Ocean and Coastal Policy Center

82

Section 4

83

Maintain adequate feeding for colonies

Protect existing coastal feeding grounds for colonies by maintaining high water quality and preventing tideland fill and drainage projects

Restore or improve tidal flow in wetlands to enhance feeding grounds

Investigate and implement actions needed to increase populations of fish eaten by terns in degraded or potential tern feeding areas

Protect breeding colonies annually by minimizing disturbance and mortality:

• Post admonitory signs• Erect fences where

needed• Provide adequate patrol • Provide conservation

education programs

Minimize predation in colonies

Implement emergency actions when needed to protect colonies

No sites were identified

Mugu lagoonBolsa BayAnaheim BayLos Pensaquitos Lagoon

Mouth of Santa Ana River, southeast areSan Elijo LagoonOther areas as needed

All areas

Protect non-nesting, feeding and roosting habitats from detrimental land or water use changes

Harbor Lake (LA County)Guajome LakeLake Val SerenoSan Dieguito LagoonBuena Vista LagoonOso Flaco and Dune LakesSan Diego River Flood Control ChannelBelmont Shores

Goal Priority Habitat Area

(c) Brown Pelican recovery plan

The California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan was created in 1983 as federal response to the continued decline of brown pelicans along the southern California Bight Region. In 1970, the California Brown Pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus) was classified by the USFWS as an endangered species. The California Fish and Game Commission granted further protection by designating the species as endangered in 1971.

Widespread pollutant-related reproductive failures compounded by human disturbance decimated brown pelican populations on both coasts. High levels of an agricultural pesticide, DDT, were causing excessive eggshell thinning and cracking. Studies dem-onstrated a concentration effect relationship between DDT compounds in the lipids of pelican eggs and the degree of shell thinning. These studies were coupled with observations of cracked or broken eggs in nests on the Channels Islands. In 1969, nearly 300 nests were observed on Anacapa Island, yet only 12 contained viable eggs.

Levels of DDT compounds in the southern California marine environment were among the highest recorded for any coastal ecosystem worldwide. The once large brown peli-can populations that occupied the Pacific Coast, with breeding colonies concentrated in the Southern California Bight, had plummeted to dangerous lows and had virtually disappeared from their eastern range along the Gulf Coast. Moreover, there was little biological information available about the SCB subspecies including its status, breeding

biology and natural history. Intensive studies began in 1969 to better understand the species’ biology and its response to environmental pollutants.

The California Brown Pelican is the Pacific Coast subspecies of a more widespread species that also occurs on the Gulf Coast. The breeding range of this large shorebird begins at the Channel Islands and continues southward to Isla Isabel, Islas Tres Marias off Nayarit, Mexico and Ixtapa off Acapulco, Mexico. Four primary breeding populations occur within specific geographic ranges along the Pacific Coast: (1) the Channel Islands and the islands along the northwest coast of Baja California south to Isla Martin, (2) the coastal islands of the Bahia Sebastian Vizcaino (Islas San benito and Isla Cedros) and in the Bahia Magdelena area, (3) desert islands in the Gulf of California and, (4) Mexican mainland populations that breed in the swamps and mainlands. The annual number of breeding pairs was estimated to be 48,500 with 68% of the total population in the Gulf of California region. The focus of the recovery plan is the Southern California Bight population, which had dwindled to approximately 3,000 breeding pairs, only 6.2% of the total population.

Summary of Goals, Objectives and Actions forthe California Brown Pelican Recovery Plan

Maintain self-sustaining brown pelican breeding populations in the SCB, including northwestern Baja California coast.

Protect colony site on Anacapa Island

Protect historical colony sites as nesting occurs

Develop and implement measures to minimize injury to foraging pelicans resulting from recreational fishing

Protect food supplies and feeding habitat

Protect pelican food supplies

• Restrict human access to West Anacapa during pelican breeding season

• Continue offshore protection of waters from colony site to 20 fathoms depth

• Develop means to patrol and enforce regulations

• Restrict airspace under 3000 ft elevation over Anacapa Island and one nautical mile over the waters around Anacapa

• Delineate essential breeding habitat

• Protect Scorpion Rock by determining ownership, restricting access and enforce closures

• Educate boat operators on how to handle hooked pelicans, remove hooks and lines

• Distribute literature to boat operators and issue press releases for information

• Discourage chumming during summer months near the colony sites when young pelicans are present

• Determine essential habitat• Establish a one nautical mile

protection around Anacapa to minimize impacts of commercial fisheries

• Study feasibility of lowering anchovy fishery quota

• Encourage international cooperation with Mexico on anchovy harvest quotas and fishing regulations through cooperative agreements

Goal Objective Actions

Ocean and Coastal Policy Center

84

Section 4

85

Protect major roosting areas

Monitor pelican population to determine success of management, population status and environmental impacts

Monitor environmental impacts that have the potential to affect reproductive success

• Identify and assess essential roosting areas

• Manage each site• Secure and protect, as

needed

• Develop long-term monitoring plan

• Survey breeding and non-breeding populations

• Monitor dietary components

• Collect addled eggs and crushed eggs for analysis

• Analyze for organochlorine pollutants

• Determine eggshell pollutants

Research Needs Continue research programs to gather information for management and conservation efforts

Continue investigating pelican/anchovy relationships

Conduct population estimates, genetic variation, disease, distribution and daily activities

• Resource utilization studies• Pelican feeding ecology• Determine foraging areas

• Examine impacts of commercial fisheries on food availability

• Study predator/prey relationships

• Conduct aerial and shipboard surveys

• Continue color marking and banding program

• Continue analysis of band sightings

• Carry out plans for radiotelemetry studies

• Conduct genetic studies

Goal Priority Habitat Area

Management Conduct population estimates, genetic variation, disease, distribution and daily activities

Develop management models to:

• Conduct aerial and shipboard surveys

• Continue color marking and banding program

• Continue analysis of band sightings

• Carry out plans for radiotelemetry studies

• Conduct genetic studies

• Examine management alternatives

• Model pelican reproductive effort and success

• Model forage availability• Develop integrated

life-history model of brown pelican population dynamics

The goals of the Plan address the basic habitat needs of the California Brown Pelican and include: (1) disturbance- and predator-free nesting areas, (2) offshore habitat with an adequate food supply, and (3) appropriate roosting sites for both resident and migrant pelicans. The primary objectives of the Plan are to restore and maintain stable, self-sustaining populations throughout the subspecies’ range. Criteria intended to achieve this are to: (1) maintain existing populations in Mexico, (2) assure long-term protection of adequate food supplies and nesting, roosting and offshore habitat throughout the range, and (3) restore population size and productivity to self-sustaining levels in the SCB (both on Anacapa Island and the Coronados).

(d) Steelhead Recovery Plan

In February 1994, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) received a petition seeking protection under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) for 178 populations of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and California. At the time, NMFS was conducting a status review of coastal steelhead populations (O. m. irideus) in Washington, Oregon, and California.

There were once two species of salmon that inhabited the creeks of this region. The ghost Chinook or King salmon is part of the region’s soil and natural history. Our relationship and treatment of the last remaining wild southern steelhead is a test of our willingness to be responsible members of this maritime community.

Southern steelhead were listed as an endangered species on August 18, 1997. With respect to the study area, the evolutionarily significant unit (ESU) includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead (and their progeny) in streams from the Santa Maria River to Malibu Creek. The ESA allows listing of “distinct population segments” of vertebrates as well as named species and subspecies. The policy of the NMFS on the decline of anadromous Pacific salmonids is that a population will be considered “distinct” for purposes of the ESA if it represents an ESU for a species as a whole. To be considered an ESU, a population or group of populations must 1) be substantially reproductively isolated from other populations, and 2) contribute substantially to the ecological or genetic diversity of the biological species. Once an ESU is identified, a vari-ety of factors related to population abundance are considered in determining whether a listing is warranted. [A complete characterization of the current stream habitat distribu-tion for southern steelhead is found at http://swr.ucsd.edu/hcd/soCalDistrib.htm].

After considering available information on steelhead genetics, phylogeny and life history, freshwater ichthyo-geography, and environmental features that may affect steelhead, the BRT identified 15 ESUs--12 for coastal steel-head and 3 for the inland form. The BRT reviewed popu-lation abundance data and other risk factors for these steelhead ESUs and concluded that five (Central California Coast, South-Central California Coast, Southern California, Central Valley, and Upper Columbia River) are presently in danger of extinction.

The BRT concluded that, in general, the ESU described below includes resident O. mykiss in cases where they have the opportunity to interbreed with anadromous fish. Resident populations above long-standing natural barriers,

and those that have resulted from the introduction of non-native rainbow trout, would not be considered part of the ESUs. Resident populations that inhabit areas upstream from human-caused migration barriers (e.g., numerous smaller barriers in southern California) may contain genetic resources similar to those of anadromous fish in the ESU, but little information is available on these fish or the role they might play in conserving natural populations of steelhead.

The southern California coastal steelhead ESU occupies rivers from the Santa Maria River to the southern extent of the species range. Historically, O. mykiss occurred at least as far south as Rio del Presidio in Mexico. Spawning populations of steelhead did not occur that far south but may have extended to the Santo Domingo River in Mexico. Some reports state that steelhead may not have existed south of the U.S.-Mexico border. The present southernmost stream used by steelhead for spawning is generally thought to be Malibu Creek, California. Note, in years of substantial rainfall, spawning steelhead can be found as far south as the Santa Margarita River, San Diego County.

Swainson’s Thrush

©H

ugh

Smith

Jr.

Ocean and Coastal Policy Center

86

Section 4

87

Genetic data show large differences between steelhead populations within this ESU as well as between these and populations to the north. Steelhead populations between the Santa Ynez River and Malibu Creek show a predominance of a mitochondrial DNA type (ST8) that is rare in populations to the north. Allozyme data indicate that two samples from Santa Barbara County are genetically among the most distinctive of any natural populations of coastal steelhead yet examined.

Migration and life history patterns of southern California steel-head depend more strongly on rainfall and streamflow than is the case for steelhead populations farther north. Average rainfall is substantially lower and more variable in southern California than in regions to the north, resulting in increased duration of sand berms across the mouths of streams and rivers and, in some cases, complete dewatering of the lower reaches of these streams from late spring through fall. Ecological con-ditions in marginal habitats may be extreme (e.g., elevated water temperatures, droughts, floods, and fires) and presum-ably impose selective pressures on steelhead populations. Their utilization of southern California streams and rivers with ele-vated temperatures (in some cases much higher than the preferred range for steelhead) suggests that steelhead within this ESU are able to withstand higher temperatures than popu-lations to the north. For example, the relatively warm and productive waters of the Ventura River have resulted in more rapid growth of juvenile steelhead than occurs in watersheds to the north.

Section 600.815 (a)(7) of the interim final EFH regulations states that fishery manage-ment plans or FMPs must describe options to avoid, minimize, or compensate for the potential adverse effects and promote the conservation and enhancement of EFH. Terrestrial activities have adverse impacts on EFH. Activities that result in significant adverse effects on EFH should be avoided where less ecologically harmful alternatives are available. Disposal or spillage of any material (dredge material, sludge, industrial waste, or other potentially harmful materials) that may destroy or degrade EFH should be avoided. If avoidance or minimization is not possible, or will not adequately protect EFH, compensation for damage to, and/or mitigation to conserve and enhance EFH should be recommended.

Established policies and procedures of the Pacific Fishery Management Council and the NMFS provide the framework for conserving and enhancing EFH. Components of this framework include adverse impact avoidance and minimization, compensatory mitigation, and enhancement. In assessing the potential impacts of proposed projects, PFMC and NMFS are guided by the following general considerations:

• The extent to which the activity would directly and indirectly affect the distribution, abundance, health, and continued existence of salmon and their EFH.

• The extent to which the potential for cumulative impact exists.

• The extent to which adverse impacts can be avoided through project modification, alternative site selec-tion or other safeguards.

• The extent to which minimization or mitigation may be used to reduce unavoidable loss of habitat func-tions and values.

• The extent to which compensation mitigation may be used to offset unavoidable loss of habitat func-tions and values.

Broad categories of activities that are identified by the NMFS that adversely affect salmonid EFH include, but are not limited to:

• Agriculture• Artificial Propagation of Fish and

Shellfish• Bank Stabilization• Beaver Removal and Habitat

Alteration• Construction/Urbanization• Dam Construction/Operation• Dredging and Dredged Spoil

Disposal• Estuarine Alteration• Sand and Gravel Mining• Vessel Operations• Wastewater/Pollutant Discharge

• Forestry• Grazing• Habitat Restoration Projects• Irrigation Water Withdrawal,

Storage and Management• Mineral Mining• Nonnative Species,

Introduction/Spread of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration, Drilling and Transportation Activities

• Road Building and Maintenance• Wetland and Floodplain Alteration• Woody Debris/Structure Removal

From Rivers and Estuaries

Any of the above activities may eliminate, diminish, or disrupt the functions of salmonid EFH. These activities can potentially affect EFH through associated factors, including increased suspended solids, sedimentation, nutrient loading, toxic chemicals, high bacterial concentrations and physical disruption of habitat. While toxic contaminants, nutrient loading, oxygen depletion and eutrophocation, increased suspended solids, bacterial contamination, and hypoxia may not directly affect loss of physical habitat, all these factors are elements of water quality and hence EFH quality.

The goals specified under Section 101(a)(2) of the federal Clean Water Act inherently address the EFH needs of aquatic organisms: “water quality which provides for the protection and propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife...” Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act used in conjunction with standards, provides the tools to manage water quality, and hence EFH quality.

The Pacific Fisheries Management Council’s (PFMC) Identification and Description of Essential Fish Habitat, Adverse Impacts, and Recommended Conservation Measures for Salmon (Amendment 14 to the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan) (August 1999) describes conservation measures related to the categories of disturbance noted above. In addi-tion, restoration of California’s anadromous fish populations is mandated by the Salmon, Steelhead Trout, and Anadromous Fisheries Program Act of 1988 (SB 2261), which states that it is a policy of the State to significantly increase the natural production of salmon and steelhead by the end of the century. The Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California, which is administered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) is one in a series of plans developed to address the mandated doubling of populations of steelhead.

(5) National Marine Fisheries Service Essential Habitat

Coastal development and destructive fishing practices can threaten the basis for healthy fish populations by directly and indirectly altering, removing, and degrading coastal and marine ecosystems and habitats. Likewise, dams along rivers can block fish migra-tory routes, making it impossible for anadromous species to carry out important life functions, such as spawning.

The NMFS Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is an important requirement of fishery manage-ment plans (FMPs) for listed species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Red-tailed Hawk juvenile

©M

organ Ball

Northern Shovelers

©H

ugh Smith Jr.