. Some of 28 these animals include razor clams, quahog, cockles, soft-shelled clams, parchment worms, and 29 terebellid worms. Many of these invertebrate species serve as food for predatory invertebrates and 30 bottom-dwelling fishes, such as rays, skates, halibuts, flounders, soles, and turbots.

31 3.1.3.3.2 Eelgrass 32 Relatively deep eelgrass beds at depths of up to about 20 meters (m) (65 feet) exist off SCI’s 33 eastern escarpment between about White Rock and Bryce Canyon (J. Engle, pers. com.). 34 Eelgrass (Zostera spp.) is widely distributed in temperate and cold waters of the Pacific Ocean. 35 Eelgrass beds rank among the most productive communities in the ocean. Their roots and stems 36 help stabilize the soft bottoms; their leaves reduce wave action and currents. While primary 37 productivity is high in this community, few animals eat eelgrass. It is used primarily as shelter 38 and a nursery for many fishes, which attach eggs to leaves and consume invertebrates living in

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-7 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 the beds. Many animals feed on the large amounts of detritus produced by decomposition of 2 eelgrass. These include some polychaete worms, clams, and sea cucumbers.

3 Eelgrass beds play an important role in nutrient regeneration and recycling, water quality, 4 primary production, and carbon sequestration. As perennial structures, eelgrass beds are one of 5 the few marine habitats that store carbon for relatively long periods. This carbon can be bound 6 into sediments or transported to the deep ocean and play an important role in long-term carbon 7 sequestration (Phillips and Meñez 1988).

8 3.1.3.3.3 Rocky Habitat and Kelp Forests 9 Hard bottom portions of the continental shelf are usually submerged extensions of rocky shores. 10 These communities are generally rich and productive; their most obvious feature is the 11 abundance of seaweeds. Unlike surfgrass and eelgrass, which have true roots and can absorb 12 nutrients from the sediments, seaweeds must depend on nutrients dissolved in the water. Kelp 13 faces intense competition for limited rocky substrates to attach to at subtidal depths. They extend 14 from seafloor to surface and form a vertically structured habitat that is the fundamental element 15 to many important ecosystems in southern California (Rodriguez 2001).

16 SCI has a steep bottom profile, restricting kelp forests to a narrow band adjacent to the shore 17 (Map 3-2). The distribution and abundance of giant kelp vary greatly on opposing sides of the 18 island, presumably due to differences in depth, nutrients, water movement, and light penetration 19 (water transparency).

20 Giant kelp forests create a unique habitat that provides refuge, forage, and nursery areas for 21 nearly 800 animal and plant species (Leet et al. 2001). Typically, giant kelp is found in abun- 22 dance in wave-exposed areas of nutrient-rich, cool water that is 6 to 35 m (20 to 120 feet) deep. 23 The kelp attaches to rocky substrate through a root-like structure called a “holdfast.” Kelp forests 24 provide large quantities of drift kelp (detached kelp) to adjacent habitats; drift kelp provides an 25 important resource to soft and rocky benthos, deep channel basins, sandy beaches, rocky shores, 26 and coastal lagoons (Rodriguez 2003).

27 Grazers, especially sea urchins, can play a large role in the abundance and distribution of kelp. In a 28 healthy kelp forest, sea urchins feed on drift kelp and the understory of seaweeds and algae instead 29 of on the attached kelp. However, during times of ecosystem stress, such as El Niño and major 30 storm events, the ratio of drift kelp supply to urchin abundance can trigger the behavioral change to 31 destructive grazing (Ebeling et al. 1985; Harrold and Reed 1985; Tegner and Dayton 1987; Dayton 32 et al. 1992). Potential reasons for increased abundance of urchins include reduced predation, 33 increased recruitment, or immigration of adults in grazing fronts. Research by Cowen (1983) 34 indicates that predation by California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) on the red sea urchin 35 (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) may be a critical interaction in maintaining community structure.

3-8 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 2 Map 3-2. Nearshore Habitat and Kelp Forests at San Clemente Island

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-9 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 SCI is also home to unusual forms of elk kelp (Pelagophycus porra) that establish in relatively 2 deep water between 20 to 50 m (6 to 165 feet). The elk kelp on the exposed west side of SCI is 3 similar to the mainland coastal form that is tall and attaches to rocky substrates, while on the east 4 side of SCI the elk kelp is relatively short and attaches to soft bottom sand (J. Engle, pers. com.). 5 It is not known if these represent two distinct species of elk kelp or merely different forms of the 6 same species (Miller and Dorr 1994). Forests of elk kelp have been known to occur: in northern 7 SCI in waters off of West Cove, Bird Rock, Dolphin Bay, and Wilson Cove Canyon; in eastern 8 SCI in deep water between Twin Dams and Pyramid Head; and western SCI between about 9 Kinkipar Canyon and China Canyon (J. Engle, pers. com.).

10 3.1.3.4 Deep Water Habitats 11 SCI is located on the continental slope (conventionally defined from shore to 200 m [660 feet]). 12 The continental slope is a gently sloping submerged continental margin that extends seaward to 13 the steeply sloping continental slope. On the east side of SCI, the continental slope is very 14 narrow and drops off rather quickly into the deep sea. Conversely, on the west side of the island, 15 the continental slope has a more gradual slope.

16 3.1.3.4.1 Rocky Habitat 17 Hard substrates occur to depths of 500 m (1,600 feet) in the SCB (Dailey et al. 1993). The ocean 18 floor surrounding SCI is typically characterized as a high relief rocky habitat that is interspersed 19 with sand channels (Allen 2006). Erosion by wave action from the northwest during past periods 20 of lower sea level have exposed erosion-resistant marine sedimentary and volcanic rocks that, 21 through differential erosion, have developed layering and fracture features. SCI is on the uplifted 22 southern side of the SCI fault (Vedder et al. 1986) and is composed of this erosion-resistant 23 volcanic rock. Side-scan sonar data around SCI indicate that the majority of the sea floor, 24 shallower than 60 m (200 feet), is hard substrate (Butler et al. 2006). Multibeam sonar 25 techniques used to measure white abalone habitat (deep rocky substrate) at SCI revealed 889 26 hectares (2,200 acres) at depths of 30 to 60 m (100 to 200 feet) at several sites on the west side of 27 the island (Butler et al. 2006).

28 3.1.3.4.2 Soft Bottom 29 The nearshore area of SCI where deep soft sandy bottom occurs is from approximately 30 to 900 30 m (100 to 3,000 feet) of water depth and includes portions of the island shelf. The greatest 31 differences in species composition and diversity among deep soft substrate benthic assemblages 32 of the region occur over water depth. This most likely reflects decreasing sediment grain size, 33 increasing organic content, and decreasing dissolved oxygen concentrations that occur over 34 depth. The largest change in species composition occurs at midslope, about 500 m (1,640 feet) 35 (Dailey et al. 1993). Differences in benthic assemblages in the SCB also exist between nearshore 36 and offshore sites of similar depth. These differences appear to be related to increased 37 productivity, waves, currents, and decreased contribution of terrestrial detrital sediment on the 38 offshore areas. Species will often inhabit both nearshore and offshore shelf areas; however, 39 abundance will change between these areas.

3-10 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Nearshore and offshore basins are inhabited by quite different species assemblages. Nearshore 2 basins have the highest sedimentation rates and can experience episodic anoxia that limits the 3 development of a diverse basin fauna. Enchinoderms often dominate benthic communities in 4 southern California. All the deep soft substrate benthic assemblages of the region, except those 5 on the nearshore basin floors, are dominated by enchinoderms, usually ophiuroids and echinoids. 6 Macrofaunal species diversity and biomass decrease over depth from shelf to basins, but 7 megafaunal diversity and biomass increase over depth to their maximum values on the slopes.

8 3.1.3.5 Offshore Rocks and Islets 9 SCI has 47 low elevation offshore rocks (Map 3-3). The majority of the offshore rocks are small 10 in size, 38 of which have areas significantly less than one third of an acre (Bureau of Land 11 Management 2005). Offshore rocks, which are “above mean high tide [and] within 12 nautical 12 miles of the shoreline” of SCI, are protected under the California Coastal National Monument 13 Resource Management Plan (Bureau of Land Management 2005). The Navy and the Bureau of 14 Land Management agreed to share information to enable the Bureau to carry out its mission and 15 work to ensure consistency and coordination in the protection and management of California 16 Coastal National Monument. Most of these rocks are composed of exposed bare rock surfaces, 17 washed by active seas and intense salt spray. A small but important minority of the rocks are 18 large enough to have soil and low growing xerophytic and salt tolerant vegetation, such as 19 crystalline iceplant and stunted coastal cholla, among others.

20 The offshore rocks and sea stacks are unique habitats that provide protected breeding and resting 21 sites for thousands of migrating seabirds and pinnipeds. The western gull (Larus occidentalis), 22 Brandt's cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus), Xantus’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus 23 hypoleucus), ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa), and black oystercatcher (Haematopus 24 bachmani) are known to regularly breed on the offshore rocks of SCI. Many of the rocks are over- 25 washed during high tide and heavy sea events, which are important feeding sites for black 26 oystercatchers and a suite of wintering and migrating shorebirds (Mad River Biologists 2002).

27 Offshore rocks support similar intertidal and subtidal communities previously described in the 28 above sections. Some invertebrate species, primarily mussels and scallops, grow in high 29 densities, and to a larger size, due to the lack of predators from spatial isolation. Fish congregate 30 near offshore rocks and structures to take advantage of associated food items and protection from 31 predation. Subsequently offshore rocks contribute to the richness of both terrestrial and marine 32 systems on multiple trophic levels and play an important role in sensitive island populations.

33 California hydrocoral (Stylaster californicus) is not a true coral, but a member of the Class 34 Hydrozoa that inhabits certain sea stacks at SCI. It forms branching colonies and prefers low 35 turbidity and high current waters with depth ranges of five to 98 m (16 to 322 feet). This species 36 can be found on the west side of SCI (J. Engle, pers. com.). Its rarity makes it much sought after 37 by recreational SCUBA divers. However, divers are not allowed to touch or take this species 38 since it is protected by the state of California. This species is sensitive to changes in sea surface 39 temperatures, and can decline significantly during El Niño events.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-11 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 2 Map 3-3. San Clemente Island and the California Coastal National Monument

3-12 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 3.1.4 Species Assemblages

2 3.1.4.1 Plants 3 The flora of SCI is similar to that of the mainland with some important exceptions. The island 4 has many species found only on SCI or shared with one or more of the Channel Islands. Many of 5 these species were formally widely distributed on the mainland in the geologic past but now exist 6 in small populations (Axelrod 1967). Raven (1963) noted also that certain components of the 7 flora are related to areas in northern California rather than the nearest mainland sites, while other 8 components are more closely related to drier, more southern locales, such as Baja California. 9 Westman (1983), on the other hand, concluded that SCI contains more floristic affinities with 10 coastal succulent scrub of Baja California than any of the mainland coastal scrub communities in 11 Alta California, as indicated by the prominence of fleshy stem succulents (Family Cactaceae, 12 Crassulaceae, and Euphorbiaceeae).

13 3.1.4.2 Cryptogams 14 The lichen flora of SCI is poorly known; there are only three publications on lichens of SCI 15 (Hasse 1903; Bowler et al. 1996; Bratt 1999) listing a total of 209 species. Lichens come in two 16 types: corticolous, which use plant stems as a substrate, and saxicolous, which use rock surfaces 17 as a substrate. Since much of SCI was severely grazed through the late 19th and 20th centuries, 18 much of the woody flora was decimated, and much of the substrate for corticolous type lichens 19 disappeared. According to Bowler et al. (1996), the most intact and developed lichen community 20 is in the maritime scrub formation. The Eel point area is cited as “an outstanding example of this 21 community with comparable sites occurring in northwestern Baja California, Mexico.”

22 3.1.4.3 Macroalgae

23 3.1.4.3.1 Giant Kelp 24 Giant kelp provides much of the structure and biomass of central and southern California kelp 25 forests (Foster and Schiel 1985). The species flourishes in wave-exposed areas of nutrient-rich 26 cool water six to 40 m (20 to 130 feet) deep, 10 to 15 degrees Celsius (°C) (50 to 60 degrees 27 Fahrenheit [° F]), and bottom light intensities above 1% that of the surface (Leet et al. 2001). 28 Giant kelp is a perennial alga that undergoes natural seasonal change in abundance and 29 distribution due to biological interactions (such as diseases or over-grazing by sea-urchins), 30 pollution, catastrophic storms, and oceanographic conditions, such as El Niño and La Niña (Leet 31 et al. 2001). Warmer, nutrient stressed El Niño conditions can deter growth and development of 32 a canopy. During these conditions, there is less canopy coverage on the sea surface and more 33 sunlight can penetrate to the understory macrophytes, which can grow in spite of lower nutrients. 34 In contrast, during the cold, nutrient-rich La Niña conditions, giant kelp grow an extensive, 35 shady canopy that can inhibit growth for some of the understory.

36 3.1.4.3.2 Bull Kelp 37 Although bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana) has the same ecological role as giant kelp, the 38 morphology is quite different. Bull kelp is also more elastic under stress, enabling it to stretch

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-13 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 more than 38% of its length before breaking. Thus, following heavy winter storms, bull kelp can 2 become more abundant and sometimes replace much of the giant kelp in southern California. It 3 flourishes in wave-exposed areas of nutrient-rich cool water three to 20 m (10 to 70 feet) deep 4 and 4° to 15°C (40° to 60° F). Bull kelp is primarily found adjacent to exposed shorelines along 5 the Pacific coast of North America, ranging from Unalaska Island, Alaska to Point Conception, 6 California. Very little information is available concerning the percentage of bull kelp within the 7 giant kelp forests of southern California. In this region, it is known that bull kelp is generally 8 restricted to areas that are unsuitable for giant kelp, including the inshore area, the surge zone, 9 and the outer edges of the giant kelp beds (Leet et al. 2001).

10 3.1.4.4 Terrestrial Invertebrates

11 3.1.4.4.1 Insects 12 Insects play ecologically crucial roles in the ecosystem; they are important food items for many 13 birds, small mammals, and lizards and are also essential for decomposition and soil formation 14 processes. As pollinators, insects are vital to the reproduction of many island plant species. 15 Island faunas generally exhibit low diversity when compared with nearby mainland faunas of 16 similar size (Miller 1984). However, insects represent the largest and most diverse group of 17 organisms among the fauna of the Channel Islands, although knowledge of the diversity and 18 distribution of insects on these islands is poorly understood (Menke 1985; Miller 1985). Inverte- 19 brates are found throughout all habitats and most have not been adequately inventoried on SCI.

20 Insects of the Channel Islands are typically found on the mainland as well, but differences in 21 insect assemblages exist between the northern and southern Channel Islands. The southern 22 islands tend to have higher numbers of species found only in California and greater affinity with 23 insects of more arid climates, such as the southern coastal and foothill habitats and the desert 24 environs of the Mojave and Colorado deserts (Powell and Hogue 1979).

25 A review in 2010 of published literature and on-line museum databases to assemble as complete 26 a list of arthropod fauna for SCI as possible yielded a list of approximately 376 species (Tierra 27 Data Inc. 2011b). General insect surveys conducted in 2010 expanded the island-wide species 28 list to approximately 536 species (Tierra Data Inc. 2011b). Considering that the 2010 surveys 29 were conducted at just nine tightly defined locales across the island, the total number of insect 30 species present on SCI would be likely to continue to expand as more surveys of other parts of 31 the island are conducted.

32 3.1.4.4.2 Fairy Shrimp 33 Bitterroot Restoration, Inc. (2002) conducted a preliminary survey of wetlands and drainages 34 throughout SCI. Areas with the potential to support the federally listed branchiopods (fairy 35 shrimp) were surveyed for the presence of these species in accordance with U.S. Fish and 36 Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol. These small crustaceans can be important food sources for 37 migrating birds and other wildlife. Wet and dry season sampling for fairy shrimp were conducted 38 in February and October 2001, respectively (Bitterroot 2002). Fairy shrimp or their cysts can be

3-14 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 transported between pools by birds, foot traffic, overland drainage, and off-road wheeled and 2 tracked vehicles. Pools throughout SCI were sampled; results from the wet season show that the 3 common versatile fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lindahli) was present in 66% (368 pools) of the 4 sampled pools. Dry season results revealed fairy shrimp cysts in samples of 420 pools. The 5 federally listed endangered San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) was not 6 found in any of the vernal pools and wetlands during the wet or dry season sampling, and the 7 study concluded that it is not likely to occur on SCI.

8 3.1.4.4.3 Land Snails 9 The eight Channel Islands are home to 23 different species of snails, making it one of the richest 10 clusters of land snails in the western United States. SCI has the largest population of all the 11 Channel Islands; it has three species of snails found only on SCI (Cohen 1980; USFWS 1984).

12 3.1.4.5 Marine Invertebrates 13 The variety of depths and bottom conditions around SCI provide habitat for a large number of 14 these species, including 51 mollusk species, 17 arthropod species, ten species of cnidaria, five 15 species of porifora, five species of polychaetes, and four echinoderm species, with many more 16 undoubtedly occurring around the island.

17 Marine invertebrates play a significant role in ecosystems both as important prey items for fish, 18 mammals, birds, and other invertebrates but also for nutrient cycling. Most marine invertebrates 19 are filter feeders eating detritus, though some species eat primarily vegetation or other 20 invertebrates. Relatively little is known about the ecology of marine invertebrates.

21 Soft-bottom marine invertebrates live in or on the bottom sediments. Many species are infaunal, 22 sedentary and live buried their entire life. Epifaunal species typically move freely on the surface 23 of bottom sediments but usually bury themselves in the sediment to feed or hide from predators. 24 Species composition and abundance change with increasing water depth and changes in the 25 presence of rocky substrate (Dailey et al. 1993).

26 3.1.4.6 Fishes 27 Of the 519 recognized California marine fish species, there are at least 481 species within the 28 greater SCB south of Point Conception (Horn 1980; Cross and Allen 1993; Horn et al. 2006), the 29 majority of which probably have at least the potential to occur off SCI. Geographical variation of 30 both larval and adult fish distribution within the SCB is strongly related to depth preference, 31 warm- or cold-water affinities of each particular fish species, and water mass influences 32 associated with ocean circulation patterns (Cross and Allen 1993; Horn et al. 2006). Occasional 33 climatic level shifts in ocean mass resulting from El Niño and La Niño events can directly 34 influence either warm- or cold-water species composition during any given year.

35 SCI has four permanent rocky intertidal and four kelp forest monitoring sites that capture fish 36 species trends and abundance on SCI. Monitoring of these sites has indicated that the intertidal 37 and kelp forest fish fauna of SCI is typical of other areas on the mainland.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-15 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 3.1.4.6.1 Essential Fish Habitat 2 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, reauthorized and amended 3 by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996, requires the eight regional fishery management 4 councils to describe and identify essential fish habitat in each fishery management plan. Essential 5 fish habitat is defined as “those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, 6 feeding or growth to maturity.”

7 The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act requires Federal agencies to 8 consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on all actions, or proposed actions, 9 that may adversely affect essential fish habitat. Adverse affects may include direct (e.g. 10 contamination; physical disruption), indirect (e.g. loss of prey), site-specific, or habitat-wide 11 impacts, including individual or cumulative consequences of actions. Table 3-3 includes all 12 species known to occur in waters around SCI that are included in Fishery Management Plans 13 and, therefore, covered under essential fish habitat.

14 Table 3-3. Species known to occur in nearshore waters of San Clemente 15 Island based on published sources for which Essential Fish Habitat must be 16 reviewed under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Coastal Pelagics Fishery Management Plan market squid (Loligo opalescens) jack mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus) chub mackerel (Scomber japonicus) Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax) northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax) Pacific Fishery Management Plan albacore (Thunnus alalunga) bluefin tuna (Thunnus thynnus) swordfish (Xiphias gladius) yellowfin (Thunnus albacares) thresher sharks (Family Alophiidae) Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria) widow rockfish (Sebastes entomelas) lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus) petrale sole (Eopsetta jordani) rex sole (Glyptocephalus zachirus) spiny dogfish (Squalus acanthias) Pacific hake (Merluccius productus) cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus) leopard shark (Triakis semifasciata) Dover sole (Solea solea) blue rockfish (Sebastes mystinus) soupfin shark (Galeorhinus galeus) grass rockfish (Sebastes rastrelliger) bocaccio (Sebastes paucispinis) olive rockfish (Acanthoclinus fuscus) kelp rockfish (Sebastes atrovirens)

17 3.1.4.7 Terrestrial Reptiles 18 There are only two species of reptiles, the side-blotched lizard and the federally threatened island 19 night lizard, that occur on SCI (Schoenherr 1999). Both species feed primarily on invertebrates 20 and some plant material. Lizards may be important prey items for many bird species on SCI, 21 including the loggerhead shrike.

22 3.1.4.8 Birds 23 More than 350 bird species have been documented on SCI. SCI is also used as a stopover point 24 during migration by approximately 129 species. Many species of migratory birds have suffered

3-16 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 significant population declines. As a result of this, migratory birds are the subject of an 2 international conservation effort, The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. For purposes of this EA, the 3 birds found on SCI can be divided into four categories: resident, migratory, shorebirds, and 4 seabirds. A detailed list of species on SCI can be found in Appendix B of the 2012 INRMP 5 (Navy 2012).

6 In the past, habitat degradation and introduction of non-native predators probably caused 7 declines in many species on SCI. In addition, availability of nest sites declined, which was likely 8 due to a decrease in tree and shrub cover. The introduction of feral cats and rats also may have 9 reduced reproductive success of many species. These declines may affect other species on SCI 10 since landbirds often play a significant role as prey items for larger vertebrate species, such as 11 raptors, and as predators on insect and small mammal populations.

12 3.1.4.8.1 Landbirds 13 There are currently 26 resident (year-round) landbird species that breed on SCI, including five 14 introduced species, and an additional three species are believed extirpated, at least as breeders. 15 Two resident species, the San Clemente loggerhead shrike and San Clemente sage sparrow, are 16 endemic subspecies of SCI and are currently listed as federally endangered and threatened, 17 respectively, by the USFWS.

18 3.1.4.8.2 Shorebirds 19 Shorebirds are closely associated with wetland and coastal environments. They utilize estuaries, 20 wetlands, coastal dunes, islands, and mudflats for nesting, foraging, and as stopover sites during 21 migration; plovers, sandpipers, and sandpiper allies are included in this definition. Shorebirds are 22 highly specialized predators of intertidal invertebrates and are easily disturbed by human 23 activities.

24 There are 29 shorebird species that have been observed at SCI. One of these species, the western 25 snowy plover is listed as threatened by USFWS. Winter observations of this species are common 26 at SCI; however, since monitoring began, breeding has only been confirmed three times in the 27 1990s.

28 3.1.4.8.3 Seabirds 29 In general, seabirds live longer, breed later, and invest more energy in fewer young than other 30 bird species. Seabirds spend a majority of their life at sea and usually come ashore only to breed, 31 commonly in large colonies. At SCI, seabirds mostly breed on offshore rocks.

32 Approximately 52 species of seabirds have been observed on SCI or in the waters surrounding 33 the island. Examples include loons, cormorants, ducks, pelicans, terns, gulls, petrels, and 34 murrelets. However, only a few species are regular migrants and even fewer breed on the island. 35 Most seabirds are observed from shore and many are known from only a few records. Some 36 species, such as gulls and terns, will congregate near boats and at Wilson Cove. Sheltered coves 37 on the island are often used for feeding and relief from severe storms that can have significant

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-17 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 impacts on seabird populations. Gulls may be predators on nests of some landbirds; however, 2 most seabirds feed primarily on fish and invertebrates.

3 3.1.4.9 Mammals

4 3.1.4.9.1 Terrestrial Mammals 5 There are three native terrestrial mammals on SCI: San Clemente Island deer mouse (Peromyscus 6 maniculatus clementis), San Clemente island fox (Urocyon littoralis clementae), and California bat 7 (Myotis californicus). The deer mouse and island fox, both found throughout the island, are a 8 subspecies found only on SCI, and the fox species is unique to the Channel Islands.

9 The California bat is the only bat species that has been confirmed as a year-round resident during 10 surveys conducted in 2002 (O’Farrell and Haas 2002a, 2002b, 2002c). These bats are largely 11 migratory and feed primarily on insects. They inhabit caves, rock crevices, and human 12 habitations around the island.

13 The American deer mouse is one of the most widespread rodents in North America. The SCI 14 deer mouse is a subspecies of the American deer mouse and is the only rodent native to SCI. 15 Deer mice provide an important food source to a large number of predators on SCI, including the 16 island fox, feral cats, loggerhead shrikes, and a variety of other predatory birds.

17 Little is known of the current status of most of the SCI terrestrial mammals, with the exception 18 of the island fox. At the state level of jurisdiction, all six island fox subspecies (San Miguel, 19 Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas, and San Clemente Islands) are listed by 20 California Department of Fish and Game as threatened under the California Endangered Species 21 Act of 1984.

22 3.1.4.9.2 Marine Mammals 23 There are 34 cetacean species (whales, dolphins, and porpoises), six pinniped species (sea lions, 24 fur seals, and true seals), and one sea otter species that can be found in the SCB and, therefore, 25 have the potential to occur within the SCI footprint (Table 3-4; Navy 2009a). Pinnipeds are 26 known to occur year-round on SCI and, due to the rapid increase in water depth within a 27 relatively short distance from the east shore, some cetacean species normally found in deep 28 and/or offshore waters have been, or could expect to be, found close to shore.

3-18 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Table 3-4. Marine mammal species (Navy 2009a). Species NMFS Stock Designation Warm Season (May-Oct) Cold Season (Nov-Apr) ESA Listed Marine Mammals Blue whale Eastern North Pacific Yes No Fin whale California, Oregon, and Washington Yes (More) Yes (Less) Humpback whale California, Oregon, and Washington Yes No North Pacific right whale Eastern North Pacific Rare Rare Sei whale Eastern North Pacific Unk Unk Sperm whale California, Oregon, and Washington Yes (More) Yes (Less) Guadalupe fur seal Mexico Unk Unk Steller sea lion California, Oregon, and Washington No No Southern sea otter California Yes Yes Mysticetes (non-ESA listed baleen whales) Bryde’s whale Eastern Tropical Pacific Unk Unk Gray whale Eastern North Pacific No Transient Minke whale California, Oregon, and Washington No Yes Odontocetes (non-ESA listed toothed whales and dolphins) Baird’s beaked whale California, Oregon, and Washington Unk Unk Bottlenose dolphin – coastal stock California coastal Yes Yes Cuiver’s beaked whale California, Oregon, and Washington Yes Unk Dall’s porpoise California, Oregon, and Washington No Yes Dwarf sperm whale California, Oregon, and Washington Unk Yes (Less) False killer whale Eastern Tropical Pacific Unk Unk Killer whale – offshore stock Eastern North Pacific No Yes Killer whale – transient stock Eastern North Pacific No Yes Long-beaked common dolphin California Yes Yes Mesoplodont beaked whale California, Oregon, and Washington Unk Unk Northern right whale dolphin California, Oregon, and Washington No Yes Pacific white-sided dolphin California, Oregon, and Washington Yes (Less) Yes (More) Pantropical spotted dolphin Eastern Tropical Pacific Unk Unk Pygmy sperm whale California, Oregon, and Washington Unk Unk Risso’s dolphin California, Oregon, and Washington Yes (Less) Yes (More) Rough-toothed dolphin Tropical and Warm Temperate Rare Rare Short-beaked common dolphin California, Oregon, and Washington Yes (More) Yes (Less) Short-finned pilot whale California, Oregon, and Washington Unk Unk Spinner dolphin Tropical and Warm Temperate Rare Rare Striped dolphin California, Oregon, and Washington No Rare Pinnipeds (non-ESA listed sea lions, fur seals, and true seals) Pacific harbor seal California Yes Yes Northern elephant seal California breeding Yes Yes California sea lion U.S. Stock Yes Yes Northern fur seal San Miguel Island Yes (More) Yes (Less) 2

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-19 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Marine mammal movement is often related to feeding or breeding activities (Stevick et al. 2002), 2 as migrating marine mammals can take advantage of favorable conditions in other areas. For 3 example, humpback whales make an extensive annual migration to low-latitude areas for mating 4 and giving birth in warm winter waters and to high-latitude, highly productive waters to feed in 5 the summer. Movements of toothed whales (Odontocetes) are likely to follow preferred prey or 6 feed opportunistically, since they lack the fasting capabilities of baleen whales (Mysticetes, filter 7 feeders). Long-ranging movements are also quite common in pinnipeds. Male northern elephant 8 seals will make extensive foraging migrations to the Gulf of Alaska and eastern Aleutian Islands 9 during the non-breeding season (Stewart and Huber 1993).

10 Oceanographic conditions and primary productivity (chlorophyll concentrations) are also a factor 11 in marine mammal distribution and abundance. Ocean floor topography has been correlated with 12 odontocetes (Hui 1985; Tynan 1996), fin whales (Woodley and Gaskin 1996), and southern 13 elephant seals (McConnell et al. 1992). Depth and temperature have been able to predict 14 distribution of right whales (Moses and Finn 1997). Temperature has also been seen to affect the 15 distribution of baleen species (Woodley and Gaskin 1996; Munger et al. 2009), sperm whales 16 (Smith and Whitehead 1993), and southern elephant seals (Hindell et al. 1991). Additionally, 17 cetacean distribution has been correlated to chlorophyll concentrations (Smith et al. 1986; Jaquet 18 and Whitehead 1996; Munger et al. 2009), although marine mammals may not respond to 19 instantaneous changes in primary productivity. Instead, there may be a time lag between the 20 change of primary productivity and predator responses. For baleen whales feeding on 21 zooplankton, which are trophically close to primary production, this lag may be on the order of 22 several weeks, whereas the lag may be considerably greater for toothed whales feeding on 23 cephalopods, which are removed from primary production by approximately four months 24 (Vinogradov 1981).

25 Large-scale climatic events may affect the distribution and abundance of marine mammal 26 species, either directly or indirectly (Trillmich et al. 1991; Keiper 2005; Shelden 2005; 27 Simmonds and Isaac 2007). Changes from El Niño events result in lower productivity at lower 28 trophic levels, which results in reduced availability of fish and cephalopods at upper trophic 29 levels (Barber and Chavez 1983; Chavez et al. 2003). Four major declines in the annual count of 30 California sea lion pups occurred during El Niño events in 1983-1984, 1992-1993, 1998, and 31 2003 (Carretta et al. 2007). California sea lion pup and juvenile mortality rates also increase 32 during El Niño events (DeLong et al. 1991), which affect future recruitment into the adult 33 population.

34 3.1.4.9.3 Marine Mammals at San Clemente Island 35 The most recent and comprehensive marine mammal survey specific to SCI was conducted by 36 NMFS Southwest Fisheries Science Center and involved the use of both ground and aerial 37 photogrammetric surveys (Table 3-5; Carretta et al. 2000). The survey estimated marine 38 mammal density in waters around the island.

3-20 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Table 3-5. Density of marine mammals encountered in waters adjacent to San Clemente Island during 2 aerial surveys in 1998 and 1999 (Carretta et al. 2000). Species Estimated Density (#/km2) May-Oct Estimated Density (#/km2) Nov – Apr Short-beaked common dolphin 4.65 1.78 Risso’s dolphin 0.061 0.18 Pacific white-sided dolphin No data 0.197 Northern right whale dolphin No data 0.09 Bottlenose dolphin 0.015 0.034 Dall’s porpoise No data 0.04 Fin whale 0.0089 0.0027 Blue whale 0.0047 0.00045 Humpback whale No data 0.0015 Gray whale No data 0.115 California sea lion 0.75 1.19 Pacific harbor seal 0.054 0.025 Elephant seal 0.015 0.011

3 Many migratory routes for cetacean species in the SCB are unknown. However, it is understood 4 that SCI and its associated offshore waters is an important migratory corridor for gray and blue 5 whales. The number of gray whales found during NMFS aerial surveys in 1998 and 1999 (n=31) 6 indicate that a significant fraction of the entire population passes through the SCB during 7 southbound and northbound migrations (Carretta et al. 2000). Additionally, the main migratory 8 corridor for humpback whales likely occurs offshore of SCI (Forney and Barlow 1998; Carretta 9 et al. 2000).

10 The southern sea otter is rarely observed at SCI. Individuals potentially occurring around the 11 island are most likely sub-adult males, as younger males are known to make long-distance 12 movements (Tinker et al. 2008). During the NMFS 1998 and 1999 aerial surveys, three otters 13 were observed on the west coast of the island (Carretta et al. 2000). However, abundance was 14 not estimated due to an insufficient number of sightings (n=3) (Carretta et al. 2000). Since the 15 implementation of the Navy's marine mammal monitoring program in 2008, no sightings of sea 16 otters have been documented at SCI (Navy 2009b, 2010, 2011).

17 Three species of pinnipeds are seen regularly on SCI: California sea lion (Zalophus 18 californianus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), and Pacific harbor seal (Phoca 19 vitulina richardsi). Pinnipeds at SCI predominately haul out in the vicinity of Mail Point, 20 although other haul outs include Castle Rock, China Point, South Point (Pyramid Head), and 21 Northwest Harbor Islet (Map 3-4; Carretta et al. 2000). All species haul out on rocky substrates; 22 however, the greater climbing ability of the California sea lion allows them to inhabit a larger 23 portion of the rugged coastline.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-21 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 2 Map 3-4. Marine mammal haul out locations on San Clemente Island.

3-22 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 3.1.4.9.4 California Sea Lion 2 The California sea lion is the most abundant pinniped species on SCI. California sea lions are 3 seen year-round and it is the only pinniped to regularly breed on the island. As in other areas of 4 the SCB, most births occur from mid-June to mid-July (with a peak in late June). During the 5 breeding season, reproductively active males establish territories from May through July on both 6 land and in water. In the non-breeding season, adult and juvenile males migrate as far north as 7 British Columbia, Canada, while females and pups remain near rookeries (breeding colony).

8 3.1.4.9.5 Northern Elephant Seal 9 Northern elephant seals have been seen near and on SCI, although in far lower numbers than 10 those of California sea lions. In early December, all bulls are hauled out on rookeries. Pregnant 11 females begin to arrive in mid-December, and peak numbers are present at the end of January 12 and early February. After the first week in March, females on the rookery will decline.

13 3.1.4.9.6 Pacific Harbor Seal 14 The Pacific harbor seal is a year-round resident at SCI. However, due to low population levels on 15 the island and the tendency to be easily disturbed by humans, animals are rarely seen. The 16 population is considered to be stable. The pupping period extends from late February to early 17 April, with a peak in late March. The nursing period extends from late February to early May at 18 which time females and their pups will haul out for long periods of time.

19 3.1.4.10 Non-Native Invasive Species 20 Invasive species are officially defined as “alien species whose introduction does or is likely to 21 cause economic or environmental harm to human health” (Executive Order 13112, FR 1999). 22 Any species removed from its native range has the potential to become invasive. This is because 23 within its normal range predation, disease, parasites, competition, and other natural controls act 24 to keep population levels in check (Torchin et al. 2003; Wolfe 2002). Once released from these 25 controls, species abundances can reach levels that interfere with or displace local fauna. Such 26 effects may occur immediately, after some period of delay, or never be realized at all depending 27 on the characteristics of the individual species and the conditions into which it is introduced. 28 Successful invaders tend to be abundant over a large range in their native region, have broad 29 feeding and habitat preferences, wide physiological tolerances, short generation times, and high 30 genetic variability (Erlich 1989; Williams and Meffe 1999).

31 As an island ecosystem, SCI is particularly vulnerable to the introduction of non-native, invasive 32 species. Non-native invasive species are a leading cause of species extinctions. Islands are more 33 prone to invasion by alien species because of the lack of natural competitors and predators that 34 control populations in their native ecosystems. In addition, islands often have ecological niches 35 that have not been filled because of the distance from colonizing populations, also increasing the 36 probability of successful invasions.

37 Executive Order 13112 was signed in February 1999 directing federal agencies to identify and 38 manage invasive species. The order stipulates that actions will be taken to prevent the

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-23 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 introduction of invasive species, monitor for their presence, and respond rapidly to eliminate 2 them. The Department of Defense subsequently issued a memorandum of compliance with this 3 Executive Order. An effective way to implement these actions is through the Federal Noxious 4 Weed Act of 1975, which requires federal land managers to cooperate with state and federal 5 agencies for the management of undesirable plants. It mandates that a program and a person be 6 assigned management of unwanted plants, funding, cooperative agreements, and the use of 7 integrated pest management systems. The military point of contact for the Act is the Armed 8 Forces Pest Management Board (established by Chief of Naval Operations Instruction 6250.4A).

9 3.1.4.10.1 Invasive Terrestrial Plants 10 Terrestrial weeds are a threat to diverse and healthy ecosystems by altering ecosystems to the 11 extent that they no longer support their native functions. Changes in ecosystem dynamics can 12 occur by: changing soil nitrogen cycling, out-competing native species for water and light, and 13 predisposing an area to wildfire by providing fuel where there otherwise might not be enough 14 ground cover to carry a fire. Some species possess the ability to completely change the structure 15 of the vegetation, making it unsuitable for most native wildlife species. Sensitive and declining 16 wildlife and plant species are particularly at risk from these weeds.

17 There are a number of invasive plant species on SCI and each is treated depending on its location 18 and its affect on other resources. In particular, efforts are taken island-wide to control certain 19 species of exotic weeds, such as fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), goatsbeard (Tragopogon 20 porrifolius), and veldt grass (Ehrharta calycina); iceplant (Mesembryanthemum spp.) is targeted 21 particularly in the dunes. Non-native annual grasses are targeted for removal at shrike release 22 sites and near the Sibara populations. Efforts are made to control several species of Brassica 23 where they occur near listed plant locations.

24 3.1.4.10.2 Marine Invasive Species 25 Common pathways for marine invasive species introduction into non-native habitats include ship 26 ballast water, hull fouling, commercial and recreational fishing, trade in live organisms, 27 construction in aquatic environments, and water delivery and diversion system (CDFG 2008).

28 Invasions through ballast water have received much needed attention in the last several years. 29 Estimates suggest that more than 7,000 species are moved around the world daily in ballast water 30 alone (Carlton 2001). However, while recent management efforts have focused primarily on 31 ballast water, hull fouling may rival ballast water discharge as the leading cause of marine 32 invasive species introductions (Thresher 1999; Hewitt 2002). Barnacles, seaweeds, anemones, 33 and sea squirts with sedentary life stages can attach themselves to the hulls of vessels, while 34 more mobile species, such as shrimp, worms, and sea snails, may hide in crevices created by 35 larger fouling species (Takata et al. 2006). These organisms can survive for extended periods of 36 time once secured to the hull.

37 As movement between oceanic areas becomes more common, researchers warn that marine 38 invasive species introductions will continue to appear at an ever-escalating rate. To address this,

3-24 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 the expansion of California’s ballast water management program has directed a team of technical 2 advisors to create recommendations to prevent introductions through vessel fouling, among other 3 non-ballast shipping vectors (CDFG 2008). Furthermore, California Fish and Game Code 4 Section 2271 and Section 6400 make it illegal to release exotic organisms into California waters 5 via ballast dumping or any other means, with penalties up to $5,000 and one year in jail for each 6 violation (Cohen and Carlton 1998).

7 Uniform National Discharge Standards are currently being developed for Armed Forces vessels. 8 Phase I (of three phases), published in 1999, determined which discharges will be required to 9 implement control measures, by using a marine pollution control device (MPCD), and which 10 discharges will not require controls (40 CFR Chapter VII).

11 In May 2007, Dr. Jack Engle completed a survey in the Channel Islands, including SCI, to 12 investigate the presence of the invasive algal species Sargassum homeri. A single mature 2 m 13 long individual was discovered near Naval Ocean Systems Center pier, and a large patch of 14 mature plants in a small cove was found just northeast of Pyramid Cove, both on the leeward 15 side of the island (Murray 2007).

16 3.1.4.10.3 Non-native Terrestrial Wildlife Species 17 SCI is home to a number of federal and state listed species, including what some consider the 18 most endangered bird in North America: the San Clemente loggerhead shrike (Lanius 19 ludovicianus mearnsi). Many other species are not listed but are endemic to SCI or the Channel 20 Islands. The introduction of goats, sheep, pigs, and cattle over the past century had a devastating 21 effect on the habitat of the loggerhead shrike and the biological integrity of the entire island. 22 These animals have since been removed from SCI, but there are lasting impacts on native 23 populations of shrikes, sage sparrows, and probably many other conspicuous species. The 24 introduction of feral cats and black rats has also hindered population recovery of native fauna. 25 Feral cats potentially consume large numbers of island night lizards and pose a real threat to 26 island bird species. Cats and rodents are managed as part of the San Clemente loggerhead shrike 27 Predator Management Program. A policy letter was released (10 January 2002) requiring Navy 28 commands to proactively prevent the establishment of feral cats and dogs.

29 Non-native, invasive wildlife species are managed by requirements outlined in the Department of 30 Defense Pest Management Instruction. Under SCI’s Pest Management Program there are some 31 management gaps, primarily in the areas of invasive ants and mainland snails. The Argentine ant 32 (Linepithema humile) was conclusively documented during surveys of the island specifically 33 targeted to determine the distribution of this invasive species on SCI (Holway and Ward 2011). 34 While the species appears limited to three distinct areas on the northern tip of the island, there is 35 evidence that the population is expanding in at least one of these. Currently, there is some 36 management in the Pest Management Program addressing control of invasive ants. In addition, 37 some mainland snail species may pose a threat to SCI's endemic snail species if they were 38 introduced to the island.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-25 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 3.1.5 Special Status Species

2 The federal Endangered Species Act protects those plant and wildlife species listed as threatened 3 or endangered by USFWS or NMFS. Candidate species are those that are proposed to be listed as 4 threatened or endangered but are not protected by law; however, these species could become 5 listed and, therefore, be protected at any time. There are 12 federally listed and one candidate 6 species that occur in the SCI INRMP footprint.

7 In addition to federally protected species described above, there are a number of other special 8 status species occurring within the SCI INRMP footprint, such as state-listed species and 9 California Native Plant Society rare, threatened, and endangered species.

10 3.1.5.1 Federally Listed Plant Species 11 SCI contains six federally endangered plant species (Table 3-6). Currently, the San Clemente 12 Island lotus (Acmispon dendroideus), San Clemente Island indian paintbrush (Castilleja grisea) 13 and San Clemente Island bush-mallow (Malacothamnus clementinus) are in review by USFWS 14 for down-listing from endangered to threatened.

15 Table 3-6. Federally endangered plant species found on San Clemente Island. Common Name Scientific Name San Clemente Island lotus Acmispon dendroideus San Clemente Island indian paintbrush Castilleja grisea San Clemente Island larkspur Delphinium variegatum subsp. kinkiense San Clemente Island woodland-star Lithophragma maximum San Clemente Island bush-mallow Malacothamnus clementinus Santa Cruz Island rock cress Sibara filifolia

16 3.1.5.1.1 San Clemente Island Lotus 17 The San Clemente Island lotus is found only on San Clemente Island. It is a distinctive shrub 18 with dark green foliage and light brown legumes. It grows to about one meter tall. Flowering 19 occurs from March to May with small, bisexual yellow flowers. Flowers of this size and color 20 are generally pollinated by small bees, which have been observed foraging on the flowers. All 21 species in this genus are self-compatible but still depend on insects for effective pollination 22 (Junak and Wilken 1998). The San Clemente Island lotus hybridizes with the San Clemente 23 Island bird’s-foot trefoil when sympatric (Beauchamp, in Liston et al. 1990). Although this is 24 believed to be a rare event since evidence for it was only confirmed near Wilson Cove, 25 hybridization may pose a possible threat to continued recovery (USFWS 2007a).

26 The San Clemente Island lotus grows somewhat colonially around rock outcrops in grassy areas 27 or along the interface between grassland and maritime sage scrub habitat. It is frequently found 28 on north- and east-facing slopes at elevations ranging from eight to 430 m (25 to 1400 feet) 29 along the entire length of the island from Wilson Cove to Pyramid Cove (Junak and Wilken 30 1998; Junak 2006). Potential habitat may include most of the eastern escarpment and cooler

3-26 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 slopes on the west shore. It readily occupies disturbed sites (Beauchamp, n.d.), and some 2 locations are close to buildings, roads, and pipelines.

3 Between 2003 and 2006, 69 occurrences totaling approximately 6,750 individuals were mapped. 4 The largest population consisted of 2,300 plants (Junak 2010). Earlier reports from 1996 and 5 1997 identified over 3,000 individuals in 64 occurrences with the largest population comprising 6 750 individuals (Junak and Wilken 1998). Due to overall improvements in the numbers of 7 individuals and locations, USFWS recommended down-listing in the most recent 5-Year Review 8 (USFWS 2007a) and, in 2011, initiated status reviews for down-listing (USFWS 2012).

9 3.1.5.1.2 San Clemente Island Indian Paintbrush 10 The SCI indian paintbrush is a small, perennial shrub endemic to SCI (Chuang and Heckard 1993) 11 and is the only species from the genus Castilleja found on the island (Helenurm et al. 2005). It 12 grows to a height of 40 to 60 cm (15 to 24 in) and has yellow flowers borne in terminal spikes. The 13 species flowers from February through May and, while uncommon, has been recorded in December 14 (Junak 2010). Its seeds are passively dispersed from June through August (Beauchamp n.d.).

15 The SCI indian paintbrush is found on steep canyon walls on both sides of the island and on 16 coastal bluffs, slopes, and flats around the perimeter (Junak 2010). Some of the largest 17 populations are located in bowl-shaped swales on the coastal terraces. The species is found in 18 both the coastal sage scrub and maritime cactus scrub plant communities at elevations between 19 ten and 365 m (33 to 1200 feet) (Junak and Wilken 1998). Its distribution also overlaps the 20 boundary of SHOBA, with 48 populations (40%) occurring inside and 71 populations (60%) 21 occurring outside of SHOBA (Junak 2006).

22 The effects of disturbance on this species, such as fire or trampling, would be difficult to assess 23 given the observed wide variation in population numbers and trends on monitored sites where no 24 apparent disturbance has occurred. However, the number of occurrences and individuals of the 25 species have increased substantially following the removal of feral goats from the island (Tierra 26 Data Inc. 2011a).

27 Currently, the species is widely distributed from Jack Point south, on both the east and west sides of 28 the island. A total of 198 occurrences of the SCI indian paintbrush, comprising of 9,718 individuals, 29 were mapped on SCI between 2003 and 2006 (Junak 2010). Occurrences ranged from isolated 30 plants to populations with 1,400 individuals. The population is listed as increasing (Junak 2006). 31 Current estimates based on surveys through 2007 are 335 occurrences with 14,064 individuals. The 32 species has made a strong recovery since the eradication of non-native herbivores and a petition to 33 down-list the species to threatened was published on 19 January 2011 (76 FR 3069).

34 3.1.5.1.3 San Clemente Island Larkspur 35 The San Clemente Island larkspur (Delphinium variegatum subsp. kinkiense) is a herbaceous 36 perennial that flowers from March to April (California Native Plant Society [CNPS] 2001). The 37 species is one of three subspecies of larkspur (Delphinium variegatum) (Warnock 1990a, 1990b).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-27 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Two of the three subspecies (the SCI larkspur and Thorne’s royal larkspur) are endemic to SCI 2 (Warnock 1993; Dodd and Helenurm 2002). The third subspecies, royal larkspur (D. v. subsp. 3 variegatum), is found only on the California mainland (Dodd and Helenurm 2002). The plant 4 grows between 14 and 85 cm (6 and 33 inches) but generally less than 50 cm (20 inches) tall 5 (Warnock 1993). While the SCI larkspur is listed as endangered, the two other subspecies have 6 no federal status.

7 Thorne's larkspur (D. v. subsp. thornei) generally occurs in the southern portion of the island 8 while SCI larkspur is generally found in the northern portion of SCI (Dodd and Helenurm 2000). 9 Of the floral characters, sepal color appears to be the least ambiguous for differentiating the 10 subspecies, but it may still be problematic for the island subspecies where central populations, 11 which represent a large percentage of the total population, contain both light and dark individuals 12 as well as individuals of intermediate color (Dodd and Helenurm 2000, 2002). Due to the 13 documentation of hybridization among other taxa in this genus, the intermediate character of 14 central populations strongly suggests there may be hybridization among the subspecies in these 15 populations (Dodd and Helenurm 2002).

16 Alternatively, the variation observed in the island taxa may indicate that they are a single, highly 17 variable subspecies of larkspur or a completely different species of larkspur (J.A. Koontz, pers. 18 com.). Genetics work on the two varieties has yet to show any genetic variation between plants 19 with light or dark flowers. Additional genetic studies and morphological projects will further 20 investigate the variation in the two subspecies. At a future point, these studies may suggest 21 combining the varieties, and perhaps resurrecting D. kinkiense Munz as the species of larkspur 22 on SCI, thus combining both subspecies (J.A. Koontz, pers. com.). These subspecies will remain 23 separate until this taxonomy is published or reported. Until these additional studies (currently 24 underway) are completed, it would be most prudent to manage both island taxa to maintain the 25 variation observed in the field (J.A. Koontz and B.C. O'Brien, pers. com.).

26 Additional genetic studies may provide more information for larkspur on SCI. Due to existing 27 genetic data and observations in the field, it would be more biologically sound to manage the two 28 island taxa as one unit to maintain the variation observed in the field (J.A. Koontz and B.C. 29 O'Brien, pers. com.).

30 The SCI larkspur flowers from March to May. Approximately 65 to 79% of all flowers produce 31 fruit, and herbivory of both fruit and seeds has been reported. Many species of this genus are 32 self-incompatible and require insect mediation for pollination (Junak and Wilken 1998). Seeds 33 may require a dormancy period prior to germination.

34 SCI larkspur is found on the east side of the island, primarily on open grassy terraces between 35 the elevations of 80 and 255 m (260 to 840 feet) (Junak 2010). Populations grow on gentle slopes 36 with northwest, north, and east exposures and rocky soils (Junak 2010). It has been associated 37 with both annual grasses (Avena sp. and Bromus sp.) and perennial grasses (Nasella pulchra) 38 (Beauchamp n.d.).

3-28 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Populations were historically threatened by feral herbivores, which are now eradicated from the 2 island. However, populations still face threats from erosion, gullying, and, possibly, by 3 competition from other grassland species. The latter may be an important factor for populations 4 located on the eastern, high plateau-dominated by purple needlegrass on the north and central 5 portions of the island.

6 The SCI larkspur is generally distributed on the eastern side of the northern and central areas of 7 the island. About 40 separate populations have been mapped since the 1960s. A total of 15 8 occurrences (and one additional occurrence whose identity could not be confirmed as the plants 9 were not in flower), comprising 1,871 individuals, were mapped on SCI between 2003 and 2006 10 (Junak 2010). Population sizes ranged from a single individual to about 400 individuals. During 11 surveys between 2003 and 2006, some historical locations were not surveyed. Therefore, the 12 total number of individuals on SCI is somewhat higher than the value reported. Surveys 13 conducted in 1996 and 1997 documented 17 occurrences of the SCI larkspur ranging in 14 population sizes of seven to 1,450 individuals (Junak and Wilken 1998).

15 3.1.5.1.4 San Clemente Island Woodland-Star 16 The SCI woodland-star (Lithophragma maximum) is a perennial, rhizomatous herb endemic to SCI 17 and grows to 60 cm (24 in) in height. It flowers from April to June. The species was thought to be 18 extinct until it was rediscovered on SCI in 1978 by Mitch Beauchamp and Howard Ferguson.

19 The flowers of this species are small, bisexual, and white but sometimes tinted pink. The seeds 20 are spiny and depend on wind or animals for dispersal. Consequently, it may initially require 21 active seed dispersal efforts due to its naturally slow dispersal mechanisms. The plant also 22 reproduces from bulblets and rhizomes. Unfortunately, this may inhibit survival of the species 23 since no genetic variation has been detected using allozyme data sets (K. Helenurm, pers. com.).

24 The SCI woodland-star occurs on gentle north-facing slopes in moist canyon bottoms on the east 25 side of the island between elevations of 120 to 335 m (400 and 1100 feet) (Junak 2010). It is 26 restricted to a few canyons on the east escarpment between Vista Canyon and Mosquito Cove. 27 Most populations visited in 1996 and 1997 were located downslope from sizable groves of the 28 Santa Cruz ironwood (Lyonothamnus floribundus subsp. asplenifolius).

29 The east side canyons are found to have shown dramatic recovery since goats were removed in 30 the early 1990s. Tolerance to fire is generally unknown for this species; however, its preferred 31 habitat at canyon bottoms are unlikely to burn during the growing season, making it unlikely that 32 this species would be impacted by fire.

33 A total of 465 individuals were located within ten occurrences during surveys in 1996 and 1997 34 (Junak and Wilken 1998). Two occurrences of the SCI woodland-star, comprising 17 35 individuals, were mapped on SCI between 2003 and 2006 (Junak 2010); both of these 36 populations were found in previously unreported locations. Current estimates based on surveys 37 through 2007 are 12 occurrences with 17 individuals. The species is difficult to identify in the

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-29 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 field, and most populations are not relocated in every survey (B. Munson, pers. com.). Most sites 2 where populations occur pose access challenges, and relocation of reported sites by new 3 observers is similarly difficult.

4 3.1.5.1.5 San Clemente Island Bush-Mallow 5 The San Clemente bush-mallow is a low shrub reaching 70-100 cm tall. It produces a spike of 6 densely crowded bisexual, pink flowers from April to August (Munz 1974). It is probably 7 pollinated by solitary agapostemon or andrenid bees (Beauchamp n.d.). Because the plant seems 8 to be self-sterile (Tree of Life Nursery 1986 reported a lack of viable seed set in solitary 9 populations, with the Horse Beach Canyon population producing the only viable seed), and it 10 vegetatively reproduces by underground runners, the genetic variability of the species is 11 probably very low. Seedlings are rare. Seemingly isolated individuals may actually be connected 12 to another plant as the underground runners extend as much as 30 feet from a plant (S. Junak, 13 pers. com. 1996). Wild plants have survived at Lemon Tank for more than a decade (USFWS 14 1984) and it appears to be long-lived on SCI (S. Junak, pers. com. 1996).

15 The San Clemente bush-mallow occurs in a wide range of habitats including rocky canyon walls, 16 canyon bluffs, low canyon benches, alluvial deposits, and rocky grassland sites of the plateau. It 17 is frequently associated with maritime cactus scrub vegetation on coastal flats at the 18 southwestern portion of the island (Junak and Wilken 1998). The plant may naturally seek out 19 recently-disturbed (early-successional) situations. Keeley (1987) found that seeds of one 20 mainland species responded positively to heat scarification, so fire may play a role in the 21 germination and establishment of new seedlings.

22 Earlier reports from 1996 and 1997 documented 290 individuals in 18 occurrences (Junak and 23 Wilken 1998). The most recent surveys indicate the population is growing. Between 2003 and 24 2006, 61 occurrences were mapped comprising 1,300 clumps. The largest population consisted 25 of 300 clumps and the average population was 22 clumps (Junak 2010). Still, clusters of clumps 26 may represent single clones that have spread vegetatively over time. As is the case for many of 27 the species on SCI, the eradication of feral grazers from the island alleviated a substantial threat 28 to the population. Due to this and subsequent improvements in population numbers, in 2011 the 29 USFWS initiated status reviews for down-listing the species (USFWS 2012).

30 3.1.5.1.6 Santa Cruz Island Rock-Cress 31 Santa Cruz island rock-cress (Sibara filifolia) was historically found on three of the California 32 Channel Islands: Santa Cruz, Santa Catalina, and San Clemente. At the time of listing, the 33 species was only known to occur on San Clemente Island (USFWS 1977), and since then, a 34 population has been found on Santa Catalina Island. It was last seen on Santa Cruz Island in 35 1936 (USFWS 2006a).

36 The Santa Cruz island rock-cress is an annual with small, bisexual, purplish flowers borne on 37 terminal racemes. Flowers of this size suggest self-compatibility and self-pollination (Richards 38 1986; Rollins 1981 from Junak and Wilken 1998), which has been observed in cultivated

3-30 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 individuals (Junak and Wilken 1998). Plants typically flower from January until March. Each 2 fruit produces several seeds (Junak and Wilken 1998). Due to its thinly coated seeds, the Santa 3 Cruz island rock-cress does not appear to be well-adapted to fire (USFWS 2006).

4 This delicate annual herb occurs in several saddles on three adjacent, open ridge tops and nearby 5 flats on hot, volcanic scree-covered slopes at the southern end of the island below Guds and on 6 Willy’s Ridge (Pyramid Cove unit). This area is windy and receives the highest amount of solar 7 radiation on the island.

8 This species is difficult to see without a search image in mind, and populations have possibly 9 been missed on all three islands. Adding to this difficulty is the fact that there are many island 10 annuals whose populations fluctuate widely from year to year (S. Junak, pers. com.). For these 11 reasons, it is difficult to determine whether populations of this plant are increasing or decreasing. 12 Five occurrences were reported in Junak and Wilken (1998) on three adjacent ridge tops on the 13 very southern tip of the island. One population was visited in 1996 and 29 individuals were 14 counted; when revisited in 1997 (a wetter-than-average season), 208 individuals were recorded at 15 the same site (Junak and Wilken 1998). The most recent surveys between 2003 and 2006 (years 16 with consecutive drier-than-average seasons) found only three occurrences of this species with 17 four, 11, and 52 individuals, respectively (Junak 2010). At most, eight occurrences of this 18 species have been documented since focused rare plant surveys began on SCI (USFWS 2006). 19 Although feral grazers, a likely herbivore of this plant, have been removed from the island, 20 herbivory by other animals and competition from non-native grasses such as slender wild oat 21 (Avena barbata) may continue to limit its distribution (USFWS 2006a).

22 3.1.5.2 Non-Federally Listed Plant Species 23 SCI supports numerous species found only on SCI or the Channel Islands. These species are 24 recognized by authorities, such as the CNPS, as being sensitive. Table 3-7 lists species occurring 25 within the action area on SCI that have been recognized by the California Native Plant Society as 26 rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (CNPS List 1B species).

27 Table 3-7. Non-Federally listed plant species on San Clemente Island. Sensitivity Status Species Name Plant Communities Distribution and SCI Localities/Abundance Status Trend Aphanisma CNPS Rank Maritime cactus scrub around Increasing Coastal California and Baja California, Mexico, (Aphanisma 1B.2 the perimeter of the island, including several of the California Channel Islands blitoides) mostly at elevations between ten and islands off Baja California. On SCI, and 40 m (33 and 131 feet). documented from between China Point and China Occurs near coastline, on flats Cove, Seal Cove, North Head, Whale Point, immediately inland from beach. between “Spray” and Eel Point, and between Randall and Chamish Canyons (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 175 occurrences with 9,770 individuals (Junak 2010).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-31 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Sensitivity Status Species Name Plant Communities Distribution and SCI Localities/Abundance Status Trend Blair's wirelettuce CNPS Rank North- and west-facing, very Unknown Found only on SCI. Documented from Middle Ranch (Munzothamnus 1B.2 steep and very rocky canyon Canyon, Twin Dams Canyon, Eagle Canyon, Tota blairii) walls with little vegetative cover Canyon, Burns Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Warren in the central and southern Canyon, Tombstone Canyon, Thirst Canyon, portions of SCI at elevations Mosquito Canyon, Vista Canyon, Waynuk Canyon, between 5 and 550 m (16 and Horse Canyon, Mosquito Cove Canyon, and Box 1,804 feet). Canyon (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 296 occurrences with 6,150 individuals. Not updated in Junak (2010). California CNPS Rank Maritime desert scrub. Unknown Thought to be extinct throughout its range (Santa dissanthelium 1B.2 Catalina, Guadalupe, and San Clemente Islands) (Dissanthelium until rediscovered in March 2005 on Santa Catalina californicum) Island and in 2010 on SCI. It was not seen in surveys on SCI between 2003 and 2006 (Junak 2010). SCI estimated locations: TAR1 and SWAT4 (E. Howe, pers. com.). No population estimates are available. Channel Island CNPS Rank Chaparral, canyon woodland, Presumed to Found only on Santa Catalina Island. Historical tree poppy 1B.1 maritime desert scrub, and be extinct on locations on SCI are from near Northwest Harbor (Dendromecon maritime sage scrub. SCI and some precipitous cliffs near the south end of harfordii subsp. SCI. SCI estimated population: no current rhamnoides) occurrences known. Coulter's saltbush CNPS Rank Coastal bluff scrub, coastal Unknown Known from several California Channel Islands (Atriplex coulteri) 1B.2 dunes, coastal scrub, and adjacent mainland, including Baja California, grasslands (CNPS 2008). Mexico. Few recent sightings reported from SCI but no specific locality or habitat information available. SCI estimated population: No data. Guadalupe Island CNPS Rank Slopes and flats in grasslands Increasing Found only on SCI and on Guadalupe Island, Baja lupine (Lupinus 1B.2 and open flats in maritime California, Mexico. On SCI, documented from guadalupensis) cactus scrub at elevations Norton Canyon, near Eel Point, Eel Cove Canyon, between 12 and 400 m (40 and Wall Rock Canyon, escarpments near Camera Pad 1300 feet). “Male,” near West Shore Road, Tota Canyon, near Camera Pad “Pebble,” near Camera Pad “Bud 3,” near Camera Pad “Darter,” Eel Cove Canyon, Warren Canyon, near Triangulation Station “Arizona,” Kinkipar Canyon, Wilson Cove, Box Canyon, Middle Ranch Canyon, coastal flats between “Spray” and Eel Point, near Camera Pad “Wing,” and near Chamish Canyon (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 356 occurrences with 65,902 individuals. Island CNPS Rank Rocky coastal slopes, canyon Decreasing? Found only on SCI, Santa Catalina Island, appleblossom 1B.2 walls on west side of SCI. Flats Guadalupe Island, and the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Crossosoma and west- and south-facing (Los Angeles Co.). On SCI, documented from californicum) slopes at elevations between 18 Horse Beach Canyon, Seal Cove, Tombstone and 410 m (59 and 1,345 feet) in Canyon, Warren Canyon, Eel Cove Canyon, maritime desert scrub. Chenetti Canyon, Wall Rock Canyon, Terrace Canyon, Bryce Canyon, China Canyon, Mail Point, West Cove, Middle Ranch Canyon, and near Camera Pad “Frank” (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 49 occurrences with 68 individuals (Junak 2010).

3-32 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Sensitivity Status Species Name Plant Communities Distribution and SCI Localities/Abundance Status Trend Island green CNPS Rank Coastal bluffs on steep, rocky Increasing Found only on SCI. Documented from escarpments dudleya (Dudleya 1B.2 canyon walls at elevations near Camera Pad “Male,” Cave Canyon, Mosquito virens subsp. between 33 and 1,739 feet (10 Cove, Burns Canyon, Middle Ranch Canyon, Bryce virens) and 530 m). Canyon, Thirst Canyon, Chamish Canyon, Snake Cactus Canyon, Norton Canyon, Eagle Canyon, Knob Canyon, Lemon Tank Canyon, Wall Rock Canyon, Twin Dams Canyon, Tota Canyon, Chenetti Canyon, Vista Canyon, Waynuk Canyon, Larkspur Canyon, Chukit Canyon, Horse Beach Canyon, Horse Canyon, Box Canyon, China Canyon, and numerous unnamed escarpments and bluffs (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 324 occurrences with 20,425 individuals. Junak (2006) did not quantify its occurrences in recent surveys due to its increasing abundance and widespread distribution on SCI. Island mallow CNPS Rank Swales in northern and central Decreasing? Found only on SCI and Santa Catalina Island. On (Malva 1B.1 portions of the island on west- SCI, documented from near the west end of the assurgentiflora) and north-facing slopes between airstrip, the south side of the airstrip, the vicinity of elevations of 21 and 152 m (70 Flasher, and from Chamish Canyon (Junak and and 500 feet). Also on stabilized Wilken 1998). Survey reports from the mid-1800s and active dunes. Commonly suggested that it was formerly abundant and used as a landscape plant widespread, even dominant at many locations. SCI around Wilson Cove. estimated population: 32 occurrences with 276 individuals. Nevin's woolly CNPS Rank Canyon woodland, sea bluff Unknown Found only on SCI, Santa Catalina Island, and Santa sunflower 1B.3 succulent scrub, maritime sage Barbara Island. On SCI it is very abundant and (Constancea scrub. widespread, found on canyon walls, sea bluffs, and nevinii) rocks. Not mapped by Junak and Wilken (1998) or Junak (2006). No exact locality information available. SCI estimated population: abundant and widespread. Pygmy linanthus CNPS Rank Grassland Unknown Found only on SCI and Guadalupe Island. No (Leptosiphon 1B.2 specific locality information, but fairly frequent on pygmaeus spp. SCI in purple needlegrass grasslands. SCI pygmaeus) estimated population: abundant and widespread; no specific location data or population numbers in Junak and Wilken (1998) or Junak (2010). San Clemente CNPS Rank Grasslands, primarily in the Increasing Found only on SCI. Documented from Waynuk Island brodiaea 1B.2 central portion of the mesa Canyon, Wall Rock Canyon, Tota Canyon, Lemon (Brodiaea between 300 and 565 m (984 Tank Canyon, Twin Dams Canyon, Norton kinkiensis) and 1,854 feet). Canyon, flats along Horton Canyon Road, near junction of Horton Canyon and Ridge Road. Thousands of individuals were observed during spring 2003 surveys conducted for the P-493 Project. SCI estimated population: 142 occurrences with 64,015 individuals. San Clemente CNPS Rank Coastal slopes and flats on Increasing Found only on SCI. Documented from Eagle Island buckwheat 1B.2 steep canyon walls and in Canyon, Snake Cactus Canyon, Chamish Canyon, (Eriogonum canyon bottoms at elevations Mosquito Cove, Mosquito Canyon, China Canyon, giganteum var. between 10 and 455 m (33 and Waynuk Canyon, Thirst Canyon, Twin Dams formosum) 1,500 feet). Canyon, Middle Ranch Canyon, Vista Canyon, Kinkipar Canyon, Matriarch Canyon, Horse Beach Canyon, Horse Canyon, Box Canyon, and Chukit Canyon (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 270 occurrences with 15,523 individuals.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-33 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Sensitivity Status Species Name Plant Communities Distribution and SCI Localities/Abundance Status Trend San Clemente CNPS Rank Steep canyon walls and in Stable to Found only on SCI and Guadalupe Island. On SCI, Island hazardia 1B.2 canyon bottoms on west-, north- Increasing documented from Middle Ranch Canyon, Mosquito (Hazardia cana) and east-facing exposures Canyon, escarpments near Camera Pad “Male,” between elevations of 70 and Eagle Canyon, China Canyon, Chenetti Canyon, 370 m (230 and 1,214 feet). Twin Dams Canyon, Matriarch Canyon, Cave Canyon, Bryce Canyon, Norton Canyon, Horse Canyon, Horse Beach Canyon, and Box Canyon (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 153 occurrences with 3,347 individuals. Numerous juvenile plants, recorded during the 2003-2006 surveys. San Clemente CNPS Rank Stabilized dunes and coastal flats Increasing Found only on SCI. Documented from several Island milk vetch 1B.2 between ten and 70 m (33 and locations at the north end of the island (e.g., the (Astragalus 230 feet) in elevation. A few vicinity of the airfield and southward to Chamish nevinii) populations found in caliche soils Canyon), also at point south of Eel Cove on the on the east side of the island at west shore and Horse Beach Canyon on the elevations up to 120 m (394 feet) southern end of the island (Junak and Wilken (Junak and Wilken 1998). 1998). SCI estimated population: 205 occurrences with 21,554 individuals. San Clemente CNPS Rank Loose talus slopes with large Decreasing? Found only on SCI and Guadalupe Island, Baja Island phacelia 1B.2 angular rocks or on rocky flats in California, Mexico. On SCI, documented from the (Phacelia canyon bottoms at elevations southeast end of SCI near “Guns,” Middle Ranch floribunda) between 3 and 370 m (10 and Canyon, Seal Cove, near “Jack,” Norton Canyon, Wall 1,220 feet). Rock Canyon, Horse Canyon, Cave Canyon, North Head, Whale Point, near Pyramid Point, and Wilson Cove (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 52 occurrences with 2,983 individuals. San Clemente CNPS Rank Primarily on north-facing canyon Decreasing? Found only on SCI. Documented from Eagle Island triteleia 1B.2 walls of the eastern escarpment Canyon, Lemon Tank Canyon, Knob Canyon, Wall (Triteleia of SCI at elevations between 10 Rock Canyon, near Camera Pad “Male,” Bryce clementina) and 460 m (30 and 1,500 feet). Canyon, escarpments near Mosquito Canyon, Mosquito Canyon, Box Canyon, near Nanny Canyon, near “Male 1,” near Tota Canyon, and near Camera Pad “Snapper” (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 88 occurrences with 4,818 individuals. San Nicolas CNPS Rank Sea bluffs Presumed Known only from San Clemente, San Nicolas, and Island lomatium 1B extinct on Guadalupe Islands. (Lomatium SCI insulare) Santa Catalina CNPS Rank Primarily on open north- and east- Increasing Found only on SCI and Santa Catalina Island. On figwort 1B.2 facing slopes and canyon bottoms SCI, documented from Stone Canyon, Burn's (Scrophularia along the eastern escarpment Canyon, Horton Canyon, and Thirst Canyon villosa) between elevations of 6 and 425 (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated m (20 and 1,400 feet). population: 47 occurrences with 1,432 individuals. Santa Catalina CNPS Rank Coastal slopes below 60 m (197 Presumed Historic range included SCI, Santa Catalina Island, Island desert 1B.1 feet) in elevation. extinct on and the Palos Verdes Peninsula (Los Angeles thorn SCI Co.). (Lycium brevipes var. hassei)

3-34 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Sensitivity Status Species Name Plant Communities Distribution and SCI Localities/Abundance Status Trend Santa Cruz CNPS Rank Steep north-facing canyon walls Unknown Found only on San Clemente, Santa Cruz, and Santa ironwood 1B.2 on the east escarpment at Rosa Islands. Reproduces vegetatively by stump (Lyonothamnus elevations between 984 and sprouting so that an individual “stand” may be one floribundus spp. 1,608 feet (300 and 490 m). genetic individual. On SCI, documented from aspleniifolius) Occasionally present in canyon Mosquito Canyon, Vista Canyon, Eagle Canyon, near bottoms and on the west side of Camera Pad “Male,” Bryce Canyon, Matriarch the island at elevations as low Canyon, Thirst Canyon, Canchalagua Canyon, Horse as 295 feet (90 m). Canyon, and near Knob Canyon (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 153 occurrences with 569 individuals. Not included in Junak (2006). showy Island CNPS Rank Common on canyon walls and in Unknown Found only on San Clemente, Santa Catalina, and snapdragon 1B.2 woodlands. Guadalupe Islands. On SCI, documented from (Gambelia Knob Canyon, Tota Canyon, Warren Canyon, Eel speciosa) Cove Canyon, Cave Canyon, Chukit Canyon, Box Canyon, Horton Canyon, Twin Dams Canyon, Burns Canyon, Mosquito Canyon, Chenetti Canyon, Horse Beach Canyon, China Canyon, Kinkipar Canyon, and Eel Point. Not mapped by Junak and Wilken (1998). SCI estimated population: abundant and widespread. South coast CNPS Rank Coastal flats and bluffs, open Increasing Known from California Channel Islands except San saltscale 1B.2 slopes and ridge tops. Gentle Miguel Island and on adjacent mainland from (Atriplex pacifica) slopes or flats with south Ventura County southward into northern Baja exposures at elevations between California, Mexico. Sonoran Desert localities in 49 and 1,476 feet (15 and 450 Arizona and Sonora, Mexico. Appears rare m). throughout range. On SCI, documented from Chukit Canyon, Box Canyon, Norton Canyon, Eel Cove Canyon, Seal Cove, Middle Ranch Canyon, Snake Cactus Canyon, and Pyramid Target (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 153 occurrences with 541 individuals (Junak 2010). Thorne's royal CNPS Rank Grassy, north-facing slopes, Decreasing? Found only on SCI. Documented from larkspur 1B.1 often near the heads of canyons escarpments near Mosquito Canyon, Bryce (Delphinium of the east side of SCI, or Canyon, Eagle Canyon, and Vista Canyon, and variegatum spp. associated ridges or swales, escarpments near Camera Pad “Male” (Junak and thornei) mostly in southern portion of SCI Wilken 1998). SCI estimated population: 39 between 400 and 550 m (1,312 occurrences with 8,659 individuals (Junak 2010). and 1,804 feet). Trask's CNPS Rank Primarily at the north end and Decreasing? Found only on San Nicolas and San Clemente cryptantha 1B.1 along the west side of the island. Islands. On SCI, documented from Northwest (Cryptantha Sandy coastal flats and partially Harbor, near BUD/S Camp, sand dunes near traskiae) stabilized sand dunes near the Flasher, between Eel Cove and Seal Cove, and coast, at elevations between 10 China Cove (Junak and Wilken 1998). SCI and 70 m (33 and 230 feet). estimated population: 25 occurrences with 25,800 individuals (Junak 2010). CNPS Rank 1B Species “are rare throughout their range with the majority of them endemic to California.” Threat Ranks: 0.1-seriously threatened in California (over 80%) of occurrences threatened/high degree and immediacy of threat), 0.2-fairly threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened/moderate degree and immediacy of threat), and 0.3-not very threatened in California (<20% of occurrences threatened/low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known). 1

2 3.1.5.3 Federally Listed Wildlife Species 3 SCI has six federally listed endangered or threatened wildlife species and one candidate species 4 (Table 3-8). There are also four federally listed sea turtles with the potential to occur in the SCI 5 footprint.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-35 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Table 3-8. Federally listed wildlife species found, or potentially, on San 2 Clemente Island. Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status * San Clemente loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi E San Clemente sage sparrow Amphispiza belli clementae E Island night lizard Xantusia riversiana T Western snowy plover Charadrius nivosus T Xantus’s murrelet Synthliboramphus hypoleucus C White abalone Haliotis sorenseni E Black abalone Haliotis cracherodii E Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta E Olive ridley sea turtle Lepodochelys olivacea E Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea E Eastern Pacific green sea turtle Chelonia mydas T *Legend: E-Endangered, T-Threatened, C-Candidate

3 3.1.5.3.1 White Abalone 4 White abalone (Haliotis sorenseni) are herbivorous gastropods historically found from Punta 5 Abreojos, Baja California, Mexico to Point Conception, California (Cox 1960). Since the mid- 6 1990s, extremely low numbers of isolated survivors have been identified along the mainland 7 coast of Santa Barbara County and at some offshore islands and banks, including SCI, which is a 8 historical center of abundance for the species (Cox 1960; Leighton 1972).

9 White abalone are found in deep rocky habitat interspersed with sand channels (Tutschulte 1976, 10 Davis et al. 1996). Sand channels may be important for the movement and concentration of drift 11 macroalgae upon which white abalone are known to feed (NMFS 2006). They can be found at 12 depths of 20 to 60 m (65 to 196 feet) and were historically most abundant at 25 to 30 m (80 to 13 100 feet) (Cox 1960; Tutschulte 1976).

14 Abalone have separate sexes and are broadcast spawners, releasing millions of eggs or sperm 15 into the water column during a spawning event. Fertilized eggs hatch and develop into free- 16 swimming larvae, spending five to 14 days as a non-feeding zooplankton before development 17 (i.e. metamorphosis) into the adult form. After metamorphosis, they settle onto hard substrates in 18 intertidal and subtidal areas. Abalone grow slowly and have a relatively long life span of 35 to 40 19 years, growing to a maximum diameter of 25 cm (10 in) (NMFS 2008).

20 Juvenile abalone seek cover in rocky crevices, feeding on benthic diatoms, bacterial films, and 21 single-celled algae found on coralline algal substrate (Cox 1962). At about a length of 75 to 100 22 millimeters (3 to 4 inches), abalone emerge from rocky crevices since they are less vulnerable to 23 predators. At this point in their life cycle, white abalone will start to feed on drift and attached 24 algae, including deeper water brown taxa Laminaria farlowii and Agarum fimbriatum.

25 The most significant threat to white abalone is related to the long-term effects from overfishing. 26 During the 1960s, major changes occurred in the abalone fisheries, including the evolution of 27 diving gear from the Widolf mask and heavy gear into what is used today (Lundy 1997); this

3-36 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 increased the efficiency and effectiveness of the fishery by allowing divers to stay underwater 2 longer and dive deeper. The harvest of white abalone became popular in 1968 (Lundy 1997) with 3 a peak of pounds landed in 1973 (Hobday and Tegner 2000). By 1978, the catch of white 4 abalone declined dramatically (Tegner 1989) with a complete collapse occurring in the 1980s 5 (Lundy 1997). Due to the depletion of the fishery, white abalone fishing was closed in 1996 6 throughout southern California. Overfishing reduced white abalone densities to such low levels 7 that animals are not close enough for successful fertilization, resulting in reproductive failure 8 (Hobday and Tegner 2000).

9 3.1.5.3.2 Black Abalone 10 Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) is a large marine gastropod thought to feed primarily on 11 giant kelp and feather boa kelp in southern California (Haaker 1986). They are the shallowest of 12 the abalone species, inhabiting coastal and offshore island intertidal and shallow subtidal habitats 13 on exposed rocky shores where bedrock provides deep, protective crevices for shelter (Leighton 14 2005). These cracks and crevices in intertidal habitats appear to be crucial for juvenile 15 recruitment and adult survival (Leighton 1959; Leighton and Boolootian 1963; Douros 1985, 16 1987; Miller and Lawrenz-Miller 1993; VanBlaricom et al. 1993; Haaker et al. 1995). They 17 generally occur in areas of moderate to high surf. The species are typically found in middle 18 intertidal zones. Factors, such as wave exposure and distribution of drift kelp, determine whether 19 black abalone will be in high or low intertidal zones.

20 Historically, black abalone ranged from Crescent City, California to southern Baja California, 21 Mexico (Geiger 2004). Currently, the species range is constricted from Point Arena, California to 22 Bahia Tortugas, Mexico, with sightings rare north of San Francisco (Morris et al. 1980) and 23 south of Punta Eugenia, Mexico (P. Raimondi, pers. com.).

24 Black abalone reach a maximum size of about 20 cm (eight in) in diameter, but typically range 25 from ten to 14 cm (4.0 to 5.5 inches), and are thought to live 20 to 30 years. They have separate 26 sexes and broadcast spawn, primarily in summer months. Larval black abalone are thought to 27 settle on rocky substrate with crustose coralline algae, which serves as a food source for post- 28 metamorphic juveniles, along with microbial and diatom films (Leighton 1959; Leighton and 29 Boolootian 1963; Bergen 1971).

30 Historical overfishing and continuing illegal harvest were threats identified by National Marine 31 Fishery Service that led to the species listing on the Endangered Species Act. However, the 32 primary threat to black abalone is the disease called withering syndrome. Black abalone 33 populations were abundant throughout the Channel Islands until the mid-1980s when populations 34 began to decline dramatically due to the spread of withering syndrome (Tissot 1995). The 35 disease is caused by a Rickettsiales-like prokaryotic pathogen of unknown origin that invades 36 digestive epithelial cells and disrupts absorption of digestive materials from the gut lumen into 37 the tissues (Gardner et al. 1995). Withering syndrome spread through the Channel Islands from 38 1986 to the mid-1990s, and consequently, spread to the mainland populations in both California 39 and Mexico. As a result of the disease, most black abalone populations in southern California

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-37 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 have declined by 90 to 99% since the late 1980s (VanBlaricom et al. 2009) and have fallen 2 below estimated population densities necessary for successful recruitment (Neuman et al. 2010).

3 3.1.5.3.3 Island Night Lizard 4 The island night lizard (Xantusia riversiana) is found on San Nicolas, Santa Barbara, and San 5 Clemente Islands. Of the three islands, SCI contains the largest population. Habitat degradation 6 from goats and pigs had been a concern for the species and led to its federal listing as threatened 7 in August 1977; the Navy has since removed all goats and pigs from SCI. In recognition of this 8 and the relatively low level of risk to the population from other factors, the San Clemente 9 population was recommended for delisting following the 5-Year Review (USFWS 2006b). 10 Effects from habitat degradation continue, although preferred habitats of boxthorn and prickly- 11 pear show signs of recovery (Tierra Data Inc. 2011a).

12 Current threats to the population include introduced plant species, fire, low reproduction, and 13 predation. Introduced grass species may compete with existing native plant communities to 14 reduce preferred island night lizard habitat. Although island night lizards inhabit grassland areas, 15 they occur there at much lower density than in maritime dessert scrub habitats (Mautz 2001). 16 Non-native grasses may also alter fire frequency and intensity. Predators of the island night 17 lizard include American kestrel (Falco sparverius), San Clemente loggerhead shrike, San 18 Clemente Island fox, and feral cats. Phillips et al. (2007) found that lizards on SCI are eaten 19 more frequently by feral cats (12.9% of diet) than by foxes (4.5%), indicating that feral cats may 20 pose a larger risk to island night lizards than other native predators.

21 Despite their name, island night lizard s are diurnally active. However, they are secretive, 22 relatively sedentary, and not easily seen, which makes estimating population size difficult 23 (Mautz 2001). The population on SCI is estimated to be approximately 20 million individuals 24 (Mautz 2001) and is thought to be stable. Despite drought conditions in fall 2004, island night 25 lizard trap capture rates and counts revealed population densities as high as earlier data (Mautz 26 2007). Island night lizards have very slow metabolic rates, which may make them particularly 27 well-adapted to surviving occasional droughts (Mautz and Nagy 2000). However, females 28 produce fewer young in drought years (Mautz 2007).

29 This species grows slowly, matures late, lives long, and has a low reproductive rate, which are 30 unusual traits in a lizard (Tinkle 1969). On SCI, approximately half of the adult females breed in 31 a particular year (Goldberg and Bezy 1974; Bezy 1980). Females reach sexual maturity in their 32 fourth year, while males reach sexual maturity in the spring of their third year. Breeding begins 33 in March and live young are born in September. Four to five young (mean number of offspring is 34 4.4) are produced per breeding cycle and their life expectancy ranges from 11 to 13 years (Mautz 35 2001). It is thought that due to the sedentary nature of this species, high densities are required for 36 a viable population (Mautz 2001). They eat a variety of insects as well as the fruits, leaves, and 37 flowers of boxthorn plants (Lycium brevipes var. brevipes).

3-38 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Lizards, including the island night lizard, regulate their body temperature by changing locations. 2 However, the island night lizard maintains its temperature within a narrower range than most 3 lizards and cannot withstand temperatures in excess of 40°C (104°F) (Mautz 1979). For this 4 reason, habitat structure is potentially even more important than the primary vegetation type 5 (Mautz 2001). Ideal habitat includes dense low-growing cactus, low-lying shrub thickets, rocky 6 outcrops with loose boulders and stones, and man-made debris to shelter them from predators 7 and the heat. The island night lizard is found in all habitats on SCI except active sand dunes.

8 3.1.5.3.4 San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike 9 The San Clemente loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi) is endemic to SCI. Although 10 individuals occasionally disperse off-island, these birds are considered non-migratory. Shrikes 11 from Catalina Island or the mainland also occasionally appear on SCI during the winter but are 12 not known to breed on the island. A predominantly monogamous mating system, relatively short 13 life span, and small population size make them vulnerable to extinction. Historically, this 14 subspecies was considered “tolerably common” and well-distributed across SCI (USFWS 1984). 15 However, habitat degradation from prolonged browsing by goats and pigs resulted, directly and 16 indirectly, in the elimination of many nesting and roosting sites and led to a sharp decline in the 17 population (Scott and Morrison 1990); the goat population has subsequently been removed.

18 Since intensive monitoring began, the population estimate has ranged from a low of four breeding 19 pairs in 1991 to a high in 2009 of 82 (Stahl et al. 2011). Above average rainfall prior to some 20 breeding seasons, supplemental feeding, and continued predator control have contributed to the 21 increase in the breeding population. Apparent nest success has averaged 46% over the 13 years 22 since monitoring began in 1998 (Stahl et al. 2011); this is below the 56% average nest success for 23 mainland loggerhead shrikes (Yosef 1996). Nesting success appears to increase in years with 24 above average rainfall during the prior winter (Farabaugh 2012). From 1998 to 2010, an average of 25 1.8 juveniles were produced per breeding pair; in 2010, following a winter of higher than average 26 rainfall, 2.5 independent young were produced per pair (Stahl et al. 2011).

27 Loggerhead shrikes are small predatory birds with the unique habit of impaling their prey (Yosef 28 1996). They use elevated perches, snags, shrubs and rock outcrops from which to hunt and open 29 foraging areas with a readily available supply of invertebrate and small vertebrate prey (insects, 30 lizards, small birds, and mice) (Scott and Morrision 1990). Shrikes concentrate foraging near 31 nesting locations during the breeding season and use additional areas throughout the island for 32 the remainder of the year (Scott and Morrison 1990). However, males may remain in the same 33 territory for both breeding and wintering seasons (Lynn et al. 2003). During the winter and fall, 34 unpaired shrikes typically occupy the island's upper mesas (USFWS 1984).

35 Nesting territories vary greatly in size ranging from 1.1 hectares (2.7 acres) to 271.10 hectares 36 (670 acres) (Lynn et al. 2004). Nests are generally placed one to 3 m (3.3 to 9.9 feet) above 37 ground in densely foliaged trees or shrubs (Yosef 1996), near the bottoms of canyons (USFWS 38 1984). In 1998, nest locations were largely located in China Canyon (62.5%) (Lynn et al. 1999), 39 which is inside the Shore Bombardment Area (SHOBA). Population growth has led to more

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-39 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 shrike nest locations outside SHOBA; in 2010, more than 70% of the shrike nest locations were 2 outside SHOBA (Stahl et al. 2011). However, most nests are still located in canyons across the 3 southern two-thirds of the island (Stahl et al. 2011). Population growth has also led to a wider 4 variety of nest substrates being used. Of the nests located in 2010, 24.5% (n = 25) were in 5 Catalina cherry (Prunus lyonii), 19.6% (n = 20) in lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia), 12.7% (n 6 = 13) in sagebrush (Artemesia spp.), 10.8% (n = 11) in coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), 7.84% 7 (n = 8) in toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and less than 5% each were in oak (Quercus spp.), 8 island morning glory (Calystegia macrostegia amplissima), Santa Cruz ironwood, Nevin’s 9 woolly sunflower (Eriophyllum nevinii), showy island snapdragon (Gambelia speciosa), and big- 10 pod ceanothus (Ceanothus megacarpus) (Stahl et al. 2011). Nest sites are sometimes re-used 11 between years.

12 3.1.5.3.5 San Clemente Sage Sparrow 13 The San Clemente sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli clementae) has ranged from a low of 38 14 individuals in 1984 to a high of 1,519 adults in 2002 (Beaudry et al. 2004). Most recent estimates 15 of population size are from 1,047 to 1,457 individuals (Docherty et al. 2011). Apparent annual 16 survival for both adults and juveniles fluctuates annually. Average adult survival from 2000 to 17 2010 averaged 50%, while juvenile survival in the same period averaged 24% (Docherty et al. 18 2011). High juvenile mortality has been identified as a critical threat to the recovery of the 19 species (Hudgens et al. 2011). However, it is expected that data currently being collected will 20 indicate a reduced threat to the population. Earlier analyses were completed prior to a recent 21 annual survey that identified sage sparrows breeding outside of their known habitats and areas of 22 SCI (M. Booker, pers. com.). Prior to this discovery, sage sparrows were thought to breed 23 primarily in maritime desert scrub habitat. For this reason, nest monitoring plots were placed 24 exclusively in this habitat type. It is now known that sage sparrows also utilize maritime sage 25 scrub habitat for nesting and there are likely differences in breeding success and survival 26 between these two habitats. Results from prior studies restricted to maritime desert scrub 27 monitoring plots are, therefore, based on incomplete data regarding population size and survival 28 and likely underestimate the actual population size (M. Booker, pers. com.). Thus, recent 29 population estimates should be viewed with caution; in contrast, population trends are likely well 30 reflected in prior monitoring results.

31 Breeding behavior begins as early as late January, and nesting is from mid-March through June. 32 In maritime desert scrub habitat, there has been a trend of decreasing nesting success since 2000, 33 which may be related to increased nest predation by introduced black rats. At this time, there is 34 no data on nesting success in maritime sage scrub habitat. Of the known nest predations in 2010, 35 61% were attributed to black rats (Docherty et al. 2011). While overall nest success has 36 decreased, recent surveys have indicated higher sage sparrow reproductive success via a longer 37 breeding season in years following winters of high rainfall (Docherty et al. 2011). Higher rainfall 38 may contribute to increased vegetative growth and invertebrate production, which may then 39 support additional nesting attempts and more nestlings (Martin and Carlson 1998).

3-40 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Nests in maritime desert scrub habitat are placed low in shrubs with dense branches (Martin and 2 Carlson 1998), particularly boxthorn (76.2% of nests found from 1999 to 2010) (Docherty et al. 3 2011), which provide important protection and cover from predators. Other plants, such as lichen 4 (Roccella babingtonii and R. fimbriata), island butterweed, and island tarplant, are also used for 5 nesting (Munkwitz et al. 2002), and the presence of cactus and forbs in the surrounding habitat is 6 also important. San Clemente sage sparrows forage on boxthorn berries, cactus and saltbush 7 fruits, other plant seeds, and insects (Hyde 1985).

8 3.1.5.3.6 Western Snowy Plover 9 The western snowy plover is a small shorebird that breeds along the Pacific coast from southern 10 Washington to southern Baja California as well as interior areas of Oregon, California, Nevada, 11 Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and north central Texas. While a small 12 amount of interbreeding may occur, the Pacific coast population is genetically isolated from 13 western snowy plovers that breed in the interior (USFWS 1993).

14 The breeding season of the coastal population extends from mid-March through mid-September 15 (USFWS 1993). At beach locations, they feed on invertebrates in the wet sand and within kelp 16 along the high tide line. Nests are in unlined, shallow depressions in hardened clay, silt, loose 17 cobble, pebbles, or sand. Adults and eggs are cryptically colored because nests are in the open, 18 making them vulnerable to predators and exposed to the elements. Sand spits, dune-backed 19 beaches, wide unvegetated beach strands, and open areas at river mouths around estuaries and 20 beaches are preferred for nesting; however, these are generally lacking on SCI.

21 The snowy plover has been a fairly common winter visitor to SCI, as suggested by numerous 22 reports (Linton 1908; Howell 1917; Page et al. 1986; Sullivan and Kershner 2005, USFWS 23 2007b). Band recoveries in previous years (Powell et al. 1997; Foster and Copper 2003) suggest 24 that some of the western snowy plovers that breed in San Diego County regularly move out to 25 SCI during the winter. The visitors sighted are usually in low number; however, sightings and 26 numbers of individuals have been consistent. Consistent presence of western snowy plovers in 27 the winter and breeding season, and coastal origin of all identifiable individuals on SCI, suggest 28 that this island is an important wintering area, and occasional breeding area, for the coastal 29 population of this species (Lynn et al. 2006).

30 SCI is unlikely to be an important breeding area for this species due to a combination of factors 31 including: the limited extent of sandy beaches on SCI, the narrowness of the beaches 32 (increasingly so at West Cove), and the abundance of predators. The recovery plan for the 33 western snowy plover (USFWS 2007b) identified six beaches on SCI as important for wintering 34 birds: Pyramid Cove, Horse Beach, China Cove, West Cove, Graduation Beach, and BUD/S 35 Beach. These six beaches constitute only 4.6 km (2.8 miles) of the 88.5 km (55 miles) SCI 36 coastline. They are also some of the areas of the island most frequently used for military 37 operations, since sandy beaches provide critical military access (USFWS 2008).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-41 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Typically, the number of western snowy plovers on SCI peaks in November, although numbers 2 from surveys from 2003 to 2005 peak in October and the peak during the 2009 - 2010 survey 3 was in January. Surveyors in 2010 detected a maximum of 24 plovers (Stahl and Bridges 2010), 4 which represents a sharp decline from 2003 (41 plovers) and 2004 (51 plovers). These numbers 5 represent from nine to 15% of the estimated numbers of plovers in Los Angeles County during 6 the same time period (Lynn et al. 2006, Stahl and Bridges 2010). Prior to 2004, Pyramid Cove 7 had the largest number of wintering plovers (28 in October 2003) (Lynn et al. 2004). However, it 8 has not been surveyed since 2003 owing to the presence of a military training range, which may 9 contain live, unexploded ordnance. Of the three currently surveyed beaches, West Cove has the 10 highest number of plovers (Stahl and Bridges 2010). Breeding on SCI has been confirmed three 11 times. More recent surveys, from 2000 to 2005 and from 2008 to 2010, have shown no evidence 12 of snowy plover breeding activity on SCI (Foster 2000; Foster and Copper 2003; Lynn et al. 13 2004, 2005, 2006; Stahl and Bridges 2010). However, the southern beaches with the most likely 14 nesting areas have not been surveyed since 2003.

15 3.1.5.4 Xantus’s Murrelet 16 Two subspecies of the Xantus's murrelet are currently recognized: Synthliboramphus hypoleucus 17 hypoleucus and S.h. scrippsi. These subspecies are most easily distinguished by facial plumage, 18 especially the presence of white feathers above and in front of the eye in S.h. hypoleucus, 19 compared to black feathers in S.h. scrippsi. Differences also exist in bill length and depth, tarsus 20 length, and black and wing lining plumage color (Green and Arnold 1939; Jehl and Bond 1975).

21 Substantial declines have been documented in both subspecies, and the species as a whole has 22 been assigned federal candidate status. The species has a listing priority of five, priority numbers 23 range from one to ten with the lower number having a higher priority listing. The listing is 24 currently warranted but precluded (76 FR 66370) because of the higher listing priority of other 25 species. S.h. hypoleucus nests father south, on Guadalupe and San Benito Islands off Baja 26 California, Mexico while S.h. scrippsi nests from the Channel Islands off the southern California 27 coast to San Benito Islands in Mexico (Jehl and Bond 1975).

28 Although the two subspecies have long been recognized, a recent study by Birt et al. (2012) 29 found little evidence for hybridization or genetic introgression, contradicting previous 30 interpretations on interbreeding due to intermediate facial plumage at San Benito Islands (Jehl 31 and Bond 1975). Estimates of gene flow were essentially zero, and no evidence for interbreeding 32 was found. The genetic differences separating the two subspecies, combined with their mor- 33 phological differences, strongly suggest that these taxa represent reproductively isolated species 34 (Birt et al. 2012). Genetic samples of individuals from SCI were not used in Birt et al. (2012) 35 since its breeding status on the island is unknown. However, Birt et al. (2012) concluded that the 36 subspecies found on SCI, S.h. scrippsi, may be more resilient to the effects at any one breeding 37 area because of its high dispersal between breeding areas. Nevertheless, this species is still 38 vulnerable to many threats, which are discussed below.

3-42 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Takekawa et al. (1994) found at-sea densities of Xantus’s murrelets greatest during May with 2 few birds observed during January or September. The species was not observed near the coast in 3 any month. During the 1999-2002 surveys, at-sea densities were greater than during the 1975- 4 1983 surveys throughout the entire study area.

5 Xantus's murrelets spend the majority of their lives at seas, only coming to land to nest. They 6 begin arriving to nesting colonies in December and January (Murray et al. 1983). SCI currently 7 supports one of the smallest Xantus's murrelet colonies in the world (Carter et al. 2009). 8 Spotlight surveys in 2008 confirmed that about ten to 25 pairs attend at-sea congregations at SCI 9 (Carter et al. 2009). The majority of this population appears to breed in the Seal Cove area. 10 However, isolated breeding pairs may also nest in small pockets near Castle Rock, Wilson Cove 11 area, China Point areas, and between Mosquito Cove and Pyramid Head (Carter et al. 2009). The 12 breeding population of Xantus's murrelets on SCI is most likely limited due to the lack of space 13 on offshore rocks and terrestrial predators, such as foxes, feral cats, black rats (Rattus rattus) 14 (Hunt et al. 1979), and barn owls (Tyto alba) (Birt et al. 2012).

15 During the non-breeding season (June through December), most Xantus's murrelets occur 16 offshore in the warm pelagic waters of the California current. Non-breeding distribution for this 17 species ranges from the waters of southern British Columbia, Canada to Baja California, Mexico.

18 The species will forage in pairs or small groups over the continental slope and shelf (Hunt and 19 Butler 1980; Hunt et al. 1979), and recent studies during the breeding season found individuals 20 foraging in cool, upwelled waters (Whitworth et al. 2000). Limited information on the diet 21 indicates Xantus's murrelets rely primarily on larval anchovy, saury, and rockfish (Hunt and 22 Butler 1980; Hunt et al. 1979).

23 Limited breeding distribution and small population make the Xantus's murrelet especially 24 vulnerable to threats, such as oil pollution and fishery bycatch (Sydeman and Nur 1999, Carter et 25 al. 2000). In colonies, native and non-native predators, such as peregrine falcons and rats, can 26 have a substantial impact on the population (Drost 1989, Wolf et al. 2000). The number of 27 suitable, predator-free nesting islands is the major factor limiting the world population of popu- 28 lation. Moreover, on some of the large islands (e.g. Guadalupe Island), introduced predators have 29 restricted murrelets to small, predator-free islets offshore, where nesting birds appear to be very 30 crowded (Jehl and Bond 1975). Prey availability may also limit recruitment; delayed and reduced 31 nesting effort in some years has been linked to lower populations of prey (anchovies) in area 32 waters (Hunt and Butler 1980).

33 3.1.5.4.1 Sea Turtles 34 Four species of sea turtles occur at sea off the coast of southern California: leatherback 35 (Dermochelys coriacea), loggerhead (Caretta caretta), eastern Pacific green (Chelonia mydas), 36 and olive ridley (Dermochelys coriacea). Due to the primarily pelagic oceanic distributions of 37 the leatherback, loggerhead, and olive ridley turtles off southern California, the Pacific coastal 38 waters out to the central Pacific Ocean is designated as an area of primary occurrence for all sea

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-43 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 turtle species (Navy 2008). However, there are no known sea turtle nesting beaches on the west 2 coast of the United States and SCI is not a concentration area or destination for sea turtles (P. 3 Dutton, pers. com.).

4 Seasonal Distribution 5 The distribution of sea turtles is strongly affected by seasonal changes in ocean temperature 6 (Radovich 1961). In general, sightings increase during the summer as warm water moves 7 northward along the coast (Stinson 1984). Sightings may also be higher in warm water years 8 (e.g. El Niño) compared to cold water years (e.g. La Niña).

9 Off the west coast of the U.S., leatherback turtles are most abundant from July to September and 10 are rarely reported during winter and spring. Their appearance in southern California coincides 11 with the arrival of the 18 to 20oC (64 to 68oF) isotherms (Stinson 1984). Stinson (1984) noted 12 that the July appearance of leatherbacks along the U.S. west coast was two-pronged, with turtles 13 suddenly appearing in southern and northern California, Oregon, and Washington; however, only 14 a few sightings occurred along the intermediate coastline. Turtles may be moving onshore from 15 offshore areas where the water temperature is 13o to 15oC (55o to 59oF) (Stinson 1984). Morreale 16 et al. (1994) found that migrating leatherback turtles often travel parallel to deep water contours, 17 ranging in depth from 200 to 3,500 m (650 to 11,500 feet). Leatherback turtles could pass 18 through offshore waters near SCI during migration; they could pass through as groups of a few 19 adults and not as large concentrations (P. Dutton, pers. com.).

20 Juvenile loggerhead sea turtles are common year-round in the coastal waters of southern 21 California (Stinson 1984), while adult loggerheads are rarely seen. Sightings are most common 22 during July to September (Stinson 1984). The juvenile loggerheads off southern California may 23 represent the fringe of large aggregations that occur off the west coast of Baja California, Mexico 24 (Bartlett 1989, Pitman 1990). Juvenile loggerhead turtles would be the most common sea turtle 25 present in offshore waters of SCI (P. Dutton, pers. com.). An aggregation could pass through in 26 waters adjacent to the island, and it is possible that a few could stop and feed in nearshore waters 27 of SCI.

28 The east Pacific green sea turtle is the most commonly observed hard-shelled sea turtle on the 29 Pacific coast from northern Baja California, Mexico to Alaska (Stinson 1984) and is the only sea 30 turtle species with a confirmed sighting in nearshore waters of SCI (Lerma, pers. com.). Most of 31 the sightings (62%) were reported from northern Baja California, Mexico and southern California. 32 Green sea turtles are sighted year-round in the waters off southern California, with the highest 33 frequency of sightings occurring during the warm summer months of July through October 34 (Stinson 1984). In waters south of Point Conception, Stinson (1984) found this seasonal pattern in 35 sightings to be independent of inter-year temperature fluctuations. The year-round presence of 36 green sea turtles off southern California likely represents a stable northern Mexican population. 37 Green sea turtles feed on seagrasses in nearshore waters; therefore, this species could be found in 38 nearshore waters of SCI (Dutton 2000). However, the waters of SCI are colder than those preferred 39 by green sea turtles, making concentrations of this species unlikely in nearshore water of the island.

3-44 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 A small population of olive ridley sea turtles nest along the Pacific coast of Baja California, 2 Mexico, which is the northernmost known nesting area in the eastern north Pacific (Fritts et al. 3 1982, Sarti-M et al. 1996, Lopez-Castro et al. 2000). Outside of the breeding season, olive 4 ridleys disperse, and little is known of their behavior. Individuals exhibit a nomadic pattern and 5 occupy a series of feeding areas in oceanic waters (Plotkin et al. 1994).

6 Abundance of Sea Turtles 7 Sea turtles typically remain submerged for several minutes to several hours, depending upon 8 their activity state (Standora et al. 1994). Long periods of submergence hamper detection and 9 confound census estimates.

10 Pitman (1990) presents data on relative densities off Baja California, Mexico and Stinson (1984) 11 presents data on relative abundance of turtles off the U.S. Pacific coast. However, there are no 12 data on absolute densities or abundance of sea turtles on the U.S. Pacific coast.

13 Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Species 14 All four species of sea turtles with the potential to occur in waters around SCI are federally listed 15 as endangered or threatened. The leatherback turtle is listed as endangered throughout its entire 16 range (34 FR 8491). Both the olive ridley (32 FR 32800) and green sea turtles (43 FR 32800) are 17 listed as threatened while at sea and nesting populations on the Pacific coast of Mexico are 18 endangered. The loggerhead sea turtle is listed as threatened throughout its range (43 FR 32800).

19 3.1.5.5 Non-Federally Listed Wildlife Species

20 3.1.5.5.1 San Clemente Island Fox 21 The San Clemente Island fox is listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species 22 Act. It is the only subspecies not listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act 23 (USFWS 2004). In January 2003, the Navy entered into a Conservation Agreement with the 24 USFWS to identify and implement proactive measures towards management of the San 25 Clemente island fox, with the intent of avoiding population declines that might lead to a federal 26 listing (USFWS 2003).

27 While populations on many of the other Channel Islands suffered drastic declines prior to listing, 28 the population on SCI had declined more gradually (USFWS 2004). The most recent estimates 29 using mark-recapture methods estimate the total SCI population size between 981 to 1,274 30 individuals (Garcia and Associates 2011). Previous studies have found higher fox densities in 31 boxthorn habitat (Vissman 2004); however, in recent years, grasslands, particularly in clay 32 substrates, support the highest density of foxes (Garcia and Associates 2011). Dune habitats were 33 not specifically sampled during the most recent population monitoring and may provide good 34 habitat for foxes. Apparent annual survival of foxes from 2007 to 2010 was high; apparent survival 35 of pups was 48 to 72% and survival of adults was 76 to 84% (Garcia and Associates 2011).

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-45 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 The island fox is primarily nocturnal, with most activity occurring in the early morning and 2 before sunset. Island foxes are also active during daylight hours, which may lead to increased 3 predation risk as compared to other mammals (Coonan et al. 2005). Although the fox can be 4 found in a variety of habitat types on the island, it prefers areas with burrows, dense shrubs, and 5 rocky areas for protective cover. Additionally, it prefers areas with a relatively complex 6 vegetation layer composed of woody, perennial, and fruiting shrubs. An opportunistic omnivore, 7 the island fox feeds on a variety of fruits, rodents, birds, invertebrates, and carrion (Laughrin 8 1977, Cypher et al. 2011). Foxes display seasonal dietary preferences with deer mice, beetles and 9 beetle larvae being important components of the diet across all seasons (Cypher et al. 2011). 10 Feral cat and island fox diets have a high degree of overlap (Phillips et al. 2007) and competition 11 for food between the two species may have led to declines in the fox population (USFWS 1984). 12 More importantly, habitat degradation on the island from overgrazing by feral goats may have 13 contributed to the decline of foxes on SCI.

14 Collisions with vehicles are a primary concern for this subspecies. A minimum of 68 roadkills 15 were documented in 2010 in the island-wide fox mortality database maintained by the Institute of 16 Wildlife Studies; results from the same database document an average of 45 foxes killed per year 17 from vehicle collisions between 2008 and 2010 (Institute of Wildlife Studies, unpublished data). 18 This represents an increase in numbers over prior years. However, this may be attributable to the 19 increase in population size. Prior estimates indicate a 3 to 8% mortality rate due to vehicle 20 collisions for the population (Snow et al. 2012); numbers for 2010 are within the same range. 21 However, there was no clear relationship between the number of foxes in an area and their 22 proximity to roads (Garcia and Associates 2011).

23 3.1.6 Environmental Consequences

24 Table 3-9 describes the potential effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on 25 biological resources.

26 Table 3-9. Summary of potential environmental effects on biological resources. No Action Alternative – Resource Proposed Action – Retain the 2002 INRMP and Area Adopt INRMP Current Management Strategies Biological Biological resources would benefit through surveys and monitoring Biological resources would be affected Resources projects. These projects would help to improve understanding of by minor disturbance to resources during habitats and plant and wildlife species on SCI, which can lead to monitoring, invasive species control, and improved management strategies and priorities. Restoration/ fire management. Would create long- enhancement would increase habitat function. Minor disturbance to term benefits to federally protected resources during survey/monitoring and restoration/ enhancement species that were listed prior to 2002. projects would occur. Long-term benefits to all biological resources in the SCI footprint through fire and invasive species management.

27 3.1.6.1 Proposed Action 28 Monitoring and surveying projects would have minor, short-term direct impacts and direct and 29 indirect long-term beneficial impacts to biological resources. The use of vehicles and boats to

3-46 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 conduct projects may create noise and, therefore, a disturbance to wildlife species. Disturbance 2 of soil and marine sediment during activities can temporarily affect wildlife behavior, such as 3 foraging or feeding. However, the long-term benefits from these activities would most likely 4 result in a greater understanding of habitats and plant and wildlife species on SCI, which can 5 lead to improved management strategies and priorities.

6 The control of invasive species would also result in long-term beneficial effects to native species 7 due to reduced competition and decreased predation by invasive species. Short-term, direct impacts 8 may include habitat disturbance from invasive plant removal while short-term, indirect impacts 9 may include incidental harassment of wildlife through invasive species removal in native habitats.

10 Habitat restoration/enhancement activities may also have minor short-term, direct impacts and 11 direct and indirect long-term beneficial impacts on biological resources. Rehabilitation activities 12 and use of vehicles and mechanical equipment can cause increased erosion and release minor 13 amounts of oil or gasoline and may create noise impacts; however, these impacts would be short- 14 term and localized. Erosion would be minimized through best management practices and species 15 would return to the habitat after temporary noise disturbance activities end. These impacts are 16 not anticipated to negatively affect a population or special status species. Long-term beneficial 17 impacts from habitat restoration/enhancement activities would result in the long-term 18 improvement of habitat function, such as increased foraging area for wildlife species and an 19 increase in native plant species.

20 Fire management activities would result in short-term, direct and indirect impacts and long-term 21 direct and indirect beneficial impacts to biological resources. These activities, such as prescribed 22 burns and the installation of fuelbreaks, are intended to enhance and protect habitat for wildlife 23 and plant species, particularly special status species, and would create long-term benefits to both 24 habitat and the species that utilize the habitat. Short-term direct and indirect impacts would result 25 in the temporary displacement of wildlife species and would also result in losses of a small 26 number of species. Consultation with USFWS to implement appropriate best management 27 practices would be completed to minimize these impacts.

28 Education and outreach projects that inform personnel on the island of biological resources, 29 specifically special status species, would have long-term beneficial impacts. Marine resource 30 compliance signs and outreach material promote special status species and provide operational 31 training groups and island users with pertinent information regarding protected biological 32 resources and compliance requirements. These projects are designed to encourage responsible 33 behavior and stewardship towards biological resources.

34 Projects in the INRMP implementation table that would benefit biological resources include (see 35 Appendix A for additional details and projects):

36 . Species surveys and monitoring 37 . Invasive species management

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-47 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 . Habitat assessments and restoration/enhancement 2 . Eelgrass surveys 3 . Fire management 4 . Education and outreach

5 There will be no significant impacts because negative direct and indirect impacts are expected to 6 be minor and short-term while long-term direct and indirect impacts are expected to be 7 beneficial. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant 8 impact to biological resources.

9 3.1.6.2 No Action Alternative 10 The No Action Alternative comprises continued implementation of existing biological resources 11 management programs. The strategies and projects presented in the 2002 INRMP and ongoing 12 practices used for management of biological resources at SCI would continue. The elements in 13 this alternative have not been modified from those previously analyzed in the original 2002 14 INRMP EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Therefore, implementation of this 15 alternative would not result in significant impacts to biological resources, per the 2002 INRMP 16 EA and FONSI.

17 3.2 Topography, Geology, and Soils

18 3.2.1 Affected Environment

19 Topography generally refers to the elevations, slope, aspect, and surface features found within a 20 given area. Long-term geological, seismic, erosional, and depositional processes typically 21 influence the topography of an area. The geology of an area includes bedrock materials, mineral 22 deposits, and fossil remains. The principal geologic factors influencing the stability of structures 23 are soil stability and seismic properties. Soil refers to unconsolidated earthen materials overlying 24 bedrock or other parent material. Soils are described in terms of their type, slope, physical 25 characteristics, and relative compatibility or limitations.

26 3.2.1.1 Topography 27 The topography of SCI includes an escarpment, a plateau, major canyons, coastal and upland 28 marine terraces, sand dunes, and sandy beaches. The highest point on SCI is about 610 m (2,000 29 feet) above mean sea level, at a point southeast of the center of SCI (Navy 2008). Elevations 30 gradually slope toward the northern and southern ends of SCI (Olmstead 1958). The steep 31 escarpment in the northeastern portion of SCI rises dramatically from the ocean, contrasting 32 sharply with the more-gently sloping southwestern portion (Soil Conservation Service 1982). 33 The plateau is moderately rolling, upland terrain that encompasses roughly the middle one-third 34 of SCI. Steep narrow canyons are located all over SCI, but are more common in the southern 35 half. The canyons drop sharply into the ocean and can be over 152 m (500 feet) deep (Soil

3-48 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Conservation Service 1982). The steep east-facing cliffs in the northeastern portion of SCI are 2 part of the San Clemente escarpment, which borders the entire eastern side of SCI. The 3 escarpment extends from Pyramid Head at the extreme southeastern end of SCI to Wilson Cove 4 near its northwestern end, with an isolated segment between Wilson Cove and Lighthouse Point 5 (Dolphin Bay) farther north. Elevations of the eastern Escarpment range from sea level to 600 m 6 (1,965 feet) above mean sea level (Navy 2008).

7 Coastal and upland marine terraces dominate the western side of SCI, as well as its northern and 8 southern ends, and include over 20 distinct wave-cut marine terraces. The coastal terrace is made 9 up of the first two marine terraces, gently sloping from sea level to about 30 m (98 feet) above 10 mean sea level, where it meets the upland marine terrace. The latter includes up to 19 marine 11 terraces in some areas, and ranges from 120 m (394 feet) mean sea level in the southern portion 12 of SCI to 450 m (1,476 feet) mean sea level mid-island and 275 m (902 feet) mean sea level at 13 the southern end of the island.

14 The oldest sand dunes are found extensively over the north central part of the island while active 15 or recently stabilized dunes are found primarily on the north end of the island (Olmstead 1958). 16 Sandy beaches are located near the northwestern and southern ends of the island at West Cove, 17 Northwest Harbor (BUD/S Beach), Graduation Beach, and at China Beach, Horse Beach Cove, 18 and Pyramid Cove (Walcott 1897).

19 3.2.1.2 Geology and Soils 20 SCI is the exposed portion of an uplifted fault block composed primarily of a stratified sequence 21 of submarine volcanic rock (andesite, dacite, and rhyolite). The volcanic rock is over 600 m 22 (1,969 feet) thick (Navy 2008) and are overlain and interbedded with local sequences of marine 23 sediments. The marine sedimentary rocks contain diatoms, Forminifera, and Mollusca, indicating 24 that these materials were deposited in a marine environment of shallow to moderate depth during 25 the Miocene Age.

26 Most of the soils on SCI are finely textured and highly friable. They are well drained, with slow 27 permeability, and are subject to severe shrink-swell characteristics that can damage roads, dams, 28 building foundations, and other structures. SCI exhibits three general soil orders, including 29 vertisols, alfisols, and eolian dune deposits.

30 Soil formation on SCI is rapid, particularly on terraces and alluvial fans (Muhs 1982). The best 31 evidence for this is well developed profiles and high clay content in soils that are less than 3,000 32 years old. The formation of soils with high clay content from volcanic material that have very 33 little clay stems from a combination of additions of airborne silts and clays, and mobilization of 34 clay under high sodium conditions derived from sea spray (Muhs 1982). Vertisols are heavy, 35 light-colored soils with high clay contents that dominate the older, upper marine terraces and 36 plateau in the southern portion of SCI. These soils tend to swell with rain and develop deep, wide 37 cracks during dry periods. Alfisols are fine, light-colored soils with subsurface horizons of clay

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-49 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 accumulation but lower clay content than vertisols; they are the dominant soil on the island’s 2 lower, younger marine terraces and alluvial fans.

3 In the northern portion of SCI, both the lower and upper marine terraces are overlain by eolian 4 dune deposits of differential age. The dune deposits are highly calcareous, consisting mostly of 5 fragmented marine shell. The older upland dune deposits are characterized by well-developed, 6 reddish alfisols with thick, high-clay subsurface horizons, some containing significant caliche 7 horizons. Dune deposits on the lower, younger terraces exhibit a lesser degree of soil 8 development, and some still exist as active dunes (Navy 2008).

9 All soils on the western slopes have a distinctive silt loam surface cap or horizon. The silt loam 10 horizon was formed from windblown transport of airborne dust (Muhs 1980). This horizon is a 11 thin (five to 20 cm), light colored layer with a silt loam texture and, judging from its unique 12 mineralogy, is unrelated to the profile beneath. It is found on all geomorphic surfaces on the 13 island from andesitic and dacitic marine terraces and alluvial fans to calcareous dune sand, 14 covering surfaces ranging in age from 2,760 years to greater than 1.2 million years (Muhs 1980).

15 3.2.1.2.1 Soil Erosion 16 Soil erosion is a naturally occurring process caused by the action of water and wind wearing 17 away the land’s surface. Natural erosion occurs as sheet and rill erosion, gullying, and wind 18 erosion. Accelerated soil erosion is net loss of soil beyond the natural background levels due to 19 land use. The loss and destabilization of soil can have devastating effects on property, ecological 20 processes, and sensitive species.

21 Soils in southern California are especially vulnerable to erosion because vegetation growth and 22 rainfall do not occur during the same time of year. The rainy season begins in the fall while the 23 ground generally has less cover than in the spring or summer because most native trees and 24 shrubs drop their leaves during the summer drought. Rain events primarily occur in the winter 25 when vegetation cover is at a minimum (Navy 2007).

26 Human activities on the island, such as ranching and military training, have increased soil 27 erosion potential on the island. A century of ranching on SCI greatly reduced the natural 28 vegetation cover to protect soils from wind and water erosion. However, the vegetation cover of 29 the island has begun to recover with the removal of the last feral goat population in 1992. Fire 30 was probably a rare event under historical conditions but has affected current vegetation cover by 31 increased fires from human use and military activities. The lingering effects of historical 32 overgrazing and more frequent fires have led to a higher level of vulnerability to accelerated soil 33 erosion. This is evident on SCI in numerous natural drainages that have eroded into canyons 34 hundreds of feet deep. An estimated 70% of eroded soils eventually are transported to the ocean, 35 amounting to 1,428 tons per year. Consequently, this can affect nearshore water quality.

36 Soils on SCI are subject to a process known as piping. Sea spray increases the salt content of 37 soils, which increase the friability of the soil. During the dry summer, the soil in areas with little

3-50 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 or no vegetation develops deep cracks. When it rains, surface water concentrates in these cracks 2 and widens them into gullies. This process has been documented on SCI at least since the late 3 1970s (Soil Conservation Service 1982). While gullying is sometimes natural, gullies on SCI 4 have been attributed to overgrazing by sheep and feral goats, surface runoff from unpaved roads, 5 road maintenance activities, and military vehicle maneuvers without erosion control measures 6 (Soil Conservation Service 1982). The soil above eventually collapses onto itself and the pipe 7 continues as a gully with nickpoints creeping upslope each year.

8 SCI also experiences substantial wind erosion. The surface layer of many soils on the island 9 appears to have been deposited by wind, and the particle sizes of soils are considered highly 10 erodible by wind. Wind erosion occurs on SCI mostly during the dry season. During this portion 11 of the year, the predominant erosion factors are wind and vehicle disturbance on unpaved roads 12 (Navy 2007).

13 3.2.2 Environmental Consequences

14 Table 3-10 describes the potential effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on 15 topography, geology, and soil resources.

16 Table 3-10. Summary of potential environmental effects on topography, geology, and soil resources. No Action Alternative – Resource Proposed Action – Retain the 2002 INRMP and Area Adopt INRMP Current Management Strategies Topography, Topography, geology, and soil resources would benefit through erosion Topography, geology, and soil Geology, control, habitat restoration/enhancement, and fire management. These resources would benefit from and Soil projects would help to prevent erosion around the island. Monitoring and erosion control and fire Resources survey activities could produce a small amount of erosion from utilizing management. Best management unpaved roads and other project areas. However, the long-term benefits practices would be used to protect of improved management strategies and priorities of biological resources and restore soil productivity on outweigh these potential effects. Best management practices would be SCI. implemented to minimize potential impacts.

17 3.2.2.1 Proposed Action 18 Projects that emphasize habitat restoration/enhancement would have minor short-term, direct 19 impacts and direct, long-term beneficial effects on topography, geology, and soil resources. The 20 use of vehicles and mechanical equipment for rehabilitation activities may cause increased 21 erosion on roads and in areas being restored. Disturbance of soil would also result from 22 revegetating bare ground. However, these impacts are anticipated to be minor, short-term, and 23 localized. Best management practices would be used to minimize these impacts. Long-term 24 beneficial impacts from habitat restoration/enhancement activities would result in the long-term 25 reduction of soil erosion on SCI.

26 Fire management activities would result in short-term, indirect impacts and long-term, indirect 27 beneficial effects to topography, geology, and soil resources. These activities, such as prescribed 28 burns, are intended to enhance and protect habitat in the long-term, which also helps to prevent

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-51 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 erosion, and would create long-term benefits to resources, including soil. Short-term indirect 2 impacts would result in the temporary loss of vegetation that would expose soil to potential wind 3 and water erosion. Consultation with USFWS to implement appropriate best management 4 practices would be completed to minimize these impacts.

5 Monitoring and surveying projects would have minor, short-term direct impacts to topography, 6 geology, and soil resources. The use of vehicles to conduct projects may disturb soils and create 7 erosion. However, these impacts are anticipated to be minor, short-term, and localized. 8 Additionally, long-term benefits of improved management strategies and priorities of biological 9 resources outweigh these potential effects. Best management practices would be used to 10 minimize these impacts and properly maintain unpaved roads.

11 Erosion control at SCI would have short-term, direct impacts and long-term, direct beneficial 12 impacts to topography, geology, and soil resources. Projects, such as slope stabilization and 13 revegetation of bare ground to stabilize soil, are intended to enhance and protect soils; these 14 projects would create long-term benefits to soils. Short-term, direct impacts would occur through 15 temporary disturbance of ground cover. However, these impacts would be temporary and localized.

16 Projects in the INRMP implementation table that would benefit topography, geology, and soil 17 resources include (see Appendix A for additional details and projects):

18 . Habitat Restoration/Enhancement 19 . Fire Management 20 . Erosion Control

21 There will be no significant impacts because negative direct impacts are expected to be minor 22 and short-term while long-term direct impacts are expected to be beneficial. Therefore, 23 implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact to topography, 24 geology, and soil resources.

25 3.2.2.2 No Action Alternative 26 The No Action Alternative comprises continued implementation of existing soil management 27 programs. The strategies and projects presented in the existing 2002 INRMP and ongoing 28 practices used for management of topography, geology, and soil resources at SCI would 29 continue. The elements in this alternative have not been modified from those previously analyzed 30 in the original 2002 INRMP EA and FONSI. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would 31 not result in significant impacts to topography, geology, and soil resources, per the 2002 INRMP 32 EA and FONSI.

3-52 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 3.3 Water Resources

2 Water resources include water bodies, water processes and uses, and water quality. This section 3 evaluates effects of the Proposed Action on marine water quality and surface and groundwaters 4 on SCI.

5 3.3.1 Regulations

6 3.3.1.1 Clean Water Act 7 The Clean Water Act is enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency. The Clean Water Act 8 establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the waters of the United 9 States and regulating quality standards for surface waters. Section 403 of the Clean Water Act 10 provides for the protection of ocean waters from point-source discharges into the “territorial sea, 11 the waters of the contiguous zone, or the oceans” are marine waters protected under the Clean 12 Water Act. Under the Clean Water Act, any discharge of a pollutant from a point source to the 13 navigable waters of the United States must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 14 System permit. The permit allows the discharge of a specified amount of a pollutant into a 15 receiving water body while requiring compliance with Ocean Discharge Criteria.

16 The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is also responsible for ocean 17 water quality. NOAA is a trustee agency for coastal and marine resources under the Clean Water 18 Act, Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, the Coastal 19 Zone Management Act, and Oil Pollution Act of 1990. NOAA has established programs to 20 monitor coastal environmental quality, protect marine habitat, and restore natural resources.

21 3.3.1.2 State Water Quality Control Board 22 The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is the principle state of California law that 23 enables water resource management. The Act established the State Water Resources Control 24 Board (SWRCB) to regulate water resources, which, in turn, set up nine Regional Water Quality 25 Control Boards to oversee water quality issues in each of the water quality regions. The water 26 quality regions have jurisdiction over ground and surface waters within three nautical miles. The 27 Boards also are responsible for implementing provisions of the Clean Water Act delegated to 28 states, such as the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The Defense and State 29 Memorandum of Agreement was signed by the DoD, SWRCB, and regional boards to define the 30 division of responsibilities for addressing water quality issues.

31 The SWRCB adopted the Water Quality Control Plan Ocean Waters of California (the Ocean 32 Plan) (SWRCB 2009). The Ocean Plan establishes beneficial uses and water quality objectives 33 for waters of the Pacific Ocean adjacent to the California coast outside of enclosed bays, 34 estuaries, and coastal lagoons. The Ocean Plan also identifies Areas of Special Biological 35 Significance designated or approved by the SWRCB.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-53 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 The waters around SCI were designated an Areas of Special Biological Significance out to a 2 300-foot isobaths or one nautical mile from shore (whichever is greater) by the SWRCB in 1974. 3 The Los Angeles Resources Water Quality Control Board administers the Navy’s National 4 Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for discharge into the nearshore waters of SCI.

5 3.3.2 Affected Environment

6 3.3.2.1 Nearshore Marine Water Quality 7 Geographic separation from the mainland tends to separate SCI from many sources of mainland 8 pollution and anthropogenic inputs. Dynamic current regimes, seafloor topography, and 9 meteorological influences all interact to isolate SCI nearshore water quality and are primarily 10 subjected to impacts from point sources. Direct impacts and point source discharges may result 11 from sea and/or shore based training activities.

12 To assess impacts from these types of activities, water quality within the nearshore waters of SCI 13 were tested in 2005 and compared to the Ocean Plan criteria for the protection of aquatic life 14 (Table 3-11) as promulgated by the SWRCB. SCI reference site samples exhibited pollutant 15 concentrations below the water quality objectives for the instantaneous maximum, daily 16 maximum, and six-month median thresholds.

17 Table 3-11. Water pollutant concentrations in surface waters at San Clemente Island (Navy 2006). Concentration (micrograms per liter) Constituent SCI Reference Sampling Site Ocean Plan Objective Antimony 0.18 1,200b Arsenic 1.19 8a Beryllium ND 0.033b Cadmium ND 1a Copper 0.142 3a Lead 0.228 2a Mercury ND 0.04a Nickel 0.25 5a Selenium ND 15a Silver ND 0.7 Thallium ND 2b Zinc 2.65 20a Polychlorinated biphenyls ND 0.000019b Phenols ND 30a Chromium, hexavalent ND 2a Cyanide ND 1a Notes: (a) 6-month median value; (b) 30-day arithmetic average; ND – non-detectable concentration.

18 Zinc had the highest concentration (2.65 micrograms per liter [µg/L]) of all pollutants tested; 19 however, the concentration was an order of magnitude below the water quality objective (the six- 20 month median). Most concentrations of pollutants tested were determined to be below or slightly 21 above analytical detection limits (Navy 2006). Pollutants detected above limits included copper

3-54 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 (0.142 µg/l) and lead (0.228 µg/l). Non-detectable results were reported for both mercury and 2 total polychlorinated biphenyls, among others.

3 These results suggest that training events and activities on or around SCI have an insignificant 4 impact, if any, on nearshore water quality. Many priority pollutants (e.g. metals and 5 polychlorinated biphenyls) were detected in concentrations that were below Ocean Plan 6 objectives, indicating reduced concentrations within the nearshore waters of SCI, and negligible 7 impacts from point source inputs.

8 3.3.2.2 Nearshore Sediment Quality 9 Sediment quality within the nearshore environment of SCI will largely be influenced by point 10 source discharges and SCI operations. Current sediment quality objectives have been established 11 for bay and estuaries by the SWRCB (2008). These categorical determinations are based on a 12 Multiple Line of Evidence approach, which takes into consideration chemical, toxicological, and 13 benthic communities to determine both inputs and response to changes in sediment quality.

14 However, the Multiple Line of Evidence approach and resultant determinations of sediment 15 quality were primarily developed for bays and estuaries and are, therefore, not applicable to SCI. 16 The Multiple Line of Evidence approach has standardized testing methods to determine 17 compliance with current sediment quality objectives. SCI does not fit within this framework, as 18 the types of sediment and benthic communities are vastly different in an offshore island 19 environment. Therefore, a more appropriate measure of sediment quality for this system is 20 comparison of chemical and toxicological data to national standards promulgated by the 21 Environmental Protection Agency and NOAA. 22 There is some data available for specific chemical and toxicological investigations, which 23 includes chemical results and solid phase toxicity testing results (Navy 2006). Chemical 24 concentrations within SCI reference sediments are below NOAA/Environmental Protection 25 Agency sediment quality guidelines (Table 3-12). Metals, such as copper, mercury, and 26 chromium, were all found to be below Effects Range Low (ER-L) and Effects Range Medium 27 (ER-M) concentrations. The ER-L and ER-M are indicators of potential toxicity within 28 sediments. ER-L values are concentrations that suggest there is potential for observable toxicity 29 in sediments. ER-M values are concentrations in which observable toxicity might be expected. In 30 either case (ER-L or ER-M), concentrations above these thresholds does not imply there is 31 toxicity (or adverse benthic effects), rather concentrations above the ER-L and ER-M criterion 32 indicate the potential for adverse effects and can be used as a surrogate for potential sediment 33 toxicity when bioassay data is not available. Solid phase amphipod testing data is also available 34 for the SCI reference station. The ten day solid phase amphipod test is a direct effects test, 35 exposing amphipods to collected sediment for ten days under laboratory conditions. After ten 36 days of exposure, the amphipods are assessed for survival and statistically compared to both a 37 sediment control and a reference station. Toxicity is determined based on survival when 38 compared to reference sediments. SCI reference sediment showed no signs of elevated mortality 39 in test sediments, suggesting limited to no toxicity through direct exposure pathways.

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-55 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Table 3-12. Contaminant concentrations in bottom sediments at San Clemente Island (National Oceanic and 2 Atmospheric Administration 1999; Navy 2006). Constituent Sediment Concentration at SCI EPA Sediment Quality Guidelines Reference Sampling Site (ppm) (ERM Values) (ppm) Arsenic 2.87 70 Cadmium 0.11 9.6 Chromium 8.56 370 Copper 7.48 270 Lead 2.19 218 Mercury 0.275 0.71 Nickel 4.6 51.6 Selenium 0.56 NA Silver 0.09 3.7 Zinc 19.2 410 Polychlorinated biphenyls ND 180 Phenols ND NA Dioxins 0.0 – 0.028 NA ppm–parts per million; ERM–Effects Range Median; ND–non-detectable; NA-not available; TEQ–toxicity equivalency factor.

3 3.3.2.3 Freshwater Water Quality

4 3.3.2.3.1 Surface Water 5 There are no streams or rivers on SCI that contain constant water flow all year round. However, 6 water is held through the dry portion of the year in bedrock plunge pools located in the deeper 7 portions of SCI’s major canyons. Constant water flow in streams appear during the rainy season 8 and eventually run through canyons before reaching the ocean. SCI experiences dramatic 9 fluctuations in annual rainfall even over relatively short time spans, with an average of 16.8 cm 10 (6.6 inches) falling annually (California State University Northridge and Southern California 11 Offshore Range weather stations, 1997-2011). Looking at rain-year data (i.e. total precipitation 12 falling from July of one year through the June of the following year) yields even more dramatic 13 fluctuations, although the average across all rain years is similar at 17.3 cm (6.8 inches). The rain 14 year rainfall total is particularly important in that it represents the rainfall input leading into the 15 growing season on the island, where annual growth is often greatly influenced. Most rainfall that 16 does occur on SCI falls from January to April and October to December. Little rain falls on SCI 17 between May and October, and fog drip at that time is likely a vital source of moisture to the SCI 18 ecosystem during this otherwise typically dry season.

19 3.3.2.3.2 Groundwater 20 Little information is available about groundwater resources on SCI. The island’s volcanic 21 geology is generally monolithic (i.e. a single stone or block), limiting the potential for a drinking 22 water aquifer (Navy 1954). Drilling efforts to date have only located brackish groundwater 23 (Navy 2008).

24 3.3.2.4 Wetlands, Vernal Pools, and Other Aquatic Habitats 25 Bitterroot Restoration, Inc. (2002) conducted a preliminary survey of wetlands and drainages 26 throughout SCI. Areas with the potential to support Federally-listed fairy shrimp were surveyed

3-56 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 for the presence of these species. The survey also included the identification of drainages, some 2 of which may be regulated as non-wetland waters of the U.S. under Sections 401 and 404 of the 3 CWA. The wetland survey identified 121 three-parameter wetlands, four of which were salt 4 marsh and 117 as vernal pools, among the 568 potential wetlands and 932 drainages surveyed. 5 The total area of vernal pools delineated as wetlands on SCI is 2.8 acres. The majority of the 6 wetlands and ephemeral pools on SCI are the result of anthropogenic activities, including both 7 military operations and pre-military agricultural land uses.

8 3.3.3 Environmental Consequences

9 Table 3-13 describes the potential effects of the Proposed Action and No Action Alternative on 10 water resources.

11 Table 3-13. Summary of potential environmental effects on water resources. No Action Alternative – Resource Proposed Action – Retain the 2002 INRMP and Area Adopt INRMP Current Management Strategies Water Water resources would benefit through water quality surveys. Water resources would benefit though water Resources These surveys help improve understanding of water quality conservation practices and erosion control issues on SCI and can lead to improved management strategies procedures. and priorities. Benefits to water resources would also occur with increased erosion control of unnatural run-off though habitat restoration/enhancement activities.

12 3.3.3.1 Proposed Action 13 Concepts introduced in the 2002 INRMP were carried over into the INRMP. The Proposed 14 Action builds on these past recommendations and has the potential for the greatest benefit. Water 15 resources within the SCI footprint would benefit overall by the Proposed Action.

16 Projects that emphasize habitat restoration/enhancement would have minor short-term, direct 17 impacts and direct long-term beneficial effects on water resources. Rehabilitation activities and 18 use of vehicles and mechanical equipment may cause increased erosion and release minor 19 amounts of oil or gasoline that can enter the nearshore waters of SCI. However, these impacts are 20 anticipated to be minor, short-term, and localized. Consultations and applications would be 21 processed with the appropriate resource agencies and best management practices would be 22 followed to minimize these impacts. Long-term beneficial impacts from habitat enhancement 23 activities would result in the long-term reduction of unnatural run-off from entering the 24 nearshore waters of SCI.

25 The INRMP’s monitoring and surveying projects would have minor short-term, direct impacts 26 and direct and indirect, long-term beneficial effects to water resources. The use of boats may 27 release small amounts of oil or gasoline into the surface water during data-gathering activities. 28 However, appropriate maintenance and fueling practices would be followed to minimize these 29 potential impacts. The temporary movement or disturbance of sediment into the water column 30 may impact water quality from data-gathering activities, such as habitat surveys. However, these

Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 3-57 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 sampling procedures would be coordinated to lessen the impact to insignificant levels. Long- 2 term beneficial impacts from these activities may result from a clearer understanding of the water 3 and sediment quality distribution throughout the SCI footprint, leading to improved management 4 strategies and priorities.

5 Projects in the INRMP implementation table that would benefit water resources include (See 6 Appendix A for additional details and projects):

7 . Water quality project 8 . Area of special biological significance monitoring 9 . Restoration and enhancement of habitat 10 . Marine habitat monitoring 11 . Black abalone surveys 12 . Amphibious landing area impacts study

13 There will be no significant impacts because negative direct and indirect impacts are expected to 14 be minor and short-term while long-term impacts are expected to be beneficial. Therefore, 15 implementation of the Proposed Action would not have a significant impact to water resources.

16 3.3.3.2 No Action Alternative 17 The No Action Alternative is comprised of continued implementation of existing natural 18 resources management projects within the previous SCI footprint (300 yards offshore from the 19 Mean Lower Low Water tide line). The objectives and strategies presented in the existing 2002 20 INRMP and ongoing practices used for management of water resources in the previous SCI 21 footprint would continue. The elements of this alternative have not been modified from those 22 previously analyzed in the 2002 INRMP EA and FONSI. Therefore, implementation of the No 23 Action Alternative would not have a significant impact to water resources, including sediment, 24 per the 2002 INRMP EA and FONSI.

3-58 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 4.0 Cumulative Impacts Analysis

2 4.1 Cumulative Effects

3 The approach taken to analyze cumulative effects follows the objectives of the Council on 4 Environmental Quality National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulations and guidance. 5 The Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations §§ 1500- 6 1508) provide the implementing procedures for NEPA.

7 4.1.1 Definition of Cumulative Impacts

8 According to the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the analysis of cumulative 9 impacts on an Environmental Assessment (EA) should consider the potential environmental 10 impacts resulting from “the incremental impacts of the action when added to other past, present, 11 and reasonable foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency or person undertakes such 12 other actions” (40 Code of Federal Regulations § 1508.7).

13 Cumulative impacts may occur when there is a relationship between a proposed action and other 14 actions expected to occur in a similar location or during a similar time period. Actions 15 overlapping, or in proximity to, a proposed action can have more potential for cumulative 16 impacts on “shared resources: than actions that may be geographically separated. Similarly, 17 actions that coincide temporally would tend to offer a higher potential for cumulative impacts. 18 To the extent that details regarding such actions exist and the actions have a potential to interact 19 with the Proposed Action outlined in this Draft EA, these actions are included in the cumulative 20 analysis.

21 4.1.2 Geographic Boundaries for Cumulative Impacts Analysis

22 Geographic boundaries for analysis of cumulative impacts in this Draft EA vary for different 23 environmental resources. For example, for wide-ranging or migratory wildlife, project impacts 24 could combine with impacts from other sources within the range of the population. The 25 cumulative impacts analysis includes regional projects that directly overlap in space and/or time.

26 4.2 Other Past, Ongoing, and Reasonably Foreseeable Actions

27 4.2.1 San Clemente Island Fuel Storage and Distribution System

28 The proposed project involves replacing the aging underground JP-5 fuel storage tanks and 29 improving the fuel receipt, storage, and delivery capabilities at San Clemente Island. This project 30 would include the demolition of the underground fuel storage tanks and two support buildings 31 and the installation of aboveground fuel storage tanks with supporting structures. The project is 32 proposed to start in Fiscal Year 2012 and continue into Fiscal Year 2013.

Cumulative Impacts Analysis 4-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 4.3 Potential Cumulative Impacts by Resource Area

2 4.3.1 Climate Change

3 Criteria Pollutants 4 The region of influence considered in this air quality cumulative analysis includes the South 5 Coast Air Basin. The primary impacts to air quality from the alternatives that could contribute to 6 cumulative impacts would be from emissions associated with surveying/monitoring/mapping, 7 and restoration/enhancement projects; these emissions would be short-term and temporary. 8 Generally, these emissions would be considered beneficial given the increased functionality of 9 the ecosystem and natural resources. Operation emissions would primarily be from heavy 10 equipment operations, fugitive dust associated with the use of heavy equipment and ground 11 disturbing activities, and vehicles associated with the movement of personnel to, from, and 12 around project sites. The listed cumulative projects would also be required to conform to Clean 13 Air Act requirements and the South Coast Air Basin State Implementation Plan and would 14 produce less than significant amounts of air emissions.

15 Proposed construction and operation activities would produce emissions that would remain 16 below applicable Clean Air Act conformity emission thresholds. Any concurrent emissions- 17 generating action that occurs near the proposed project area would potentially contribute to the 18 ambient impacts of these emissions. Since proposed construction and operation activities would 19 produce a nominal amount of emissions, the combination of proposed construction and 20 operations, along with future project air quality impacts, would not contribute to an exceedance 21 of an ambient air quality standard. As a result, proposed construction and operations activities 22 would produce less than cumulatively considerable air quality impacts. Therefore, when added to 23 the impacts from other potentially cumulative projects, the alternatives would not result in 24 significant cumulative impacts to air quality.

25 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change 26 The potential effects of greenhouse gas emissions are, by nature, global and cumulative, as 27 individual sources of greenhouse gas emissions are not large enough to have an appreciable 28 impact on global climate change. Therefore, an appreciable impact on global climate change 29 would only occur when greenhouse gas emissions associated with the alternatives are combined 30 with greenhouse gas emissions from other man-made activities on a global scale.

31 Cumulatively, the alternatives are designed for improving ecosystem function and stability. For 32 example, implementation of any of the alternatives would increase the resilience of island 33 habitats to withstand a changing environment, such as the invasion of exotic species, through 34 habitat restoration/enhancement. Therefore, when added to the impacts from other potentially 35 cumulative projects, the alternatives would not result in significant cumulative impacts to 36 greenhouse gasses and climate change.

4-2 Cumulative Impacts Analysis Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 4.3.2 Biological Resources

2 Implementation of the alternatives would result in minor amounts of mortality and disturbance of 3 biological resources during surveying/monitoring and/or restoration/enhancement activities. 4 Mortality or harassment of individuals may result directly from monitoring activities or 5 indirectly through erosion. However, all the alternatives are anticipated to result in a net overall 6 benefit to biological resources, including restoring native habitats and controlling invasive 7 species. Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries 8 Service regarding potential impacts to federally listed species and Essential Fish Habitat, 9 respectively, would be accessed through separate NEPA documentation and may include the 10 implementation of avoidance and minimization measures.

11 Since cumulative projects have the potential to impact biological resources, such as during 12 construction activities, the projects will undergo separate environmental reviews under NEPA 13 and the Endangered Species Act. This will ensure that impacts to biological resources would be 14 avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. The overall distribution and abundance of biological 15 resources are expected to improve. Therefore, when added to the impacts from other potential 16 cumulative projects, the alternatives would not result in significant cumulative impacts to 17 biological resources.

18 4.3.3 Topography, Geology, and Soils

19 Implementation of all the alternatives would result in overall beneficial effects to topographic, 20 soil, and geologic resources. Implementation of the alternatives would not result in significant 21 impacts to these resources at San Clemente Island. Implementation of best management practices 22 created through the NEPA process would be conducted for activities proposed by each 23 alternative to provide for erosion control and soil conservation measures. Erosion and run-off 24 could result from the identified cumulative projects. However, the identified cumulative projects 25 would employ soil conservation measures and best management practices as identified in their 26 respective erosion control plans, which will contribute to the minimization of cumulative 27 impacts. Therefore, when added to the impacts from other potential cumulative projects, the 28 alternatives would not result in significant cumulative impacts to topography, geology, and soils.

29 4.3.4 Water Resources

30 Implementation of the alternatives would result in minor amounts of disturbance to water 31 resources. Survey/Monitoring activities associated with both alternatives could result in minor, 32 temporary impacts to water resources from erosion of disturbed soil. However, all the 33 alternatives are anticipated to provide an overall net benefit to water resources through habitat 34 restoration/enhancement. Potential impacts to federally listed species and Essential Fish Habitat 35 would result in consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine 36 Fisheries Service, respectively, which could include the implementation of avoidance and 37 minimization measures.

Cumulative Impacts Analysis 4-3 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 All cumulative projects with the potential to affect water resources are also required to employ 2 best management practices for water resources protection. A separate environmental analysis of 3 projects, including NEPA, would require implementation of appropriate practices to minimize 4 impacts of cumulative projects. Erosion control measures would reduce the potential for erosion, 5 sedimentation, and other potential impacts to water resources. Therefore, when added to the 6 impacts from other potentially cumulative projects, the alternatives would not result in 7 significant cumulative impacts to water resources.

4-4 Cumulative Impacts Analysis Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 5.0 Other NEPA Considerations

2 5.1 Possible Conflicts between the Proposed Action and No Action 3 Alternative, and the Objectives of Federal, State, Local, and 4 Regional Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls

5 Implementation of the Proposed Action or other alternatives would comply with existing federal 6 regulations and state, regional, and local policies and programs while maintaining the military 7 mission. Appropriate permits/authorizations/consultations will be obtained prior to 8 implementation of projects on a case-by-case basis. Relevant federal regulations to the action 9 alternatives are listed in Chapter 1. Compliance with any additional regulations that arise during 10 the course of implementation of the action alternatives would also be ensured.

11 5.2 Energy Requirements and Conservation Potential of Various 12 Alternatives and Mitigation Measures being considered

13 Consumption of energy for routine restoration/enhancement projects, monitoring and surveying 14 activities, and mitigation measures would be minimal and short-term in implementing the 15 alternatives. None of the alternatives involve construction or maintenance of any new facilities. 16 Instead, they all involve both conservation of important natural resources and accommodation of 17 growth and development that is more habitat friendly. Any energy requirement in implementing 18 any of the alternatives would be short-term and temporary, and would not increase or decrease 19 the potential for energy conservation elsewhere.

20 5.3 Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Natural or 21 Depletable Resources

22 Resources irreversibly and irretrievably committed to a project are those used on a long-term or 23 permanent basis. Non-renewable natural and human resources, such as labor, petroleum, metals 24 and cultural resources are examples. If a resource could have been used for other purposes, it is 25 considered irretrievable. The unavoidable destruction of natural resources to an extent that limits 26 the range of current and future uses of a site also would be considered an irretrievable 27 commitment of resources. Examples of irreversible commitments include mining and harvesting 28 old growth forest products.

29 Implementation of all of the alternatives would result in the eventual irreversible and 30 irretrievable consumption of certain non-renewable resources. Upon implementation, all of the 31 alternatives would require the use of fossil fuels for land management, restoration and land 32 maintenance activities, monitoring/surveying, education/outreach, and planning activities. The

Other NEPA Considerations 5-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 use of fuel, chemical products in the form of herbicides and pesticides, and human labor would 2 also be required during implementation of activities included in the alternatives. However, the 3 commitment of resources would be short-term and amounts would not be significant.

4 5.4 Relationship between Short-Term Uses of the Environmental 5 and Long-Term Productivity

6 An analysis of the relationship between a project’s short-term impacts to the environment and the 7 effects that these impacts may have on the maintenance and enhancement of the long-term 8 productivity of the affected environment is required by the National Environmental Policy Act. 9 Impacts that narrow the range of beneficial uses of the environment are of particular concern. 10 This refers to the possibility that choosing a single development option reduces future flexibility 11 in pursuing other options or that giving over a parcel of land or other resource to a certain use 12 eliminates the possibility of other uses performed at that site.

13 Both of the alternatives would have short-term impacts to the environment. The Proposed Action 14 would have greater short-term impacts than the No Action Alternative because more numerous 15 and substantial projects are proposed. The alternatives propose enhancement, restoration, or 16 creation of habitat for sensitive and non-sensitive species. Creating and enhancing habitat would 17 generate short-term disturbance in the area. These projects could generate noise, turbidity, 18 erosion, and the disturbance or removal of species that currently reside in the area. However, the 19 long-term benefits for San Clemente Island as a whole in improving and creating additional 20 habitat are anticipated to outweigh short-term impacts, especially for listed or sensitive species.

21 5.5 Any Probable Adverse Environmental Effects that Cannot be 22 Avoided and Are Not Amenable to Mitigation

23 Implementation of any of the alternatives is not anticipated to generate adverse environmental 24 effects that are unavoidable or not amenable to mitigation. As the goal of these proposed actions 25 is to improve functions and services of habitat throughout the San Clemente Island footprint, 26 many of the proposed actions may prove to be self-mitigating.

5-2 Other NEPA Considerations Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 6.0 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted

2 As part of the Environmental Assessment processing, Naval Auxiliary Landing Field San 3 Clemente Island consulted with several agencies.

4 . Bureau of Land Management, California Coastal National Monument 5 . National Marine Fisheries Service 6 . National Park Service 7 . United States Fish and Wildlife – Carlsbad, California Office 8 . United State Department of the Navy – NALF San Clemente Island 9

List of Agencies and Persons Consulted 6-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This Page Intentionally Blank 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

6-2 List of Agencies and Persons Consulted Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 7.0 List of Preparers

2 Tierra Data, Inc. 3 10110 W. Lilac Road 4 Escondido, California 92026

5 Elizabeth M. Kellogg, Principal, EA preparation, 33 years of experience, M.S. International 6 Agricultural Development, UC Davis; B.S. Agricultural Science and Management, UC Davis

7 Lauren Busey, EA preparation, Marine Conservation Biologist, 7 years of experience, Masters of 8 Advanced Studies, Marine Biodiversity and Conservation, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; 9 B.S. Conservation Biology, Arizona State University

10 Cynthia Booth, Technical editor, 13 years of experience

11 Chelsea Snover, Technical Editor, 6 years of experience

12 A.C. Ware, Technical Editor, 13 years of experience

13 Robert Wolf, Terrestrial Ecologist and Geographic Information System (GIS) Specialist, 9 years 14 of experience, Masters of Environmental Management Yale School of Forestry and 15 Environmental Studies; B.S. Plant Biology, UC Davis

16 Navy Region Southwest 17 Rebecca Loomis, Environmental Planner

18 Connie Moen, N45 NEPA Coordinator

19 Naval Facilities Engineering Command 20 Jessica Bredvik, Marine Biologist

21 Naval Auxilary Landing Field San Clemente Island 22 Melissa Booker, Wildlife Biologist

23 Bryan Munson, Botanist

List of Preparers 7-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 This Page Intentionally Blank 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

7-2 List of Preparers Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 8.0 References

2 Allen, M.J. 2006. Continential Shelf and Upper Slope. The Ecology of Marine Fishes: California 3 and Adjacent Waters, Pp. 167-202 (L.G. Allen, D.J. Pondella II, and M.H. Horn, eds.). 4 University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

5 Axelrod, D. I. 1967. Geologic history of the Californian insular flora, p. 267-315. Proceedings of 6 the Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands. Santa Barbara, California, Santa 7 Barbara Botanical Gardens.

8 Barber, R. T., and F. P. Chavez. 1983. Biological consequences of El Nino. Science 222:1203– 9 1210.

10 Beauchamp, R.M. [no date]. Field observations, 1967-1986. On file: Pacific Southwest 11 Biological Service, National City, C.A.

12 Beaudry, F., N.M. Munkwitz, E.L. Kershner, and D.K. Garcelon. 2004. Population monitoring of 13 the San Clemente sage sparrow - 2003. Final Report. Prepared by Institute for Wildlife 14 Studies for the U.S. Navy, Natural Resources Office Naval Facilites Engineer Command.

15 Bergen, M. 1971. Growth, feeding, and movement in the black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii. 16 Master’s thesis. University of California, Santa Barbara.

17 Bezy, R. L., G.C. Gorman, G.A. Adesr, and Y.J. Kim. 1980. Divergence in the island night 18 lizard, Xantusia riversiana. The California Islands: Proceedings of a Multidisciplinary 19 Symposium, Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History.

20 Birt, T.P., H.R. Carter, D.L. Whitworth, A. McDonald, S.H. Newman, F. Gress, E. Palacios, J.S. 21 Koepke, and V.L. Friesen. 2012. Range-wide Population Genetic Structure of Xantus’s 22 Murrelet (Synthlioboramphus hypoleucus). The Auk 129(1): 44-55.

23 Bitterroot, R. I. (2002). Wetland Delineation and Endangered Species Surveys on Naval 24 Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island. N. F. E. C. S. Region, U.S. Navy.

25 Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2005. California Coastal National Monument Resource 26 Management Plan. Final. B. o. L. M. California State Office, United States Department of 27 the Interior.

28 Booker, Melissa. 2012. Personal Communication. Staff Biologist San Clemente Island.

29 Bowler P.A., W.A. Weber, and R.E. Riefner. 1996. A checklist of the lichens of San Clemente 30 Island, California. Bulletin of the California Lichen Society 3:1-8. Available online at: 31 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/rlmoe/cals.html

References 8-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Bratt C. 1999. Additions to the Lichen Flora of San Clemente Island, California. Bulletin of the 2 California Lichen Society 6(2): available online at: 3 http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/rlmoe/cals.html

4 Butler, J., M. Neuman, D. Pinkard, R. Kvitek, and G. Cochrane.2006. The use of multibeam 5 benthic habitat mapping techniques to refine population estimates of the endangered 6 white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni). Fish. Bull. 104: 521-532.

7 Butler, J., Neuman, M., Pinkard, D., Kvitek, R., Cochrane, G.R. 2006.The use of multibean sonar 8 mapping techniques to refine population estimates of the endangered white abalone 9 (Halitosi sorenseni). Fishery Bulletin 104: 521-532.

10 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. California Marine Life Protection Act 11 (MLPA) Initiative.

12 California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of 13 California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tipor, 14 Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. 388 pp.

15 Carlton, J.T. 2001. Introduced Species in U.S. Coastal Waters: Environmental Impacts and 16 Management Priorities. Pew Oceans Commission, Arlington, VA.

17 Carretta, J.V., M.S. Lowry, C.E. Stinchcomb, M.S. Lynn, and R.E. Cosgrove. 2000. Distribution 18 and abundance of marine mammals at San Clemente Island and surrounding offshore 19 waters: results from aerial and ground surveys in 1998 and 1999. NMFS Administrative 20 Report LJ-00-02.

21 Carretta, J. V., K.A. Forney, M.S. Lowry, J. Barlow, J. Baker, B. Hanson and M.M. Muto 2007. 22 U.S. Pacific Marine Mammal Stock Assessments: 2007. NOAA Technical Memorandum. 23 U. S. D. o. Commerce: 320 p.

24 Carter, H.R., D.L. Whitworth, W.R. McIver, G.J. McChesney, L.K. Ochikubo Chan, F. Gress, 25 and P.N. Hebert. 2009. Status of the Xantus’s murrelet, ashy storm-petrel, and black 26 storm-petrel at San Clemente Island, California. Unpublished Report, Carter Biological 27 Consulting, Victoria, British Columbia; and California Institute of Environmental 28 Studies, Davis, California. 42 pp.

29 Carter, H.R., D.L. Whitworth, J.Y. Takekawa, T.W. Keeney, and P.R. Kelly. 2000. At-sea 30 threats to Xantus’ Murrelets (Synthliboramphus hypoleucus) in the Southern California 31 Bight. Pages 435-477 In Proceedings of the fifth California Islands Symposium, 29 32 March to 1 April 1999 (D.R. Browne, K.L. Mitchell, and H.W. Chaney, eds.). U.S. 33 Minerals Management Service, Camarillo, California.

8-2 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Chavez, F.P., J. Ryan, S.E. Lluch-Cota, and M. Niquen C. 2003. From anchovies to sardines and 2 back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299: 217-221.

3 Chavez, F.P., J. Ryan, S.E. Lluch-Cota, and M. Niquen C. 2003. From anchovies to sardines and 4 back: multidecadal change in the Pacific Ocean. Science 299: 217-221.

5 Chuang, T. I. and L. R. Heckard. 1993. Castilleja. In Ed. J.C. Hickman. The Jepson manual. 6 University of California Press. Berkeley, California. p. 1021.

7 Cohen, R. H. 1980. Population size, distribution, structure, and productivity of marine mam¬mal 8 populations on San Clemente Isalnd.

9 Coonan, T. J., C. A. Schwemm, G. W. Roemer, D. K. Garcelon, and L. Munson. 2005. Decline 10 of an island fox subspecies to near extinction. Southwestern Naturalist 50: 32 – 41.

11 Cox, K.W. 1960. Review of the abalone of California. California Department of Fish and Game, 12 Marine Resources Operations.

13 Cowen, R. K. 1983. The effect of sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher) predation on red sea 14 urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) populations: an experimental analysis. 15 Oecologia 58:249-255.

16 Cross, J.N. and L.G. Allen. 1993. Fishes. In Ecology of the southern California Bight, A 17 Synthesis and Interpredation. Pp. 459-540. (M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson, 18 eds.). University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

19 Cypher, B. L., A. Y. Madrid, C. L. Van Horn Job, E. Kelly, S. W. R. Harrison, and T. L. Westall. 20 2011. Resource exploitation by island foxes: Implications for conservation. Final report. 21 State of California Department of Fish and Game. San Diego, CA: 25 pp.

22 Dailey, M., D. Reish and J. Anderson. 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight. 23 University of California Press. Los Angeles, CA.

24 Dayton, P.K., M.J. Tegner, P.E. Parnell, and P.B. Edwards. 1992. Temporal and spatial patterns 25 of disturbance and recovery in a kelp forest community. Ecol. Monogr. 62: 421-445.

26 DeLong, R.L., G.A. Antonelis, C.W. Oliver, B.B. Stewart, M.S., and P.K. Yochem. 1991. 27 Effects of the 1982-83 El Niño on several population parameters and diet of California 28 sea lions on the California Channel Islands. In Pinnipeds and El Niño: Responses to 29 environmental stress, F. Trillmich and K.A. Ono, ed., Berlin: Springer-Verlag, pp. 166- 30 172.

31 Department of the Navy (Navy). 1954. Feasibility study at San Clemente Island. Prepared by 32 Porter, Urquhart and Beavin–Consulting Engineers.

References 8-3 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2006. Final Environmental Assessment, San Clemente Island 2 wastewater treatment plant increase in maximum allowable discharge volume.

3 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2007. Projects increases in sheet and rill erosion due to military 4 operations Proposed on San Clemente Island. March.

5 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2008. Southern California Range Complex Environmental 6 Impact Statement/Overseas Environmental Impact Statement Volume 1 of 2: Chapters 1- 7 3. Final. U. S. N. P. F. Prepared for Commander.

8 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2009a. Marine Mammal Monitoring for the U.S. Navy's Hawaii 9 Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex- Volume I Annual Report 10 2009. Authors: Chip Johnson and Julie Rivers. Department of the Navy, United States 11 Pacific Fleet.

12 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2009b. Southern California Range Complex Monitoring Plan. 13 In support of the Taking and Importing Marine Mammals; U.S. Navy Training in the 14 SOCAL Range Complex; Final Rule; and BO on the U.S. Navy's training in the SOCAL 15 Range Complex.

16 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2010. Marine Mammal Monitoring for the U.S. Navy's Hawaii 17 Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex- Annual Report 2010. 18 Department of the Navy, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

19 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2011. Marine Mammal Monitoring for the U.S. Navy's Hawaii 20 Range Complex and Southern California Range Complex - Annual Report 2011. 21 Department of the Navy, U.S. Pacific Fleet.

22 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2012. San Clemente Island Natural Resources Management 23 Plan Final. San Diego, CA. Prepared by Tierra Data, Inc. Escondido. CA.

24 Department of the Navy (Navy). 2012. Accessed site on 25 April 2012. 25 http://www.cnic.navy.mil/Coronado/About/Installations/NavalAuxillaryLandingFieldSan 26 ClementeIsland/index.htm

27 Docherty, T. D., A. S. Bridges, B. Hudgens ,and D. K. Garcelon. 2011. Population monitoring of 28 the San Clemente sage sparrow – 2010. Draft Annual Report. Prepared by the Institute 29 for Wildlife Stuies for the U.S. Navy, Naval Base Coronado, Natural Resources Office, 30 San Diego, CA. 142 pp.

31 Dodd, S.C. and K. Helenurm. 2000. Floral variation in Delphinium variegatum (Ranunculaceae). 32 Madrono 47(2): 116-126.

8-4 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Dodd, S.C. and K. Helenurm. 2002 Genetic diversity in Delphinium variegatum 2 (Ranunculaceae): A comparison of two insular endemic subspecies and their widespread 3 mainland relative. American Journal of Botany 89(4): 613-622.

4 Douros, W.J. 1985. Density, growth, reproduction, and recruitment in an intertidal abalone: 5 Effects of intraspecific competition and prehistoric predation. Master’s thesis. University 6 of California, Santa Barbara.

7 Drost, C.A. 1989. Predation and population cycles on a southern California island. M.Sc. Thesis, 8 University of California, Davis.

9 Dutton, Peter. 2000. Personal Communication. National Marine Fisheries Service.

10 Ebeling, A.W., D.R. Laur, and R.J. Rowley. 1985. Severe storm disturbances and reversal of 11 community structure in a southern California kelp forest. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 129: 173-187.

12 Engle J.M. 1979. Ecology and growth of juvenile California spiny lobster, Panulirus interruptus 13 (Randall). Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California

14 Erlich P.R. 1989. Attributes of Invaders and the Invading Processes: Vertebrates. Pp 315-328 in: 15 Drake J.A. (ed.) Biological Invasions: A global Perspective. John Wiley and Sons, NY. 16 525 pp.

17 Farabaugh, S. M. 2012. Final Report: 2011 Propagation and behavior of the captive population 18 of the San Clemente loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus mearnsi). DoD, U.S. Navy, 19 Natural Resources Specialist Support Team, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities 20 Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. xx pp.

21 Forney, K. A. and J. Barlow. 1998. Seasonal patterns in the abundance and distribution of 22 California cetaceans, 1991-92. Marine Mammal Science 14:460-489.

23 Foster MS, DeVogelaere AP, Harrold C, Pearse JS, Thum AB. 1988. Causes of spatial and 24 temporal patterns in rocky intertidal communities of Central and Northern California. 25 Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences Number 9, San Francisco, California

26 Foster, B. D., and E. Copper. 2000. Status Report of the western snowy plover at NALF San 27 Clemente Island, California, Prepared for the Natural Resources Office, Environmental 28 Dept. Commander Navy Region Southwest, Southwest Div., Nav. Fac. Eng. Command, 29 San Diego, CA.

30 Foster, B. D. and E. Copper. 2003. Status of the western snowy plover at NALF, San Clemente 31 Island, Los Angeles, CA, Prepared for the Natural Resources Office, Environmental 32 Dept. Commander Navy Region Southwest, Southwest Div., Nav. Fac. Eng. Command, 33 San Diego, CA.

References 8-5 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Foster, M.S., and D.R. Schiel. 1985. The ecology of giant kelp forests in California: A 2 community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.2). Sidell, 3 Louisiana: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

4 Fritts, T.H., M.L. Stinson, and R. Marquez M. 1982. Status of sea turtle nesting in southern Baja 5 California, Mexico. Bull. South. Calif. Acad. Sci. 81: 51-60.

6 Garcia and Associates. 2011. San Clemente Island Fox (Urocyon littoralis clementae) monitoring 7 and research on Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clemente Island, California. Draft 8 Large Report, Option Period 3; 2010 field season. Prepared for: Naval Base Coronado 9 Public Works Office, Environmental Division. Cooperative Agreement Number N62473- 10 07-D-3202; Task Order 0001, CLIN 0201.

11 Gardner, G.R., J.C. Harshbarger, J.L. Lake, T.K. Sawyer, K.L. Price, M.D. Stephenson, P.L. 12 Haaker, and H.A. Togstad. 1995. Association of prokaryotes with symptomatic 13 appearance of withering syndrome in black abalone Haliotis cracherodii. J. Invertebr. 14 Pathol. 66: 111-120.

15 Geiger, D.L. 2004. AbMap: The abalone mapping project. 16 http://www.vetigastropoda.com/ABMAP/ext/index.htm.

17 Goldberg, S. R. and R. L. Bezy. 1974. Reproduction in the island night lizard, Xantusia 18 riversiana. Herpetologica 30: 350-360.

19 Green, J. E. and L. W. Arnold 1939. "An unrecognized race of murrelet on the Pacific Coast of 20 North America." Condor 41: 25-29.

21 Haaker, P.L., K.C. Henderson, and D.O. Parker. 1986. California Abalone, Marine Resources 22 Leaflet No. 11. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and 23 Game, Marine Resources Division, Long Beach, CA.

24 Haaker, P.L., D.O. Parker, and C.S.Y. Chun. 1995. Growth of black abalone, Haliotis 25 cracherodii, at San Miguel Island and Point Arguello, California. Journal of Shellfish 26 Research 14: 519-525.

27 Hall, L.S., P.R. Krausman and M.L. Morrison. 1997. The habitat concept and a plea for standard 28 terminology. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:173-182.

29 Harrold, C. and D.C. Reed. 1985. Food availability, sea urchin grazing, and kelp forest 30 community structure. Ecology 66: 1160-1169.

31 Hasse, H.E. 1903. The lichen-flora of San Clemente Island. Bulletin of the Southern California 32 Academy of Sciences 2: 54-55.

8-6 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Helenurm, K., R. West, and S. J. Burckhalter. 2005. Allozyme Variation in the Endangered 2 Insular Endemic Castilleja grisea. Annals of Botany 95: 1221-1227.

3 Helenurm, Kiaus. 2012. Personal Communication. University of South Dakota.

4 Hewitt, C.L. 2002. The distribution and diversity of tropical Australian marine bioinvasions. 5 Pacific Science. 56: 213-222.

6 Hindell MA, Burton HR, Slip DJ, 1991. Foraging areas of southern elephant seals, Mirounga 7 leonina, as inferred from water temperature data. Aust. J. Mar. Freshwater Res. 42:115- 8 128.

9 Holway, D.A. and P.S. Ward. 2011. San Clemente ant survey (25-27) March 2011. 10 Unpublished. 13 pp.

11 Horn, M.H., L.G. Allen, and R.N. Lea. 2006. Biogeography. The Ecology of Marine Fishes: 12 California and Adjacent Waters, Pp. 3-25 (L.G. Allen, D.J. Pondella II, and M.H. Horn, 13 eds.). University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California.

14 Howell, A. B. 1917. Birds of the islands off the coast of Southern California. Pacific Coast 15 Avifauna No. 12: 27 pp.

16 Hudgens, B., F. Beaudry, T. L. George, S. Kaiser, and N. M. Munkwitz. 2011. Shifting threats 17 faced by the San Clemente sage sparrow. Journal of Wildlife Management 75: 1350 – 18 1360.

19 Hui, C.A. 1985. Undersea topography and the comparative distribution of two pelagic dolphins. 20 Fishery Bull. 83:472-475.

21 Hunt, G.L., R.L. Pitman, M. Naughton, K. Winnett, A. Newman, P.R. Kelly and K.T. Briggs. 22 1979. Distribution, status, reproductive ecology and foraging habits of breeding seabirds. 23 Pp. 1-399 In Summary of marine mammal and seabird surveys of the southern California 24 Bight area 1975-1978. Vol 3- Investigators' reports. Part 3. Seabirds-Book 2. University 25 of California-Santa Cruz. For U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Los Angeles, CA. 26 Contract AA550-CT7-36.

27 Hunt, G.L. and J.L. Butler. 1980. Reproductive ecology of Western Gulls and Xantus's Murrelets 28 with respect to food resources in the Southern California Bight. California Cooperative 29 Fisheries Investigations Report 21: 62-67.

30 Hyde, K. M. 1985. The status of the San Clemente sage sparrow. Prepared for Natural 31 Resources Office, North Island Naval Air Station, San Diego, CA.

References 8-7 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Jaquet, N., Whitehead, H., and M. Lewis. 1996. "Coherence between 19th century sperm whale 2 distributions and satellite-derived pigments in the tropical Pacific." Marine Ecology 3 Progress Series 145: 1-10.

4 Jehl, J.R. and S.I. Bond. 1975. Morphological variation and species limits in murrelets of the 5 genus Endomychura. Transactions of the San Diego Society of Natural History 18: 9-24.

6 Junak, S. A. 2006. Sensitive Plant Survey Data for San Clemente Island, California. Collected 7 for the Department of the Navy, Southwest Region under cooperative agreement with 8 Naval Facilities Engineering Command South Division.

9 Junak, S. A. 2010. Sensitive Plant Survey Data for San Clemente Island, California. Collected 10 for the Department of the Navy, Southwest Region under cooperative agreement with 11 Naval Facilities Engineering Command South Division.

12 Junak, S. A. and D. H. Wilken. 1998. Sensitive Plant Status Survey, Naval Auxiliary Landing 13 Field San Clemente Island, California, Final Report. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden 14 Technical Report No. 1 prepared for the Department of the Navy, Southwest Division. 15 San Diego, CA.

16 Junak, Steve. 1996. Personal Communication. Santa Barbara Botanic Garden.

17 Keeley, J.E. 1987. Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in California chaparral. 18 Ecology 68: 434-443.

19 Keiper, C. A., D.G. Ainley, S.G. Allen, and J.T. Harvey 2005. Marine mammal occurrence and 20 ocean climate off central California, 1986 to 1994 and 1997 to 1999. Marine Ecology 21 Progress Series 289: 285-306.

22 Laughrin, L. L. 1977. The island fox: a field study of its behavior and ecology. Ph.D. 23 dissertation, The University of California, Santa Barbara, 83 pages.

24 Leet, W. S., Dewees, C.M., Klingbeil, R., Larson, E.J., Ed. 2001. California's living marine 25 resources: A status report. Sacramento, California Department of Fish and Game.

26 Leighton, D.L. 1959. Diet and its relation to growth in the black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii. 27 Master’s thesis. University of California, Los Angeles.

28 Leighton, D.L. 2005. Status review for the black abalone, Haliotis cracherodii. Unpublished 29 document produced for the Black Abalone Status Review Team, NMFS, Southwest 30 Region, Office of Protected Resources, Long Beach, CA. 32 pp.

31 Leighton, D.L. and R.A. Boolootian. 1963. Diet and growth in the black abalone, Haliotis 32 cracherodii. Ecology 44: 227-238.

8-8 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Lerma, Derek. 2011. Personal Communication. Tierra Data, Inc.

2 Linton, C. B. 1908. Notes from San Clemente Island. Condor 10: 82-86.

3 Liston, A., L. H. Rieseberg, and O. Mistretta. 1990. Ribosomal DNA evidence for hybridization 4 between island endemic species of Lotus. Biochemical Systematics and Ecology 18: 239- 5 244.

6 Littler, M.M. and Murray S.N. 1975. Impact of sewage on the distribution, abundance, and 7 community structure of rocky intertidal macro-organisms. Mar Biol 30: 277-91

8 Lynn, S., J. A. Martin, K. M. Wakelee, D. M. Cooper, G. A. Schmitt, and D. K. Garcelon. 1999. 9 Research efforts to aid in the recovery of the San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike – 1998. 10 Final Report. Institute of Wildlife Studies, Arcata, CA.

11 Lynn, S., A.M. Condon, E.L. Kershner, D.K. Garcelon. 2003. Winter ecology of loggerhead 12 shrikes on San Clemente Island. Prepared for U.S. Navy, Natural Resources Management 13 Branch, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA: 31 14 pp.

15 Lynn, S., B.L. Sullivan, H.A. Carlisle, N.A. Chartier, and N. Warnock. 2004. 2003 population 16 monitoring of the San Clemente loggerhead shrike on NALF, San Clemente Island, 17 California. Prepared for U.S. Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering 18 Command, San Diego, CA: 184 pp. + electronic appendices.

19 Lynn, S., B.L. Sullivan, H.A. Carlisle, and N. Warnock. 2005. Final Report - 2004 population 20 monitoring of the San Clemente loggerhead shrike on NALF, San Clemente Island, CA. 21 Prepared for U.S. Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, 22 San Diego, CA: 184 pp. + electronic appendices.

23 Lynn, S., H. A. Carlisle, and N. Warnock. 2006. Western Snowy Plover surveys on Naval 24 Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, California, June - 25 November 2005. U. S. Navy, Environmental Department, Southwest Division, Naval 26 Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. 28pp + electronic appendices.

27 Mad River Biologists (MRB). 2002. California Coastal National Monument Literature Search 28 and Summarization of Key Biological Resources of the Monument: Seabirds and Marine 29 Mammals. Prepared for Bureau of Land Management.

30 Martin, J. W., and B. A. Carlson. 1998. Sage Sparrow (Amphispiza belli). In A. Poole and F. 31 Gill, editors. The Birds of North America, No. 326. The Birds of North America, Inc., 32 Philadelphia, PA.

33 Mautz, W. J. 1979. Thermoregulation, metabolism, water loss and microhabitat selection in 34 Xantussid lizards. Ithaca, NY, Cornell University.

References 8-9 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Mautz, W. J. 2001. The biology and management of the island night lizard, Xantusia riversiana, 2 on San Clemente Island, California. Prepared for the Natural Resources Office, Navy 3 Region Southwest, Southwestern Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command. San 4 Diego, CA. 70 pp.

5 Mautz, W. J. 2007. Island night lizard trap maintenance and habitat evaluation on Naval 6 Auxiliary Landing Field San Clemente Island, Los Angeles, California. Prepared for U. 7 S. Navy, Environmental Department, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering 8 Command. San Diego, CA. 43 pp.

9 McConnell, B.J., Chambers, C and Fedak, M.A. 1992. Foraging ecology of southern elephant 10 seals in relation to the bathymetry and productivity of the Southern Ocean. Antarctica 11 Science. 4: 393-398.

12 Menke, A.S. 1985. Symposium Introduction. pp. 1-2 in Menke, A.S., and D.R. Miller. 1985. 13 Entomology of the California Channel Islands: Proceedings of the First Symposium. 14 Santa Barbara Museum of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA. 178 pp.

15 Miller, S.E. 1984. Butterflies of the California Channel Islands. J. of Research on the 16 Lepidoptera. 23(4): 282-296.

17 Miller, S.E. 1985. The California Channel Islands- Past, Present, and Future: An Entomological 18 Perspective. pp. 3-28 in Menke, A.S., and D.R. Miller. 1985. Entomology of the 19 California Channel Islands: Proceedings of the First Symposium. Santa Barbara Museum 20 of Natural History. Santa Barbara, CA. 178 pp.

21 Miller, K.A. and H.W. Dorr. 1994. Natural history of mainland and island populations of the 22 deep water elk kelp Pelagophycus (Laminarialus, Phaeophyta): How many species? In: 23 W.L. Halvorson and G.J. Maender (eds.), Proceedings of the Fourth California Islands 24 Symposium: Update on the Status of Resources. Santa Barbara Museum of Natural 25 History, CA.

26 Miller, A.C. and S.E. Lawrenz-Miller. 1993. Long-term trends in black abalone, Haliotis 27 cracherodii, populations along the Palos Verdes Peninsula, California. Journal of 28 Shellfish Research 12: 195-200.

29 Morreale, S.J., E.A. Standora, F.V. Paladino, and J.R. Spotila. 1994. Leatherback migrations 30 along deepwater bathymetric contours. Pages 109-110 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. 31 Witherington (compliers), Proc. Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea Turtle Biology 32 and Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFSC-341. 341 33 pp.

8-10 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Moses, E., and J. T. Finn. 1997. Using geographic information systems to predict North Atlantic 2 right whale (Eubalaena glacialis) habitat. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 3 22:37-46.

4 Muhs, D. R. 1980. Quaternary stratigraphy and soil development, San Clemente Island, 5 California. Department of Geography. Boulder, Colorado, University of Colorado. Ph.D,.

6 Muhs, D. R. 1982. A soil chronosequence on Quaternary marine terraces, San Clemente Island, 7 California. Geoderma 28: 322-341.

8 Munger, L.M. D. Camacho, A. Havron, G. Campbell, J. Calambokidis, A. Douglas, and J. 9 Hildebrand. 2009. Baleen Whale Distribution Relative to Surface Temperature and 10 Zooplankton Abundance off Southern California, 2004-2008. CalCOFI Rep., Vol. 50, 11 155-168.

12 Munkwitz, N. M., M.F. Beaudry, and D.K. Garcelon. 2002. Population monitoring of the San 13 Clemente sage sparrow - 2001. Final Report. Prepared for U.S. Navy, Southwest 14 Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. 71 pp.

15 Munson, Bryan. 2012. Personal Communication. Department of the Navy.

16 Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. Berkeley, 17 California.

18 Murray, K.G., K. Winnett-Murray, Z.A. Eppley, G.L. Hunt, and D.B. Schwartz. 1983. Breeding 19 biology of the Xantus’ Murrelet. Condor 85: 12-21.

20 Murray, S.N. 2007. Improving Understanding of Invasive Seaweeds in California’s Coastal 21 Waters: Moving Beyond Caulerpa taxifolia. Final Report. November 15, 2007. 48 pp.

22 Neuman, M., B. Tissot, and G. VanBlaricom. 2010. Overall status and threats assessment of 23 black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) populations in California. Journal of Shellfish 24 Research (29): 577-586.

25 O’Farrell, M. J. and W. E. Haas. 2002a. Bat survey of San Clemente Island, Los Angeles 26 County, California, Spring Report. Prepared for U. S. Navy, Environmental Department, 27 Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. 6 pp.

28 O’Farrell, M. J. and W. E. Haas. 2002b. Bat survey of San Clemente Island, Los Angeles 29 County, California, Autumn Report (2002). Prepared for U. S. Navy, Environmental 30 Department, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, 31 CA. 11 pp.

References 8-11 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 O’Farrell, M. J. and W. E. Haas. 2002c. Bat survey of San Clemente Island, Los Angeles 2 County, California, Winter Report. Prepared for U. S. Navy, Environmental Department, 3 Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. 7 pp.

4 Olmstead, F. H. 1958. Geologic Reconnaissance of San Clemente California. Contributions to 5 General Geology Geological Survey bulletin 1071-B.

6 Page, G. W., S.C. Bidstrup, R.J. Ramer and L.E. Stenzel. 1986. Distribution of wintering snowy 7 plovers in California and adjacent states. Western Birds 17: 145-170.

8 Pitman, R.L. 1990. Pelagic distribution and biology and sea turtles in the eastern tropical Pacific. 9 Pp. 143-148 In T.H. Richardson, J.I. Richardson, and M. Donnelly (compliers), Proc. 10 Tenth Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dep. Commer., 11 NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-SEFC-278. 286 pp.

12 Phillips, R. B., C. S. Winchell, and R. H. Schmidt. 2007. Dietary overlap of an alien and native 13 carnivore on San Clemente Island, California. Journal of Mammalogy 88: 173 – 180.

14 Plotkin, R.J., R.A. Byles, and D.W. Owens. 1994. Migratory and reproductive behavior of 15 Lepidochelys olivacea in the eastern Pacific Ocean. Page 138 in B.A. Schroeder and B.E. 16 Witherington (compilers), Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Symposium on Sea 17 Turtle Biology and Conservation. U.S. Dep. of Comm., NOAA Tech. Memo. NFMS- 18 SEFSC-341. 281 pp.

19 Powell, J. A. and C. L. Hogue. 1979. California insects. California Natural History Guides. 20 Berkeley, California.

21 Powell, A. N., Terp, J.M., Collier, C.L. Peterson, B.L. 1997. The status of western snowy plovers 22 (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1997. Report to the California 23 Dept. of Fish and Game the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

24 Raimondi, Pete. Personal Communication. University of California Santa Cruz.

25 Radovich, J. 1961. Relationships of some marine organisms of the northeast Pacific Ocean to 26 water temperatures, particularly during 1957 through 1959. CalCOFI. 7: 163-71.

27 Raimondi, P.T., R.F. Ambrose, J.M. Engle, S.N. Murray, and M.Wilson. 1999. Monitoring of 28 rocky intertidal resources along the central and southern California mainland. 3-Year 29 Report for San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Orange Counties (Fall 1995-Spring 30 1998). OCS Study, MMS 99-0032, U.S. Bureau of Energy Management, Regulation, and 31 Enforcement, Pacific OCS Region

32 Raven, P. H. 1963. A Flora of San Clemente Island, California. Aliso 5: 289-348.

8-12 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Rodriguez, S., Santiago, A.R.T., Shenker, G. 2001. A public-access GIS-based model of 2 potential species habitat distribution for the Santa Barbara Channel and the Channel 3 Islands National Marine Sanctuary, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and 4 Management: 130 pp.

5 Rodriguez, A. R. 2003. "Consumption of drift kelp by intertidal populations of the sea urchin 6 Tetrapygus niger on the central Chilean coast: Possible consequences at different 7 ecological levels." Marine Ecology Progress Series 251: 141-151.

8 San Diego Military Advisory Council (SDMAC). 2011. San Diego Military Economic Impact 9 Study April 2011. 74pp.

10 Schoenherr, A.A., C.R. Feldmeth, and M.J. Emerson. 1999. Natural history of the islands of 11 California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.

12 Scott, T. A. and M. L. Morrison. 1990. Natural history and management of the San Clemente 13 loggerhead shrike. Western Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 4: 23 – 57.

14 Shelden, K. E. W., S.E. Moore, J.M. Waite, P.R. Wade, and D.J. Rugh. 2005. "Historic and 15 current habitat use by North Pacific right whales, Eubalaena japonica, in the Bering Sea 16 and Gulf of Alaska." Mammal Review 35: 129-155.

17 Simmonds, M. P. and S. J. Isaac. 2007. "The impacts of climate change on marine mammals: 18 Early Signs of Significant Problems." Oryx 41: 19-26.

19 Smith R.C., Dustan R., Au D., Baker K.S., Dunlap E.A. 1986. Distribution of cetaceans and sea- 20 surface chlorophyll concentrations in the California Current. Mar Biol 91:385–402.

21 Smith, S. C. & Whitehead, H. 1993. Variation in the feeding success and behaviour of Galápagos 22 sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) as they relate to oceanographic conditions. Can. 23 J. Zool. 71:1991–1996.

24 Snow, N. P., W. F. Andelt, T. R.. Stanley, J. R. Resnik, and L. Munson. 2012. Effects of roads 25 on survival of San Clemente Island foxes. Journal of Wildlife Management 76: 243 – 26 252.

27 Soil Conservation Service. 1982. Soil survey of Channel Islands area, San Clemente Island part, 28 interim report. . U.S. Dept. of Agriculture SCS in cooperation with the Regents of the 29 University of California and the Dept. of the Navy.

30 Stahl, J. T., J. P. Gunther, N. J. Desnoyers, A. S. Bridges, and D. K. Garcelon. 2011. San 31 Clemente Loggerhead Shrike Monitoring Program Draft Annual Report – 2010. U.S. 32 Navy, Environmental Department, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, 33 San Diego, California. 64 pp.

References 8-13 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Stahl, J. T. and A. S. Bridges. 2010. Western snowy plover surveys on Naval Auxiliary Landing 2 Field San Clemente Island, Los Angeles County, California, March 2009 – February 3 2010. Prepared for U. S. Navy, Environmental Department, Southwest Division, Naval 4 Facilities Engineering Command, San Diego, CA. 15 pp.

5 Standora, E.A., S.J. Morreale, A.B. Bolton, M.D. Eberle, J.M. Edbauser, T.S. Ryder, and K.L. 6 Williams. 1994. Diving Behavior and Vertical Distribution of Loggerheads, and a 7 Preliminary Assessment of Trawling Efficiency for Censusing. Pp. 174-177 In 8 Proceedings of the 13th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 9 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. U.S. Department of Commerce. 27 10 pp.

11 Standora, E.A., S.J. Morreale, A.B. Bolton, M.D. Eberle, J.M. Edbauser, T.S. Ryder, and K.L. 12 Williams. 1994. Diving Behavior and Vertical Distribution of Loggerheads, and a 13 Preliminary Assessment of Trawling Efficiency for Censusing. Pp. 174-177 In 14 Proceedings of the 13th Annual Workshop on Sea Turtle Biology and Conservation. 15 NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-SEFSC-341. U.S. Department of Commerce. 27 16 pp.

17 State Water Resources Control Board (SWQRCB). 2009. California Ocean Plan. State Water 18 Resources Control Board, Sacramento, CA.

19 Stevick, P.T., B.J. McConnell, and P.S. Hammond. 2002. Patterns of Movement. Pages 185-216 20 in A.R. Hoelzel, ed. Marine mammal biology: An evolutionary approach. Oxford: 21 Blackwell Science.

22 Stewart, B.S., and H.R. Huber. 1993. Mirounga angustirostris. Mammalian Species 449:1-10.

23 Stewart J.G. and Myers B. 1980. Assemblages of algae and invertebrates in Southern California 24 Phyllospadix-dominated intertidal habitats. Aquatic Botany 9:73-94

25 Stinson, M. L. 1984. Biology of sea turtles in San Diego Bay, California, and in the northeastern 26 Pacific Ocean. Master of Science thesis, San Diego State University, California. 578 p.

27 Sullivan, B.L. and E.L. Kershner. 2005. Western Birds. Volume 36 (3): 158-273.

28 Sydeman, W.J. and N. Nur. 1999. A review of the status and threats to Xantus’s Murrelets 29 throughout its range in Baja California, Mexico and the United States. In Population 30 status, prospects, and risks faced by two seabirds of the California Current: the Ashy 31 Storm-Petrel, Oceanodroma homochroa, and Xantus’s Murrelet, Synthliboramphus 32 hypoleucus (N. Nur, W.J. Sydeman, D. Girman, T.B. Smith, and D. Gilmer, eds.). Final 33 report to the USGS Biological Resources Division. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, 34 Stinson Beach, CA.

8-14 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 Takekawa, J.Y., H.R. Carter, D.L. Orthmeyer, R.T. Golightly, J.T. Ackerman, G.J. McChesney, 2 J.W. Mason, J. Adams, W.R. McIver, M.O. Pierson, and C.D. Hamilton. 2004. At-sea 3 Distribution and Abundance of Seabirds and Marine Mammas in Southern California 4 Bight: 1999-2003. Prepared by U.S. Geological Survey and Humboldt State University.

5 Takata, L., Falkner, M., Gilmore, S. 2006. California State Lands Commission Report on 6 Commercial Vessel Fouling in California: Analysis, Evaluation, and Recommendations 7 to Reduce Nonindigenous Species Release from the Non-Ballast Water Vector. M. F. D. 8 California State Lands Commission.

9 Tegner, M.J. and P.K. Dayton. 1987. El Nino effects on southern California kelp forest 10 communities. Adv. Ecol. Res. 17: 243-279.

11 Tierra Data, Inc (TDI). 2011a. Terrestrial invertebrate survey report for San Clemente Island, 12 California. Contract: N62473-06-D-2402/0026. Prepared for U.S. Navy, Environmental 13 Department, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest, San Diego, California. 14 94 pp.

15 Tierra Data, Inc (TDI). 2011b. San Clemente Island Vegetation Condition and Trend Analysis, 16 2010. Contract: N68711-05-D-8004/0054. Prepared for NAVFACSW Naval Station San 17 Diego.

18 Tinkle, D. W. 1969. The concept of reproductive effort and its relation to the evolution of the life 19 histories of lizards. American Naturalist 103: 501-516.

20 Tissot, B.N. 1995. Recruitment, growth, and survivorship of black abalone on Santa Cruz Island 21 following mass mortality. Bulletin of Southern California Academy of Science. Vol. 94, 22 No. 3, pp. 179-189.

23 Thresher, RE. 1999. “Key threats from marine bioinvasions: A review of current and future 24 issues.” pp. 24-34. In J Pederson (ed.) Marine Bioinvasions: Proceedings of the First 25 International Conference, January 24-27. MIT Sea Grant. MIT-W-99-004.

26 Tinker, M.T., D.F. Doak, and J.A. Estes. 2008. Using demography and movement behavior to 27 predict range expansion of the southern sea otter. Ecological Applications 18(7):1781– 28 1794.

29 Torchin, M.E., K.D. Lafferty, A.P. Dobson, V.J. McKensie, and A.M. Kuris. 2003. Introduced 30 species and their missing parasites. Nature 421: 628-630.

31 Trillmich, F. and K. Ono (eds). 1991. Pinnipeds and El Nino: responses to environmental stress. 32 Springer Verlag, New York.

33 Tynan, C. 1996. Characterization of Oceanographic Habitat of Cetaceans in the Southern Indian 34 Ocean Between 82o – 115o E: Cruise Report from World Ocean Circulation Experiment

References 8-15 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 (WOCE) I8S and I9S. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-AFSC-64. July 1996. 66 2 pp.

3 United States Department of Energy (USDE). 2010. Accessed site on 26 April 2012. 4 http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/technologies/renewable_san_clemente.html

5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1977. Determination that seven California Channel Island 6 animals and plants are either endangered species or threatened species. Final ruling. 7 Federal Register 42: 40682 – 40685.

8 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1984. Recovery Plan for the Endangered and 9 Threatened Species of the California Channel Islands. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 10 Portland, Oregon. 165 pp.

11 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12 determination of threatened status for the Pacific coast population of the Western snowy 13 plover. Federal Register. 58: 12864-12874.

14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Candidate Conservation Agreement; San 15 Clemente Island Fox Conservation Plans and Agreements Database, Carlsbad Fish and 16 Wildlife Office.

17 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2004. Listing of the San Miguel Island Fox, Santa 18 Rosa Island Fox, Santa Cruz Island Fox, and Santa Catalina Island Fox as Endangered; 19 Final Rule. Federal Register. 69: 10335-10353.

20 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006a. Sibara filifolia (Santa Cruz Island rockcress) 5- 21 Year Review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad Fish 22 and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, CA. 24 pp.

23 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2006b. Island Night Lizard (Xantusia (=Klauberina) 24 riversiana) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Carlsbad, California. 34 pp.

25 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sercice. 2007a. Lotus dendroideus var. traskiae (San Clemente Island 26 lotus) 5-Year Review: summary and evaluation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Carlsbad 27 Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, CA. 22 pp.

28 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2007b. Plan for the Pacific Coast Population of the 29 Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). In 2 volumes. Sacramento, 30 California. xiv + 751 pages.

31 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. San Clemente Island Military Operations and 32 Fire Management Plan U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion FWS-LA- 33 09B0027-09F0040 . Final. Carlsbad, California.

8-16 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Revised Draft Supplemental Environmental 2 Impact Statement Translocation of Southern Sea Otters. Ventura Fish and Wildlife 3 Office. Ventura, California: 328 pp.

4 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012. Accessed site on 19 July 2012. 5 http://www.fws.gov/cno/press/release.cfm?rid=399

6 VanBlaricom, G.R., J.L. Ruediger, C.S. Friedman, D.D. Woodard, and R.P. Hedrick. 1993. 7 Discovery of withering syndrome among black abalone Haliotis cracherodii, populations 8 at San Nicolas Island, California. Journal of Shellfish Research 12: 185-188.

9 VanBlaricom, G., M. Neuman, J. Butler, A. DeVogelaere, R. Gustafson, C. Mobley, D. 10 Richards, S. Rumsey, and B. Taylor. 2009. Status review report for black abalone 11 (Haliotis cracherodii). U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 12 Atmospheric Administration. National Marine Fisheries Service, Long Beach, CA.

13 Vedder, J.G., H.G. Greene, S.H. Clarke, and M.P. Kennedy. 1986. Geologic map of the mid- 14 southern California continental margin. In California continental margin geologic map 15 series, area 2 and 7 (H.G. Greene and M.P. Kennedy, eds.), Map 2A 1:250,000. 16 California Division of Mines and Geology, Sacramento, CA.

17 Vinogradov M.E. 1981. Ecosystems of equatorial upwellings. In: Longhurst AR (ed) Analysis of 18 marine ecosystems. Academic Press, London, p 69-94.

19 Vissman, S. 2004. Island fox: Management guidelines for species at risk on Department of 20 Defense installations. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.

21 Walcott, C.D. 1897. Eighteenth Annual Report of the United States Geological Survey, 1896- 22 1897.

23 Warnock, M.J. 1990a. New taxa and combinations in North American Delphinium 24 (Ranunculaceae). Phytologia 68: 1-6.

25 Warnock, M.J. 1990b. Taxanomic and ecological review of California Delphinium. Collectanea 26 Botanica 19: 45-74.

27 Warnock, M.J. 1993. Delphinium. In: J.C. Hickman [ed.], The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of 28 California. 916-922. University of California Press Berkeley, California, USA.

29 Westman, W. E. 1983. "Island biogeography: studies on the xeric shrublands of the inner 30 Channel Islands, California." Biogeography 10: 97-118.

31 Williams, J.D., and G.K. Meffe. 1999. Nonindigenous species: Status and trends of the nations 32 biological resources. United States Geological Survey.

References 8-17 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

1 Wolf, S., J.E. Roth, and W.J. Sydeman. 2000. Population size, phenology, and productivity of 2 seabirds on Santa Barbara Island, 1999. Final Report to Channel Islands National Park, 3 Ventura, CA. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

4 Wolfe, L.M. 2002. Why alien invaders succeed: Support for the escape-from-enemy hypothesis. 5 American Naturalist 160:705-711.

6 Woodley, T.H. and D.E. Gaskin. 1996. Environmental characteristics of North Atlantic right and 7 fin whale habitat in the lower Bay of Fundy, Canada, Can J. Zool. 74: 75-84.

8 Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). In: The Birds of North America No. 9 231. (A. Poole and F. Gill, editors). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA 10 and the Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.

8-18 References Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Appendix A. Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-1 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466CBRPE 3.6.5.8 California O&MN California Brown Pelican Monitoring. Monitoring of nesting 4 ESA, NEPA, Recurring 3. Partnership Brown Pelican colony occupancy, number of nesting pairs, and nest MBTA, SAIA Effectiveness success is recommended to meet the post-delisiting 6. Ecosystem Integrity monitoring requirements of the California brown pelican. Aerial surveys are planned as the most cost-effective method for assessing colony occupancy and number of nesting pairs; some level of ground truthing is necessary to verify aerial data, assess nest success, and document disturbance. Monitoring is recommended annually through 2019 (unless the colony is consistently unoccupied) in keeping with the recommended Endangered Species Act (ESA) post-delisting 10-year monitoring period for this species. To support conservation of this species throughout its range, banding of a limited portion of the pelican nestlings/juveniles is recommended to determine movement between colonies within the region. 31466EM001 Ecosystem Approach O&MN Stable Isotope Analysis of Trophic Ecology. Projects that 3 SAIA, ESA, DoDI Non- 6. Ecosystem Integrity use nested hierarchical relationships to evaluate functions, 4715.3, recurring patterns, and identify related mechanisms from the top down OPNAVINST or bottom up within the ecosystems support effective 5090.1C ecosystem management. Lack of data across trophic levels and spatial scales and lack of data on key biological processes limits the INRMP and the Installation Biologist's ability to successfully manage on both an ecosystem and species level. This project is designed to identify prey base components on multiple scales and evaluate trophic level relationships in support of ecosystem and species-specific management. Stable isotope analysis has been used in ecological studies of diet composition and preference and can assess trophic interactions (Lewis et al. 2006; Newsome et al. 2009; Newsome et al. 2010). Stable isotope analyses would be undertaken at SCI from samples collected in the field (plant samples, prey base samples, fox whiskers, bird feathers, etc.) to determine diet components of various species by habitat.

A-2 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-3 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466MAR22 Ecosystem Approach MIS Eelgrass Surveys. Subtidal areas on SCI will be surveyed 4 MSA, EO 12962, Non- 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3.5.2.1 Subtidal for abundance, distribution, and health of eelgrass. The OPNAVINST recurring Habitats – Soft Bottom surveys will be conducted using a combination of side- 5090.1C, Fish and 3.5.2 Rocky Habitat scan and single beam sonar technologies and SCUBA Wildlife and Kelp Forests diving. The data gathered from this project will provide Conservation Act natural resource managers valuable information needed to minimize adverse impacts to this sensitive ecological area due to military training, operations, and facilities. These surveys will be conducted every five years to monitor any changes in the health, distribution, abundance, and any military impacts of existing eelgrass beds and kelp forests. 31466MAR23 3.3.3 Water and MIS Black Abalone Surveys. This project is in support of the 4 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and Sediment Quality ESA for avoidance of critical habitat and restrictions to OPNAVINST Critical Habitat 3.6.3.12 Black Abalone operations and training. This project will assess the 5090.1C general condition and availability of black abalone habitat on SCI, including a detailed habitat characterization, estimates of the distribution of black abalone habitat on SCI, monitoring of a suite of variables designed to examine oceanographic and water quality indices (water column temperatures, sea level rise, etc.) to detect changes in the environment over time. 31466MAR24 Ecosystem Approach MIS SCI Safety Zone Fish Study. Two ‘no take’ safety zones 4 ESA, MSA, SAIA, Recurring 2012, 2. Listed Species and 3.5.1.2 Rocky Intertidal have been designated around SCI. The objective of this OPNAVINST 2014- Critical Habitat and Surfgrass study is to establish baseline surveys in order to determine 5090.1C, MPRSA 2018 3. Partnership 3.6.2.2 Marine site usage of black abalone and other rocky intertidal Effectiveness Invertebrates assemblages within the SCI safety zones. These surveys 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3.6.2.3 Marine Fishes will be similar to the framework developed by the 3.6.3.12 Black Abalone Monitoring Enterprise to be consistent with monitoring of 5.1.4 Safety and Other the South Coast regional network of marine protected Restricted Access areas. This study will be developed at a scale useful for Zones project planning so that these locations can be managed and support the Marine Life Protection Act (MLPA) monitoring requirements. All data collected in the safety zones on SCI will be shared with the State of California.

A-4 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466MAR30 3.5.1.2 Rocky Intertidal MIS Black Abalone Monitoring Database. This project is in 4 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and and Surfgrass support of the ESA for avoidance of critical habitat and OPNAVINST Critical Habitat 3.5.2 Rocky Habitat restrictions to operations and training. A database will be 5090.1C 3. Partnership and Kelp Forests created and used for management considerations, which Effectiveness 3.6.2.2 Marine will integrate any historical monitoring data sets of black 6. Ecosystem Integrity Invertebrates 3.6.2.3 and white abalone as well as other marine species and Marine Fishes habitat monitoring such as, rocky intertidal, safety zone 3.6.3.11 White Abalone surveys, kelp forest surveys, eelgrass surveys, etc. 3.6.3.12 Black Abalone Additionally, these data will be shared with the Multi- agency Rocky Intertidal Network database. This database will serve as a clearinghouse for all data collected in the safety zones on SCI so that data can be shared with the State of California to avoid designation and regulation as a State Marine Protected Area (MPA). 31466MR100 3.3.3 Water and O&MN Marine Invasive Species Plan. The proposed project 3 Non-indigenous Recurring 6. Ecosystem Integrity Sediment Quality seeks to detect marine invasive species that could be Aquatic Nuisance 3.6.7.2 Marine Invasive colonizing the AOR of SCI. This project will complete an Prevention and Species initial study of non-native species at SCI that reviews the Control Act of relevant scientific literature, collections records, and 1990, Noxious unpublished biological data, re-examines collected Plant Control Act specimens, and conducts some limited field work. These of 1968, EO data will be assembled into a regional database for non- 13112 native species of SCI. A sampling Program will conduct a 5-day rapid assessment survey surrounding SCI. The rapid assessment survey will be conducted every five years. Hotspot monitoring will be conducted annually between the rapid assessment years. This monitoring will consist of small diving surveys to monitor hotspots.

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-5 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466MR103 3.6.2.2 Marine O&MN Marine Resources Compliance Signs. This project will 4 ESA, MMPA, Non- 2. Listed Species and Invertebrates promote listed species and species at risk protection and MPRSA recurring Critical Habitat 3.6.2.3 Marine Fishes awareness. Develop and install signs at SCI to protect 4. Fish and Wildlife 3.6.2.8 Marine Mammals federally listed marine species (black abalone, white Management and 3.6.3.11 White Abalone abalone), species at risk (green and pink abalone, Public Use 3.6.3.12 Black Abalone basking sharks, and Pacific-Southern Distinct Population 6. Ecosystem Integrity 5.1.4 Safety and Other Segment of boccacio), Marine Mammal Protection Act Restricted Access Zones (MMPA) protected cetaceans and pinnipeds, Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) and federally managed fish species (eelgrass, giant kelp, coastal pelagic species, and groundfish species) and educate regarding the two No Fishing safety zones. 31466NR005 3.3.3 Water and MIS Marine Habitat Monitoring Assessment. This project is in 4 ESA, MSA, SAIA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and Sediment Quality support of the ESA for avoidance of critical habitat, OPNAVINST Critical Habitat 3.5.2.1 Subtidal Habitats restrictions to operations and training, and designation as 5090.1C, MPRSA 6. Ecosystem Integrity – Soft Bottom a State MPA. In conjunction with the MLPA initiative, two 3.5.2.2 Rocky Habitat ‘no take’ safety zones have been designated around SCI. and Kelp Forests The objective of this study is to establish baseline 3.6.2.2 Marine surveys in order to determine site usage of white abalone Invertebrates and other subtidal assemblages within the SCI safety 3.6.2.3 Marine Fishes zones. All data collected in the safety zones on SCI will 3.6.3.11 White Abalone be shared with the state of California. This project will 5.1.4 Safety and Other also support Navy activities that require an EFH Restricted Access Zones consultation with National Marine Fisheries Service and the requirements for Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS).

A-6 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466NR012 Ecosystem Approach MIS SCI/SOCAL EIS Mitigation. This project will support the 4 ESA, MBTA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and 3.3.4 Wildland Fire mitigation requirements for SCI EIS and is not duplicative Critical Habitat 3.6.3 Federally of other ongoing projects or requirements. Mitigation 6. Ecosystem Integrity Threatened and requirements resulted from the Section 7 consultation Endangered Species under the ESA and as outlined in the BO FWS- LA- 09B0027-09F0040 on San Clemente Island Military Operations and Fire Management Plan 2008, and the SOCAL Range Complex Final EIS final Record of Decision. Additionally, due to unexploded ordnance (UXO) concerns, the Navy is not in compliance with several major requirements of the BO and WFMP. This project includes research, monitoring, reporting or other tasks mandated by the above ESA and NEPA documentation. 31466NR100 3.3.3 Water and MIS SCI Erosion Control. Project supports continued training 4 ESA, SAIA, SCI Recurring 2. Listed Species and Sediment Quality and operations on SCI. Project controls soil erosion that WFMP Critical Habitat 3.3.2 Soil and Soil could adversely affect habitat for federally listed species 6. Ecosystem Integrity Condition and/or species at risk. Project entails the installation of 3.6.3 Federally erosion control materials (such as geotextile, coir logs, Threatened and and straw wattles), seeding and/or installation of native Endangered Species plants, supplemental watering, and maintenance and monitoring. This project is included in the INRMP to address erosion concerns that may affect endangered or threatened species on SCI. 31466NR101 3.4.2.6 California O&MN SCI Grassland Restoration to Benefit Listed Species. 4 ESA, EO 13112, Recurring 2. Listed Species and Perennial Grassland This project restores native grassland that has become SAIA Critical Habitat 3.6.3 Federally invaded by exotic annual grasses to promote the 6. Ecosystem Integrity Threatened and recovery of federally listed species and improve the Endangered Species status of sensitive but non-listed species to prevent their 3.6.7.1 Invasive future federal listing. Project will involve a combination of Terrestrial Plants the following: weed control, native species outplanting, and possibly prescribed fire.

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-7 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466NR102 3.3.4 Wildland Fire O&MN Prescribed Burns to Enhance Habitat for Listed Species. 4 WFMP, Federal Recurring 2. Listed Species and 3.6.3 Federally This project is an element of the SCI WFMP. The project Wildland Fire Critical Habitat Threatened and entails newly burned areas of up to one mile per year of Policy, DODI 6. Ecosystem Integrity Endangered Species strip burns to enhance fuelbreaks and up to 300 acres 6055.06, ESA, per year of additional strip or patch burns. The additional SAIA burns will help prevent the spread of fire, which will conserve habitat for 6 listed plant species and help protect habitat for the SCI loggerhead shrike. Reseeding or planting may follow burning. 31466NR666 3.3.4 Wildland Fire O&MN Fuel Moisture Monitoring for Fire Management Plant 4 Federal Wildland Recurring 2. Listed Species and 3.6.3 Federally Implementation. This project entails monitoring fuel moisture Fire Policy, DoDI Critical Habitat Threatened and levels of shrubs in different plant communities at 6055.06, ESA, 6. Ecosystem Integrity Endangered Species representative sites across SCI. The project implements one SAIA, NEPA element of the SCI WFMP as required by the BO. Data collected under this project are used to declare the beginning and end of fire season on SCI. 31466NR900 Ecosystem Approach O&MN Ecosystem and Adaptive Management. The goal is to 4 SAIA, ESA, EO Recurring 6. Ecosystem Integrity maintain and improve the sustainability and native 13112 biological diversity of ecosystems (as opposed to one species), while supporting human needs, including the military mission. The development and implementation of a plan would seek to improve the understanding of natural process on SCI, including understanding pre- disturbance habitat conditions on SCI, understanding the natural fire regime of SCI, and helping to understand the climatic and habitat changes to be expected on SCI as a result of climate change. 31466NR901 3.6.5.1 California O&MN Dissanthelium californicum Management, Outplanting, 4 ESA, SAIA, EO Recurring 3. Partnership dissanthelium and Habitat Restoration. This project will fund seed 13112, Effectiveness collection, propagation, and growing to maximize seed OPNAVNIST 6. Ecosystem Integrity harvesting of California dissanthelium. Additionally, it will 5090.1C fund habitat enhancement, invasive species removal, and monitoring and maintenance. Both of these tasks have the ultimate goal of creating more areas with the species and increasing population numbers at the only two populations on SCI.

A-8 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466NR902 3.6.3.8 San Clemente MIS San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike Releases. San 4 ESA, NEPA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike Clemente loggerhead shrike population augmentation by Critical Habitat releasing birds from captivity into the wild and supplemental feeding of birds at release sites began to measurably increase the "wild" shrike population between 1999 and 2001. The success of this program has led to relaxation of regulatory restrictions on training activities in the Shore Bombardment Area (SHOBA) and an allowance for incidental take from a variety of activities. Growth of the loggerhead shrike population has relied on the continuation and success of this project. Continuation of this program will be guided by shrike population status relative to recovery objectives (in development in 2012). 31466NR907 3.6.3 Federally MIS Aerial Fire Suppression. This project provides for an on- 4 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and Threatened and site aerial suppression asset [helicopter w/300 gal MBTA, NEPA Critical Habitat Endangered Species bucket] at SCI for the wildland fire season. On-island 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3.3.4 Wildland Fire response capability will significantly aid in the protection of loggerhead shrike and other endangered species habitat and is necessary to ensure compliance with the WFMP and 2008 BO. 31466NR910 3.6.3.9 San Clemente MIS San Clemente Sage Sparrow Management Plan. The 4 NEPA, ESA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and sage sparrow 2006 San Clemente Sage Sparrow Management Plan (& SAIA, MBTA, Critical Habitat PVA) outlined a basis for species status concern. In OPNAVINST response, this project initiated radio-telemetry and 5090.1C additional surveys to assess juvenile survival. In addition, re-analysis of existing data indicates potential flaws or gaps in previous analyses under the 2006 plan. This project will update the plan based on new data and revised analyses of the existing data. The management plan should be revisited periodically as new monitoring data indicates a need for management shifts or as population demography data shifts.

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-9 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466NR911 3.6.2.6 Resident and O&MN Avian Community Monitoring. This project would 4 MBTA, EO 13186, Recurring 3. Partnership Migratory Birds implement commonly accepted sampling methodologies NEPA, SAIA Effectiveness to identify bird species presence within breeding and 6. Ecosystem Integrity wintering seasons across the landscape of SCI. Data would be used in the development of future NEPA documents for facilities and operational expansion and, in particular, anticipated increases in the use of wind energy at SCI. The information from SCI will also contribute to the understanding of continental migration patterns of birds; specifically, the importance of SCI in the Pacific Flyway and will support the DoD Partners In Flight program. To be statistically rigorous, the program should be conducted for a minimum of three years or whatever duration is necessary to sample a drought cycle and a normal to high rainfall cycle. 31466POL01 3.6.2.1 Terrestrial O&MN Pollinators Study. Project was developed from a growing 4 ESA, SAIA, DoDI Recurring 2. Listed Species and Invertebrates need to understand pollination mechanisms for listed 4715.03, Critical Habitat 3.6.3 Federally plants on SCI. Lack of sufficient/suitable pollinators for a OPNAVINST 6. Ecosystem Integrity Threatened and few SCI listed plant species has been identified as a 5090.1C Endangered Species possible reason for existing low populations numbers. Appendix: Pollinators This project will develop a protocol and conduct pollinator surveys to determine which species are pollinating listed plants, in particular Sibara filifolia and Malacothamnus clementinus. It will determine whether pollinators are present in the habitat with enough frequency to produce viable and sufficient seeds. Surveys to be conducted every three years to monitor population levels to help ensure that sufficient numbers of pollinators remain to produce sufficient number of seed. 31466PPAVE 3.6.5.4 Peregrine O&MN Avian Power Pole Protection. This project consists of 4 MBTA, EO 1316, Non- 2012 4. Fish and Wildlife Falcon surveying SCI power poles to identify any poles with Bald and Golden recurring Management and 3.6.5.5 Bald Eagle evidence of electrocution hazard based on pole Eagle Protection Public Use 5.2.5 Communication configuration and/or the presence of bird remains at the Act 6. Ecosystem Integrity Towers, Wind Farms, pole base. The project would result in comprehensive and Power Lines recommendations for avian protection on power poles at SCI.

A-10 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 31466SNAIL 3.6.2.1 Terrestrial O&MN Land Snail Survey. Field surveys should determine the 3 SAIA, NEPA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and Invertebrates distribution and population status of native snails and non- NISA Critical Habitat native snails at SCI. Surveys should document 6. Ecosystem Integrity presence/absence and habitat associations as well as densities. Out years will focus on implementation of report recommendations in support of Mission sustainment, including as appropriate control of non-native species. 3146600001 Ecosystem Approach MIS Vegetation Plots: Endangered Species Habitat Recovery 4 ESA, NEPA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and 3.3.4 Wildland Fire Monitoring. This is a status survey that detects changes in Critical Habitat 3.6.3 Federally plant communities of SCI, which support federally listed plant 6. Ecosystem Integrity Threatened and and wildlife species. Periodic assessments (roughly once Endangered Species every two years) are required to document the recovery of the habitat upon which these species depend and provide data essential in supporting downlisting or delisting of federally listed species. Data also provide information vital to making management decisions to promote the recovery of federally listed species and other species at risk. These surveys are required under BO FWS-LA-09B0027-09F0040 on the Navy's San Clemente Island Military Training Program and WFMP. 3146600002 3.6.3 Federally O&MN Listed and Sensitive Plant Species Monitoring. This 4 ESA, SAIA, NEPA Recurring 2. Listed Species and Threatened and project is a status survey to determine the abundance Critical Habitat Endangered Species and distribution of federally listed and other sensitive and special status plant taxa on SCI. Updates in status are needed every three years to maintain current data. Surveys will focus on areas most heavily used for training, construction, and where listed species are expected to occur. Surveys will also support delisting/ downlisting of certain species. 3146600003 3.6.3.10 Western MIS Western Snowy Plover Surveys. This project is a status 4 NEPA, ESA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and snowy plover survey to determine the abundance, distribution, and SAIA, MBTA, Critical Habitat reproductive status of the western snowy plover on the OPNAVINST northern beaches of SCI. Surveys of southern beaches 5090.1C would occur if effective, non-ground access survey methods are developed. Surveys are anticipated monthly for all months.

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-11 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 3146600004 3.6.3.9 San Clemente MIS San Clemente Sage Sparrow Monitoring and 4 NEPA, ESA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and sage sparrow Management. This project includes surveys and monitoring SAIA, Critical Habitat to determine the abundance, distribution, and reproductive OPNAVINST success of the San Clemente sage sparrow, investigations 5090.1C into juvenile survival, and monitoring to address operational effects on/incidental take for this sub-species. 3146600005 3.6.3.7 Island night MIS Island Night Lizard Monitoring. This project determines the 4 ESA, NEPA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and lizard abundance, distribution, and reproductive success of Critical Habitat island night lizards at SCI in support of management and delisting efforts. 3146600006 3.6.3 Federally MIS Genetic Diversity of Endangered and Sensitive Plants. 4 ESA, SAIA Non- 2. Listed Species and Threatened and This project assesses reproductive mechanisms and recurring Critical Habitat Endangered Species genetic variation within and between plant populations and uses the data obtained to develop appropriate recovery strategies. Genetic studies will be needed to support delisting or downlisting efforts. This project will focus on the following species: Delphinium variegatum, Castilleja grisea, and Malacothamnus clementinus. Newly discovered populations of SCI woodland star and Santa Cruz rockcress will also be analyzed to determine their genetic variability within and between populations. Additional focus species may be included as necessary. 3146600008 3.6.3 Federally MIS SCI Seed Collection and Propagation. This project 4 ESA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and Threatened and provides for the seed collection and propagation of SCI Critical Habitat Endangered Species native plants to promote recovery of federally listed species and species at risk. Project entails collection of seed and vegetative plant material, plant propagation in the SCI greenhouse, and maintenance of propagated plants. Project includes experimentation to determine effective means of propagating species for which established propagation protocols do not exist. This project also supports EPR 3146600009 (Site Selection, Outplanting and Maintenance) by supplying plant material to be used in outplantings. This project is required as a condition of BO FWS-LA-09B0027- 09F0040 on military operations and the SCI WFMP.

A-12 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 3146600009 Ecosystem Approach MIS Site Selection, Outplanting, and Maintenance. This project 4 ESA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and 3.3.3 Water and revegetates areas on SCI to enhance habitat for federally Critical Habitat Sediment Quality listed species and species at risk, to minimize the 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3.6.3 Federally proliferation of invasive non-native plant species, and to Threatened and control erosion or enhance degraded areas. Project entails Endangered Species selection of appropriate sites, outplanting of appropriate SCI 4.8.1 Terrestrial native plant species, and maintenance of restoration sites. Invasive Flora 3146600010 Ecosystem Approach MIS Exotic Plant Management and Control for Endangered 4 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and 3.6.3 Federally Species Protection. This project: (1) determines the Federal Noxious Critical Habitat Threatened and distribution and abundance of introduced plants at SCI; (2) Weed Act, EO 6. Ecosystem Integrity Endangered Species establishes the priority for their elimination based on their 13112 3.6.7.1 Invasive level of invasiveness, their ease of treatment, and their Terrestrial Plants potential to adversely affect habitat for sensitive and listed species; (3) establishes the most suitable strategies for target species removal; and (4) implements those strategies. 3146600011 3.6.3.8 San Clemente MIS San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike Captive Breeding. This 4 NEPA, ESA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike project provides for the care, maintenance, and breeding SAIA, Critical Habitat of San Clemente loggerhead shrikes to produce birds for OPNAVINST release to augment the wild population. The project also 5090.1C addresses genetic management of the shrike population. Continuation of this program will be guided by shrike population status relative to recovery objectives (in development in 2012). 3146600012 3.6.3.8 San Clemente MIS San Clemente Loggerhead Shrike Monitoring. Monitoring 4 NEPA, ESA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike of the shrike population is necessary to document shrike SAIA, MBTA Critical Habitat population status in support of recovery and for coordination and consultation with USFWS regarding operations. Monitoring currently entails census of all accessible birds and nest monitoring at all accessible sites. Sampling is planned for outyears (in design 2012). Monitoring will be required even if this species is delisted.

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-13 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 3146600012 3.6.3.8 San Clemente MIS Rodent Abundance. This project aims to quantifying 4 ESA, SAIA, EO Non- 2011- 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike rodent populations (through grid trapping and marking) in 13112 recurring 2012 Critical Habitat 3.6.3.9 San Clemente several different habitats to estimate species-specific 6. Ecosystem Integrity sage sparrow rodent densities. This would provide us with estimates of 3.6.7.3 Non-Native mammalian prey available for shrikes and with more Terrestrial Wildlife information on potential avian nest predators. The project will also provide data on the endemic San Clemente deer mouse presence/absence and abundance. 3146600014 3.6.3.8 San Clemente MIS Predator Research and Ecosystem Management. This 4 NEPA, ESA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike project provides predator control in support of listed SAIA, EO 13112 Critical Habitat 3.6.3.9 San Clemente species recovery, delisting, and avoidance of future ESA 6. Ecosystem Integrity sage sparrow listings. Predator control is focused on non-native 3.6.7.3 Non-Native predators, although permits are in place for the removal Terrestrial Wildlife of a small number of common ravens. Non-native predator control is critical at SCI; absent this project, no threatened and endangered wildlife species could be delisted due to the presence of an unmanaged threat. 3146600014 3.6.3.8 San Clemente MIS Feral Cat Ecology Study. Feral cats are known predators 4 NEPA, ESA, Non- 2011- 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike of shrikes and sage sparrows. Understanding the ecology SAIA, EO 13112 recurring 2012 Critical Habitat 3.6.3.9 San Clemente of feral cats, particularly their habitat use, movements, and 6. Ecosystem Integrity sage sparrow home range size, assists managers in controlling them 3.6.7.3 Non-Native through targeting control efforts. This project involves radio Terrestrial Wildlife telemetry of a small portion of the SCI feral cat population that is removed at the completion of the study. 3146600014 3.6.3.8 San Clemente MIS Black Rat Habitat, Movements, and Home Range. Rats 4 NEPA, ESA, Non- 2011- 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike are documented predators of shrikes and sage sparrows. SAIA, EO 13112 recurring 2012 Critical Habitat 3.6.3.9 San Clemente To more effectively manage rats, this project examines 6. Ecosystem Integrity sage sparrow rat spatial ecology through telemetry. Understanding 3.6.7.3 Non-Native home-range size of rats will allow for better placement of Terrestrial Wildlife poison bait stations for protection of listed species.

A-14 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 3146600016 3.4 Terrestrial Habitats MIS Habitat Mapping. This project will provide current 4 ESA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and and Communities comprehensive vegetation maps of all terrestrial areas of Critical Habitat 3.5 Marine Habitats SCI. Vegetation maps created using these methods will 3.6.3 Federally be scientifically valid and critical in enhancing recovery Threatened and strategies for federally listed species and managing Endangered Species species at risk so as not to become listed. Maps and data collected as part of this project will play a vital role in demonstrating recovery of listed species habitat on SCI and will be used to assist with delisting and downlisting of species. 3146600030 3.6.3 Federally MIS T&E Outreach Materials. This project provides 4 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 2. Listed Species and Threatened and operational training groups and island users with MBTA, NEPA, Critical Habitat Endangered Species pertinent information regarding protected natural OPNAVINST 4. Fish and Wildlife 5.3.4 Outdoor resources and necessary actions to ensure Natural 5090.1C Management and Recreation and Resources (NR) regulatory compliance while using SCI. Public Use Environmental 6. Ecosystem Integrity Education for on-island 7. INRMP Impact on personnel the Installation Mission 3146600034 3.6.3 Federally MIS Natural Resources Equipment and Supplies Support. 4 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 1. INRMP Project Threatened and Provides for equipment purchase, repair, and MBTA, Implementation Endangered Species maintenance for the continuation of the Natural/Cultural OPNAVINST 2. Listed Species and Resources programs and facilities on SCI. 5090.1C Critical Habitat 5. Team Adequacy 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3146600035 3.6.3 Federally MIS Barge and Bulk Food. Provides bulk food for contractors 4 ESA, NEPA, Recurring 1. INRMP Project Threatened and and cooperative research personnel, while engaged in SAIA, National Implementation Endangered Species field work associated with protected biological or cultural Historic 2. Listed Species and resources at SCI. Provides for transportation of supplies Preservation Act Critical Habitat and equipment to SCI via weekly barge service. 5. Team Adequacy 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3146600037 3.6.3 Federally MIS GSA Vehicles and Fuel Support. Provides GSA vehicles, 4 ESA, SAIA Recurring 1. INRMP Project Threatened and fuel, and maintenance of vehicles for natural resources Implementation Endangered Species staff and selected contractors and cooperative research 2. Listed Species and personnel while engaged in field work associated with Critical Habitat protected biological resources at SCI. 3. Ecosystem Integrity

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-15 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 3146600043 Ecosystem Approach O&MN SCI INRMP Update & Revision. This project addresses 4 SAIA, ESA, DoDI Recurring 1. INRMP Project updates and revisions of the SCI INRMP in support of the 4715.3, Implementation mission at SCI and compliance with regulatory OPNAINST 2. Listed Species and requirements. 5090.1C, MBTA, Critical Habitat MMPA, MSA, 3. Ecosystem Integrity CWA, NISA, NEPA 3146600046 3.6.4.1 San Clemente MIS Island Fox Road Kill Avoidance Mowing. This effort consists 4 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 3. Partnership island fox of roadside mowing on the primary roads of SCI outside of OPNAVINST Effectiveness SHOBA. It is a primary conservation effort to reduce the 5090.1C 6. Ecosystem Integrity threat of road kill to the San Clemente island fox. 3146612002 3.3.4 Wildland Fire MIS Creation and Maintenance of Fuelbreaks. This project 4 ESA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and 3.6.3 Federally provides for fuel breaks consistent with the SCI WFMP. Fuel Critical Habitat Threatened and breaks are located around target areas associated with ship- 6. Ecosystem Integrity Endangered Species to-shore bombardment and are essential for the protection of federally listed species and their habitats. Such fuel breaks prevent the spread of wildfire outside target areas. This project is required as a condition of BO FWS-LA-09B0027- 09F0040, issued by the USFWS in 2008 on military operations and the SCI WFMP. Project includes fuel breaks established using fire retardant, herbicide, and/or strip burns. 3146612025 3.6.4.1 San Clemente MIS Island Fox Monitoring, Management and Conservation. 4 ESA, SAIA, CCA, Recurring 3. Partnership island fox This broad project covers four sub-projects for the San CA, OPNAVINST Effectiveness Clemente island fox: population monitoring, fox natural 5090 6. Ecosystem Integrity history and biology research, biostatistical analysis, and veterinary care and pathology services for the island fox. 3146612991 3.6.3 Federally MIS Operation and Maintenance of Weather Stations. Project 4 ESA, SAIA Recurring 2. Listed Species and Threatened and establishes and maintains approximately six weather Critical Habitat Endangered Species stations at different locations on SCI. The weather data currently aren't available in real-time, but funds in 2012 will support implementation of software to complete this action and comply with the BO. Weather data are needed to determine daily fire danger rating during fire season and to support fire suppression activities. This project also is essential for the management and recovery of federally listed species by providing microclimatic data for the enhancement of recovery programs.

A-16 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder 3146612198 3.6.2.6 Resident and MIS Seabird Monitoring. This project provides for intermittent 4 NEPA, SAIA, Recurring 3. Partnership Migratory Birds monitoring of relevant seabird species to form the basis MBTA, ESA Effectiveness 3.6.5.6 Xantus’s for future management decisions, inform future NEPA 6. Ecosystem Integrity Murrelet documentation, and address candidate species under 3.6.5.7 Ashy Storm- ESA. This project includes a two-pronged approach to petrel monitoring: annual aerial photographic surveys for 3.6.5.8 California ground nesting seabirds (primarily cormorant and gull Brown Pelican colonies) and surveys for Xantus's murrelet and ashy storm-petrel for three years, every seven years. 3146612999 3.3.4 Wildland Fire MIS Helicopter Field Support. This project provides helicopter 3 ESA, SAIA, Recurring 1. INRMP Project Management lift support for the NR programs on SCI and is utilized MBTA, NEPA Implementation 3.6.3.8 San Clemente primarily for the movement of personnel and equipment 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike into remote areas on SCI difficult to access via ground Critical Habitat transportation or on foot. The project is also necessary for 6. Ecosystem Integrity mapping fires, a requirement for annual reporting to USFWS under the SCI WFMP. 3146617224 5.5 Beneficial O&MN SCA Support for Natural Resources Programs. This 4 SAIA, NEPA Recurring 1. INRMP Project Partnerships and project would support the establishment of two Student Implementation Collaborative Conservation Association (SCA) "billets" for SCA to 2. Listed Species and Resources Planning accomplish/support a variety of existing and emerging Critical Habitat NR needs. Specifically, SCA interns would provide 3. Partnership research and NR compliance support. Effectiveness 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3146642687 3.6.7.3 Non-Native O&MN Invasive Ant Management. This project entails efforts to 4 EO 13112, ESA, Recurring 6. Ecosystem Integrity Terrestrial Wildlife eradicate Argentine ants at SCI (~2014) followed by MBTA monitoring surveys in out-years to determine re-infestation; target management recommendations; and potentially, applications of eradication agents for two follow-on years. 3146678688 3.6.3.7 Island night O&MN Pit Fall Trap Removal. In-house support was used to 4 ESA Non- 2012 2. Listed Species and lizard locate inactive pit fall trap arrays left behind after mid- recurring Critical Habitat 1990’s study and remove these arrays to avoid 6. Ecosystem Integrity unauthorized incidental take of island night lizards.

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-17 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder N/A 3.6.2.1 Terrestrial CRA Argentine Ant and Endemic Ant Delineation. San N/A SAIA, EO 13112, 6. Ecosystem Integrity Invertebrates Clemente Island has never conducted a survey for native OPNAVINST 3.6.7.3 Non-Native ant species. This agreement supports documentation of 5090.1C Terrestrial Wildlife the distribution of the invasive Argentine ant at SCI and surveys for native ant species. N/A 3.6.2.1 Terrestrial CRA Beetle Survey and Research. Project is to study the N/A SAIA, OPNAINST 2009- 6. Ecosystem Integrity Invertebrates genetic diversity (phylogeography) of seven beetle 5090.1C 2010 species on the California Channel Islands and to update the inventory of beetle species on the California Channel Islands. N/A 3.6.7.3 Non-Native CRA Applications For Emerging Technologies For Predator N/A ESA, SAIA, EO 2. Listed Species and Terrestrial Wildlife Research And Management. Research, development, 13112, Critical Habitat testing and evaluation of feral cat management and fox OPNAVINST 6. Ecosystem Integrity protection methods, including but not limited to testing 5090.1C the use of automated camera systems, and testing of Forward Looking Infrared technology for the removal of feral cats. N/A 3.6.4.1 San Clemente CRA Using Stable Isotopes to Assess Temporal Patterns of N/A ESA, SAIA, CCA, 3. Partnership island fox Resource Use by Island Foxes. Compare fox food item CA, OPNAVINST Effectiveness use and diversity among three Channel Islands – San 5090 6. Ecosystem Integrity Clemente, Santa Rosa, and San Miguel islands; examine seasonal variation in diet, diversity, and overlap across these islands via 13C and 15N analysis of vibrissae segments; determine the extent to which island foxes are exploiting marine resources, especially marine sources of food that may be contaminated with organochlorides (e.g., DDT) and heavy metals; and determine the extent to which island foxes and cats are exploiting CAM plants such as cactus (prickly pear) or succulents (sea fig). N/A 3.6.4.1 San Clemente CRA Temporal and Spatial Patterns of Resource Exploitation N/A ESA, SAIA, CCA, 2009- 3. Partnership island fox by Island Foxes—Implications for Conservation. Project CA, OPNAVINST 2011 Effectiveness compared food item use and diversity among the six 5090 6. Ecosystem Integrity Channel Islands with foxes; examined seasonal variation in item use and diversity across all islands; and assessed island foxes use of non-native resources.

A-18 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder N/A 3.6.4.1 San Clemente CRA Transfer of San Clemente Island Foxes Into Mainland N/A ESA, SAIA, CCA, 3. Partnership island fox Zoo Population. Project supports transfer of a limited CA, OPNAVINST Effectiveness number of SCI foxes to the Santa Barbara Zoo for 5090 4. Fish and Wildlife species conservation through education, research, and Management and as a genetic reservoir. Public Use N/A 3.6.3.8 San Clemente CRA Kinesiology Research of Captive San Clemente N/A ESA, SAIA 2. Listed Species and loggerhead shrike Loggerhead Shrike. Study the feeding performance of Critical Habitat captive San Clemente Loggerhead Shrikes to obtain valuable insight regarding the specifics of shrike feeding mechanics and prey-processing behavior. N/A Ecosystem Approach CRA Compositional and species diversity changes in the N/A 6. Ecosystem Integrity vegetation of San Clemente Island following the release from feral grazing pressure. Quantify plant species richness and compositional changes that have taken place over the seventeen years since data were last collected, and determine the spatial correlation between human altered landscapes on the island and densities of exotic species N/A 3.6.4.1 San Clemente DoD Spatial Ecology of the Island Fox. Use fox home range N/A 3. Partnership island fox Legacy and contact data in conjunction with data on disease Effectiveness Program, transmission rates for canine rabies and distemper to 6. Ecosystem Integrity project 08- develop a spatially explicit model for disease spread in 308 San Clemente Island foxes, and use a model to explore the efficacy of preventative measures, such as preemptive vaccination of a portion of the population. N/A 3.6.2.6 Resident and O&MN Burrowing Owl Surveys. This project entails surveys for N/A ESA, MBTA, EO 2009- 2. Listed Species and Migratory Birds burrowing owls to assess abundance of this wintering 13186, NEPA, 2010 Critical Habitat species on SCI and to identify potential conflicts between SAIA 6. Ecosystem Integrity burrowing owls and wintering western snowy plovers. N/A 3.6.2.2 Marine CRA Abalone Monitoring. Achieve recovery goals for pink N/A ESA, SAIA Non- 2009 2. Listed Species and Invertebrates abalone and green abalone at the California Channel recurring Critical Habitat Islands through monitoring and enhancement tools. 3. Partnership Effectiveness 6. Ecosystem Integrity

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-19 Preliminary Draft July 2012 San Clemente Island, California

Table A-1. Naval Auxiliary Landing Field, San Clement Island’s Revised Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan Implementation Summary, including the assignment of priorities based on the legal driver behind each project. Note: Cost estimates are available on the Navy Conservation Website. EPR Number INRMP Section Funding Project Description ERL Legal Driver Implementation Natural Resources Source Frequency Year Metrics Builder N/A 3.6.2.3 Marine Fishes CRA Nearshore Water Monitoring. Document the distribution N/A ESA, SAIA, Non- Non- 2011 2. Listed Species and 3.6.2.2 Marine and abundance of nearshore marine plants, indigenous Aquatic recurring Critical Habitat Invertebrates invertebrates, and fishes at the Channel Islands with Nuisance 3. Partnership 3.6.7.2 Marine Invasive special emphasis on bio-geographic trends associated Prevention and Effectiveness Species with oceanographic climate changes. Control Act of 6. Ecosystem Integrity 3.6.1.4 Macroalgae 1990, Noxious Plant Control Act of 1968, EO 13112 N/A 3.6.2.8 Marine CRA California Sea Lion Study. Obtain counts of California N/A MMPA, SAIA Non- 1981 3. Partnership Mammals sea lions, northern elephant seals, and Pacific harbor recurring Effectiveness seals at SCI for the following: assess status of U.S. 6. Ecosystem Integrity population; monitor seasonal occurrence of California sea lions and northern elephant seals; monitor long term trends of pinnipeds inhabiting the area. Obtain seasonal scat samples of California sea lions for diet analysis at SCI for the following: examine seasonal, annual, and multi-year variability in the diet of California sea lions; derive methodology for using diet information to assess status of the California sea lion population in the U.S.;and estimate consumption of fishes by California sea lions. N/A 3.6.2.3 Marine Fishes CRA ASBS Biological Monitoring. The goal of this study is to N/A ESA, MSA, SAIA, Non- 2008 2. Listed Species and 3.6.2.2 Marine characterize the rocky reef biological communities at OPNAVINST recurring Critical Habitat Invertebrates sites inside ASBS and compare them to biological 5090.1C, MPRSA 3. Partnership 3.6.1.4 Macroalgae communities at sites outside of ASBS. Effectiveness 3.3.3 Water and 6. Ecosystem Integrity Sediment Quality N/A 3.6.2.2 Marine CRA Water Quality Study. This goal of this project is to N/A CWA, ESA, MSA, Non- 2009 2. Listed Species and Invertebrates quantify and assess spatial and temporal trends in SAIA recurring Critical Habitat 3.3.3 Water and coastal contamination, and to provide a baseline to 3. Partnership Sediment Quality assess impacts of anthropogenic and natural events. Effectiveness 6. Ecosystem Integrity

A-20 Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP Environmental Assessment for the Revised INRMP Preliminary Draft July 2012

Codes: Funding Source: CRA = Cooperative Research Agreement; MIS = ???; O&MN = Operations & Maintenance, Navy Legal Driver: CA = Conservation Agreement; CCA = Candidate Conservation Agreement; CWA = Clean Water Act; DoDI = Department of Defense Instruction; EO = Executive Order; ESA = Endangered Species Act; MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act; MMPA = Marine Mammal Protection Act; MPRSA = Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act; MSA = Magnuson-Stevens Fisheries Conservation and Management Act; NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act; NISA = National Invasive Species Act OPNAVINST = Chief of Naval Operations Instruction; SAIA = Sikes Act (as amended); WFMP = Wildland Fire Management Plan

Implementation Summary Table for the SCI INRMP A-21