Melissa Booker, SCI Wildlife Biologist,
Naval Base Coronado, NAVFAC SW

Southernmost California
Channel Island
Located 68 nautical miles (~78 statute mi. or 125.5 km) west of San Diego
37,200 acres (56 mi 2 or ~15,054 ha) plus 54 acres of off-shore islands and rocks
Just under 21 miles (33.8 km) long, 1.5-4+ miles (2.4-6.4 km) wide
Habitat in a state of recovery following feral herbivore removal

San Clemente Island (SCI) is part of the southern California
Range Complex, the most heavily used military range complex in the eastern Pacific
The only remaining range in the U.S. that supports live fire ship to shore, air to ground, and ground troop training

SCI supports training in Primary Mission Areas (PMARs): Anti-Air Warfare,
Amphibious Warfare, Anti-Surface Warfare, Anti-Submarine Warfare, Mine Warfare,
Strike Warfare, Electronic Combat, and Naval Special Warfare (NSW)
Primary theater for Naval Special Warfare Training, including the 3 rd Phase of
BUD/S

ESA listed taxa: 6 plant species, 2 abalone, 1 lizard, 2 resident bird species, 1 wintering
(and recently breeding) bird species, and a candidate conservation mammal
Cause of decline for all SCI ESA listed species included habitat degradation due to feral grazers
Very comprehensive program due to island ecosystem and range value
Annual NR budget of $4-$6 million (CPF)

Feral herbivore removal completed early 1990s
No widespread vegetative restoration efforts, but dramatic recovery of sage scrub and shrubland communities

Reactive Management:
Can’t plan ahead
Reacting to needs
Crisis driven/rushed decisions
Driven by what to do (not what not to do)
Work from assumptions and rules
Typically poor results for investment
Proactive Management:
Planned options
Stated goals and milestones
Considers risk analysis
Driven by what not to do
Work from results and choices
Provides greater level of control
Improved results/product

• San Clemente loggerhead shrike was considered “possibly the most endangered bird in North America” in 1997
• Recovery the responsibility of the U.S. Navy (SCI endemic subsp.)
• No USFWS taxa-specific Recovery Plan, but USFWS-Navy Shrike
Recovery Working Group
• Wild population number dropped to 14 in 1998
• Emergency situation because of population status, lawsuit threat, and loss of operational capacity and flexibility
• Reactive management implemented

SWG did not followed long-term planned approach
Captive Breeding:
• 1991-1996 could breed birds, but no released birds survived
• Changed captive cage layout, hand rearing to parent rearing, diet, added prerelease foraging and flight practice/preparation
Releases:
• Hard releases poorly timed, questionable locations
• Developed new (soft) release techniques in 1998-2000, including supplemental feeding
Predator Control:
• Late 90’s: 49 American kestrels, 27 red-tailed hawks, and 9 barn owls lethally removed and 32 San Clemente island foxes lethally removed or transferred
• 2000-2008: 1 American kestrel and 1 red-tailed hawk with 2 young lethally removed, but cat control continued and rat control increased
• 2008-2013: 3 common ravens lethally removed in 2010, focus on cat and rat control
Monitoring:
• Population census and nest monitoring continued
Habitat:
• Outplanting for shrikes began in 2001 and continued until recently

• Reactive management precluded a lawsuit
• Learned lessons about what not to do
• Huge population gains; avert extinction
• Increased operational flexibility (2008)
• Decreased reactive management over time
• All occurring in concert with vegetative recovery

• Reactive management is habitual; it creates a standard where reacting is always essential/expected (e.g., BO standard)
• Transitioning to proactive management is a slow learning process; have to switch SWG mindsets from managing individual birds to population management
• Costly=~$35 million
• Doesn’t allow for true critical thinking, treating symptoms and not cause

• Increases in long-term planning, but fewer meetings because not always reacting to latest situation, annual planning meetings recap prior year and set plan for coming year
• Reductions in program 2008-2013 = increased efficiency and flexibility
• Developing Shrike Recovery/Population Management Plan:
 Based on analysis of existing program data
 Identifies specific recovery objectives
 Delineates aspects of the program necessary to meet objectives and timeline or trigger for continuation

2006 PVA had poor prognosis for subspecies
But subspecies range appeared to be expanding on SCI with vegetative recovery
PVA was based on a population estimate and apparent survival estimates that were both biased low because limited sampling area
Low cost proactive measure was a volunteer survey
Results lead to monitoring redesign
Island-wide stratified (double) sampling design lead to…

In 2013, SAGS associated with territories ~5,060 (confidence limits
3,645 and 6,475 )
More than triple previous population estimates
Next create a population management plan with recovery goals and measurable milestone for progress lt
3000
2800
2600
2400
2200
2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Year

Population decline detected 2001 (~387 individuals)
Candidate Conservation Species, Framework Monitoring Plan Developed 2006
Research, more intensive population monitoring, and increased management implemented 2007 onward
Population rebound 2007-2012; each year had λ >1

Results based management (e. g., roadside mowing)
Population increase and implemented)
Less intensive population monitoring (tested
Risk Analysis Epidemic Response Plan, sentinel monitoring, vaccination (rabies and CDV), and serological monitoring
Adaptive Management- revising Epidemic Response Plan based on results of sentinel monitoring

• Seabirds- Guadalupe and Scripps’s murrelets and ashy storm-petrel
• Earthworms-Assessment to determine threat and future management
• Argentine ants-Eradication
• Rodenticide effects-Investigation of cholecalciferol effects on foxes, test alternative rat control methods
• Biosecurity-Develop plan to detect and avoid new invasives
• Long-term botanical program planning effort

• Reactive management can be essential, but should not become the standard
• It takes a while to move from reactive to proactive management so start early
• Ask yourself: Are you reacting to needs or making progress toward goals according to a plan?
• While proactive management requires funding, make the argument that it saves money in the long run and supports the mission
• Well written, defensible EPRs are critical; POM should be your time to think critically and really argue for your projects

Acknowledgements: NAVFAC training & travel support, CPF and CNIC project funding, all the SCI
NR amazing contractors, & my predecesssor