[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                     Monterey,                 Draft Environmental
                                Bay,           Impact Statement/
                       Nationall               Management
                          Marine!              Plan
                   Sanctuaryr









                                                            11V
                                                              @1'; @ @ @,
  61                                                          it

                        ......... ..                                 Vri




               U.S. Department of (--"'l'ommerce

                                                              stkv OF C-0     P'TMOS@*'
               National Oceanic and
               Atmospheric Administration
   QH          Marine and Estuarine                           @Ai
   541.5       Management Division
   .s3                                                       S-1A r S 0      'VENT Of
   D73
   1990























                                                                                                         0


















































                                               Cover Illustration
                                                  R.W. Cooke













                       UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


                      DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
                       AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED
                      MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY


                                  August, 1990









                             U - S - DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
                             COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
                             2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
                             CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413






                                 98*MtY Of CSC 14braty



                                  Prepared By:

                                  Marine and Estuarine Management
                                        Division
                                  office of Ocean and Coastal
                                        Resource Management
                                  National Ocean Service
                                  National Oceanic and Atmospheric
                                        Administration
                                  1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 714
                                        Washington, D.C. 20235







 'S"










                                       Title
        Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the
        Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

                                     Abstract
        The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration proposes to
        designate Monterey Bay and its adjacent waters, and the submerged
        lands thereunder, off central California as a National Marine
        Sanctuary.

        The proposed Sanctuary boundaries encompass an area of
        approximately 2,200 square nautical miles in and surrounding
        Monterey Bay, off the central coast of California. The proposed
        Sanctuary boundaries include the coastal and ocean waters over, and
        the submerged lands under, the entire Monterey Canyon between the
        northern boundary of Pescadero Marsh and the southern boundary of
        Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park and Area of Special Biological
        Significance (ASBS), 2.5 nautical miles southeast from Partington
        Point, and extending from the mean high tide line from these sites
        seaward approximately 18 nautical miles on a southwesterly heading
        of 240*. These southern and northern boundaries are joined by an
        arc drawn from Moss Landing, with a radius of 46 nautical miles,
        over the entire Monterey Canyon complex out to the abyssal plain at
        1500 fathoms (approx. 3000 meters). Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and
        Monterey Harbors are all excluded from the Sanctuary boundaries.

        The designation of the Monterey Bay area as a National Marine
        Sanctuary would provide an integrated program of resource
        protection, research and education to assist in the long-term
        management and protection of its resources. Resource protection
        will involve cooperation with other agencies in formulating
        resource protection policies and procedures.

        Seven regulations are proposed governing: hydrocarbon activities;
        discharges and deposits (both from within and outside of Sanctuary
        boundaries); overflights; alteration of or construction on the
        seabed; historical resources; and marine mammals and seabirds. Two
        other activities are potentially subject to regulations: commercial
        (other than fishing) vessel traffic and operation of "thrill
        craft". Alternatives to the proposed action include the status
        quo, larger and smaller boundary options and a non-regulatory
        option.

        Research will include baseline studies, monitoring, and analysis
        and prediction projects to provide information needed in resolving
        management issues. Education programs will be directed to
        improving public awareness of the Sanctuary's resources and the
        need to use them wisely to ensure their viability.










           Lead Agency:    U.S. Department of Commerce
                           National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
                           National Ocean Service
                           Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management

           Contact:        Frank Christhilf, Regional Manager
                           Marine and Estuarine Management Division
                           Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
                           National Ocean Service/NOAA
                           1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 714
                           Washington, D.C. 20235
                           (202) 673-5126













             DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
              FOR THE PROPOSED MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY



                                      TABLE OF CONTENTS


                                                                        PAGE
        LIST OF FIGURES  ...............................................  iX


        LIST OF TABLES  ................................................  X


        Note to Reader  ................................................  xi


        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................   xiv


        PART I: INTRODUCTION                                              1

        A.   Authority for Designation   ................................ 2

        B.   Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program    ...........2

        C.   Terms of the Designation   ................................. 3

        D.   Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program    ..........3

        E.   History of the Proposal   .................................. 6

        F.   Purpose and Need for Designation   ......................... 8

        G.   The Plan for Managing the Sanctuary   ...................... 15

        PART II: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN                                17

        Section I: A Management Plan for the Proposed Monterey Bay
                    National Marine Sanctuary   ........................  18

        A.   Introduction .............................................   18

        B.   Sanctuary Goals and Objectives   ..........................  19

             1. Resource Protection   ..................................  19

             2. Research  .............................................   20

             3. Education ............................................    21

             4. Visitor Use  ..........................................   22

        Section II: The Sanctuary Setting    ...........................  23

        A.   The Regional Context  ....................................   23

                                           i










               1. Sanctuary Location   ..................................   23

               2. Regional Access   .....................................   25

         B.    Sanctuary Resources  .....................................   26

               1. Environmental Conditions    ............................  26

                    a. Geology   ........................................   26

                    b.  Meteorology  ....................................   30

                    c.  Waves and Currents   .............................  31

                    d.  Water Quality  ..................................   36

                    e.  Habitat Types  ..................................   36

               2. Natural Resources   ...................................   43


                    a. Plankton   .......................................   44


                    b.  Algae  ..........................................   45

                    C.  Invertebrates  ..................................   47


                    d.  Fish  ...........................................   50

                    e.  Seabirds ........................... ! ............ 53

                    f.  Marine Mammals   .................................. 58

               3. Historical and Cultural Resources     ................... 68


         C.    Human.Activities  ........................................   70

               1. Fishing  ..............................  o .............. 70

               2. Oil and Gas Activities   .......... o ................... 75

               3.  Commercial Shipping   .................................  77

               4.  Military Activity  ...................................   80

               5.  Research and Education   ..............................  82

               6.  Agriculture ........................  o ................ 86

               7.  ocean Waste Disposal  ...........................  o .... 88

                    a. Point Source Discharges..     ...................... 88@

                                             ii











                   b. Non-Point Source Discharges     ....................   91

             8. Dredging and Sand Mining     ............................    95

             9. Recreational Activities and Tourism       .................  97


        Section III: Action Plan     ....................................    106


        A.   Overall Management and Development Concept      ..............  106

        B.   Resource Protection   .....................................     109

             1. General Context in Management     .......................    109

             2.   Designation Document and Sanctuary Regulations      ...... 110

             3.   Contingency Plans for Major Emergencies     .............  123

             4.   Encouraging Compatible Use of the Sanctuary      ......... 127

             5.   Surveillance and Enforcement    ........................   128


                   a. Public Education and Information      ...............  129

                   b. Planning and Coordination     ......................   130

        C.   Research  ................................................      130

             1. General Context in Management     .......................    130

             2. Framework for Research     ..............................    132


                   a. Baseline Studies    ...............................    132

                   b. Monitoring    .....................................    135

                   C. Predictive Studies     .............................   138

             3. Selection and Management of Research Projects        ....... 139

                   a. Preparing an Annual Plan    .......................    139

                   b. Monitoring Progress     ............................   141

             4. Information Exchange     ................................    141

        D.   Education   ...............................................     141

             1. General Context in Management     .......................    141

             2. Educational Opportunities      ...........................   142

                                            iii











                3. Educational Programs      ................................    144

                      a. Site Visitor Programs     ..........................    144

                      b. Information Center Programs      ....................   145

                      C. Outreach Programs     ..............................    147

          Section IV: Administration      ..................................     149

          A.    Administrative Framework     ................................    149

                1. Marine and Estuarine Management Division      .............   149

                2. Sanctuary Advisory Committee     .........................    150

                3. Federal Agencies    .....................................     151

                4. State, Regional and Local Agencies       ...................  152

          B.    Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities,        ........ 153

                1. Marine and Estuarine Management Division      .............   153

                2. Sanctuary Manager   .................................... .    154

                3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee     .........................    154

                4. Federal Agencies    .....................................     154

                5. State, Regional and Local Agencies       ...................  155

          C.    Research: Roles and Responsibilities        ...................  156

                1. Marine and Estuarine Management Division      .............   156

                2. Sanctuary Manager   ....................................      156

                3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee     .........................    157

          D.    Education:   .Roles and Responsibilities    ...............  @,.. 158

                1. Marine and Estuarine Management Division      .............   158

                2. Sanctuary Manager   ....................................      158

                3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee     .........................    159

          E.    General Administration: Roles and Responsibilities          ..... 159

                1. Marine and Estuarine Management Division      .............   159

                                                iv










              2. Sanctuary Manager    ....................................    160

              3. Federal, State, Regional and Local Agencies       .......... 161

              4. Sanctuary Advisory Committee     .........................   161

         F.   Staffing Levels   .........................................     161

         G.   Headquarters and Visitor Center Facilities      ..............  162

         PART III: ALTERNATIVES INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE           163


         Section I: Status Quo Alternative      ...........................   164

         A.   Existing Resource Protection Regime     .....................   165

              1. Federal Authorities    .................................     171


              2. State Authorities     ...................................    173

         Section II: Designation as a National Marine Sanctuary        ...... 176

         A.   Boundary Alternatives    ...................................    177

              1. Boundary Alternative 1   ............................   I ... 177

              2. Boundary Alternative 2   ...............................     179

              3.  Boundary Alternative   3................................    179

              4.  Boundary Alternative   4...............................     182

              5.  Boundary Alternative   5...............................     182

              6.  Boundary Alternative   6...............................     185

              7.  Boundary Alternative   7...............................     185

         B.   Management Alternatives   .................................     188

              1. Management Alternative 1    .............................    188

              2. Management Alternative 2     .............................   189

         C.   Regulatory Alternatives   .................................     190

              1. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities     ......................   190

              2. Discharges or Deposits   ...............................     193

              3. Moving, Injuring or Possessing Historical Resources.. 195

                                              v










               4. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed    .......... 196

               5. Taking Marine Mammals and Seabirds    ................... 197

               6. Overflights  ...........................................  198

               7. Operation of Commercial Vessels   ......................  198

               8. Operation of Thrill Craft   ............................  200

         PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES                202


         Section I: Status Quo Alternative     ...........................  203

         A.    Resource Protection Regime   ............................... 206

               1. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities   .....................   206

               2.  Discharges or Deposits   ..............................  209

               3.  Moving, Injuring or Possessing Historical Resources. 213

               4.  Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed    ......... 214

               5.  Taking Marine Mammals and Seabirds    .................. 215

               6.  Overflights  .........................................   217

               7.  Operation of Commercial Vessels  .....................   218

               8.  operation of Thrill Craft   ...........................  220

               9.  Military Activities   .................................  221

               10. Fishing Activities  ...................................  221

               11. Enforcement  .........................................   225


         B. Research and Education    ...................................   227


         C. Management   ...............................................    228

         Section II: Sanctuary Designation-The Preferred Alternative..      229

         A. Resource Protection Regime     ...............................  231

               1. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities   .....................   2@2

                    a. Oil Spills   .....................................   238

                         i. Sources of Oil Spills   .....................   242

                                            vi













                              - Offshore Platforms and Well Blowouts   ... 244

                              - Pipelines  ..............................  247

                              - Tankers (Associated with Central
                               California OCS Oil and Gas Activities). 249

                       ii. Effects of Oil on the Marine Environment . 249
                               (Regardless of Source)

                   b. Discharges   .....................................   270

                   c. Acoustic and Visual Disturbance    ................  272

                   d. Socioeconomic Effects    ..........................  274

             2. Discharges or Deposits    ..............................   279

             3.   Moving, Injuring of Possessing Historical Resources.     288

             4.   Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed    ......... 290

             5.   Taking Marine Mammals and Seabirds   ..................  293

             6.   Overflights .........................................    295

             7.   Operation of Commercial Vessels   .....................  297

             8.   Operation of Thrill Craft   ...........................  301

             9.   Military Activities  .................................   302

             10.  Fishing Activities  ..................................   302

             11.  Enforcement .........................................    305

        B. Research and Education   ....................................   306

        C. Boundary Alternatives   .....................................   310

             1. Boundary Alternative 1  ...............................    310

             2. Boundary Alternative 2  ...............................    313

             3. Boundary Alternative 3  ...............................    319

             4. Boundary Alternative 4  ...............................    321

             5. Boundary Alternative 5  ...............................    322

             6. Boundary Alternative 6  ...............................    322

                                          vii










              7. Boundary Alternative 7    ...............................  325

         D. Management Alternatives   ...................................   328

         Section III:    Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socio-
                         Economic Effects   ..............................  330

         Section IV:     Relationship Between the Short-Term Uses of
                         the Environment and the Maintenance and
                         Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity     ......... 332

         PART V:     LIST OF PREPARERS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS    ............. 333


         PART VI:    LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS
                     RECEIVING COPIES  ..................................   335


         PART VII:   REFERENCES ........................  I ................ 339


         PART VIII:  APPENDICES  ........................................   354

              1. Designation Document and Proposed Regulations      ........ 355

              2. Existing State and Federal Authorities Relevant to
                 Monterey Bay   ..........................................  390

              3. Abbreviations   ........................................   437































                                           viii











                                     LIST OF FIGURES
       Figure                            Title                             kAge

          1        National Marine Sanctuary System   .....................   4

          2        Proposed Monterey Bay Sanctuary Study Area Map      ....... 9

          3        Regional Context of Monterey Bay   ....................   24

          4        Monterey Bay Area Sediment Types   ....................   29

          5        Surface Ocean Currents in Monterey Bay Area     ......... 33

          6        Types of Habitat within the Monterey Bay Area      ....... 38

          7        Location of Important Seabird Nesting Areas     ......... 56

          8        Principal Sea Otter and Pinniped Areas of
                   Concentration  .......................................    60

          9        Rate of Range Expansion (1914-1984) of the
                   California Sea Otter Population    .....................  67

         10        Locations of Primary Commercial Fishing Areas      ....... 73

         11        Potential Oil and Gas Development in the Vicinity
                   of Monterey Bay   .....................................   76

         12        Lease Sale #119 Schedule   ............................   78

         13        Nearshore Military Activity Areas in Monterey Bay      ... 81

         14        Research and Education Programs in the Monterey
                   Bay Area ............................................     83

         15        Ocean Discharge and Dredged Material Disposal Sites.89

         16        Location of Primary Sport and Commercial Fishing      .... 101

         17        Boundary Alternative #1   .............................   178

         18        Boundary  Alternative #2, Preferred   ..................  180

         19        Boundary  Alternative  #3 .............................   181

         20        Boundary  Alternative  #4 .............................   183

         21        Boundary  Alternative  #5 .............................   184

         22        Boundary  Alternative  #6 .............................   186

         23        Boundary  Alternative  #7 .............................   187

                                             ix












                                       LIST OF TABLES
          Tables                           Title                            Page

            1        Representative Algae Associated with the
                     Diverse Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area     ........... 46

            2        Representative Invertebrates Associated with the
                     Diverse Habitats   ....................................  49

            3        Representative Fishes Associated with the Diverse
                     Habitats  ............................................   52

            4        Representative Seabirds and their Seasonal Status
                     in the Monterey Bay Area   ............................  55

            5        Marine Mammals Found in the Monterey Bay Area     ....... 59

            6        Summary of Poundage and Value (over $20,000 only) of
                     Fisheries Data for 1986 for the Ports of Santa Cruz,
                     Moss Landing and Monterey-Salinas    ................... 71

            7        Major Agricultural Crops Produced in Monterey and
                     Santa Cruz County   ...................................  87

            8        Summary of Present Discharges into Monterey and
                     Carmel Bays  .........................................   90

            9        Units of the California State Parks, Beaches,
                     Refuges and Reserves within the Proposed Boundary      ... 99

           10        Major Species of Fish Caught from Private or Rental
                     Boats, Beaches, Piers and Jetties    .................. 102

           11        Fish Caught by Commercial Party Boat Fleet for the
                     Ports of Santa Cruz, Monterey and Moss Landing     ..... 103

           12        State and Federal Management Authorities and
                     Regulations Relevant to the Resources and Activities
                     of the Proposed Sanctuary Area    ..................... 166

           13        Summary of Threats to Sanctuary Resources from oil
                     and Gas Activities   .................................  235

           14        Potential Oil and Gas Impacts Mitigated by NOAA's
                     Preferred Alternative   ..............................  236

           15        Restrictions on the Recreational Taking of
                     Invertebrates in Tide Pools or Other Areas Between
                     the High Tide Mark   .................................  407

           16        Catch Restrictions for Species of Commercial
                     Fisheries in the Monterey Bay Area    ................. 408

                                              x











        Note to Reader:

        A.    National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA):

              This document is both a draft environmental impact statement
        and management plan for the proposed Monterey Bay National Marine
        Sanctuary. Some of the section headings, and their order, are
        different from those frequently found in other environmental impact
        statements. To assist NEPA reviewers, the following table has been
        developed. Under the heading 11NEPA Requirements" are listed those
        topics normally discussed in an EIS. The corresponding section of
        this document and the page numbers are provided in the other two
        columns.

        NEPA Reauirement                         Management Plan              Page

        Purpose and Need for Action              Part I: Introduction     .....8

        Alternatives
           Preferred Alternative                 Part III, Section II   ...... 177

           Preferred Boundary Alternatives       Part III, Section II   ...... 179

           Other Alternatives                    Part III, Section 11.1.176-185

        Affected Environment                     Part III, Section II   .......  23

        Environmental Consequences

           A. General and Specific               Part IV, Section I    ........ 202
                 Impacts

           B. Unavoidable Adverse                Part IV, Section II    ....... 330
                 Environmental or
                 Socioeconomic Effects

           C. Relationships between              Part IV, Section III   ...... 332
                 Short-term Uses of the
                 Environment and the
                 Maintenance and
                 Enhancement of Long-term
                 Productivity

           D. Possible Conflicts between         Part II, Section III   ...... 106
                 the Proposed Action and
                 the objectives of Federal,
                 State, Regional and Local
                 Land Use Plans, Policies
                 and Contacts for the Area
                 Concerned




                                               xi









          NEPA Reauirement                       Management Plan              PAge

          List of Preparers                      Part V ....................  333

          List of Agencies,   Organizations,     Part VI  ................... 335
            and Persons Receiving Copies of
            the DEIS/MP


          B.   Endangered SRecies Act (ESA):

               Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
          Service of the Department of the Interior, and the National Marine
          Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, were consulted in
          the performance of the biological assessment of possible impacts on
          threatened or endangered species that might result from the
          designation of a National Marine Sanctuary at Monterey Bay. The
          consultation confirmed that some 18 Endangered (E) and three
          Threatened (T) species are known to occur in the area and that
          Sanctuary designation was not likely to adversely affect these
          species. The species identified are:

          1.  California brown pelican....   'Pelicanus occidentalis calif.        E
          2.  Short-tailed albatross   ..................  Diomedea albatrus       E
          3.  American peregrine falcon    ......... Falco peregrinus anatum       E
          4.  California least tern   ............ Sterna antillarum browni        E
          5.  Gray whale ..........................   Eschrichtius robustus        E
          6.  Right whale  ...........................   Eubalaena glacialis       E
          7.  Blue whale ..........................   Balaenoptera musculus        E
          8.  Fin whale .....................................     B. Physalus      E
          9.  Sei whale .....................................     B. borealis      E
          10. Humpback whale  .....................  Megaptera novaeangliae        E
          11. Sperm whale  ..............................   Ph@seter catodon       E
          12. Green sea turtle   ..................           Chelonia mydas       E
          13. Leatherback sea turtle   ............ :*.*..D,e,r*m*o*c*helys coriaceaE
          14. Pacific Ridley sea turtle    ............ Lepidochelys olivacea      E
          15. Loggerhead sea turtle   .....................  Caretta caretta       T
          16. Guadalupe fur seal   ................ Arctocephalus townsendi        T
          17. Stellar sea lion  ......................   Eumatopias jubatus*       T
          18. Southern sea otter   ...                Enhydra lutris nereis        T
          19. Santa Cruz long-toed salamander..Ambystoma macro. croceum            E
          20. San Francisco garter snake   ... Thamnophis sirt. tetrataenia        E
          21. Smith's blue butterfly   .......... Euphilotes enoptes smithi        E
          22. Santa Cruz cypress   .................... Cupressus abramsiana       E

            Listed as threatened for an eight month interim period pursuant
            to an emergency rule published April 5, 1990.





                                               xii











       C.   kesource Assessment:

            The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as
       amended, requires a resource assessment report documenting present
       and potential uses of the proposed Sanctuary area, including uses
       subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Department of the
       Interior. This requirement has been met in consultation with the
       Department of the Interior and the assessment report is contained
       in Part II, Section II.


       D.   Federal Consistency Determination:

            Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as
       amended, requires that each Federal agency conducting or supporting
       activities directly affecting the coastal zone shall conduct or
       support those activities in a manner that is, to the maximum extent
       practicable, consistent with approved state management programs.
       This requirement has been met through a Federal Consistency
       Determination made by NOAA to the California Coastal Commission
       that the designation of Monterey Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary
       is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with California's
       Coastal Management Plan.
































                                       xiii











                                   EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


         Monterey Bay is located on the coast of central California,
         approximately 50 miles south of San Francisco. In accordance with
         Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act,
         as amended, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1431 et sea., this draft Environmental
         Impact Statement and Management Plan proposes the establishment of
         a National Marine Sanctuary centered on Monterey Bay to facilitate
         the long-term management and protection of its resources.     Part I
         of this report reviews the authority for Sanctuary designation, the
         goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the development of
         this proposal, and the purpose of designating a National Marine
         Sanctuary at Monterey Bay.

         Part II, Section I, outlines Sanctuary management goals and
         objectives in resource protection, research, education,
         interpretation and visitor use. The area recommended for the
         proposed Sanctuary, about 2,200. square nautical miles, provides the
         habitat and setting for a distinctive assortment of living and non-
         living marine resources. The Monterey Bay area is characterized by
         a combination of oceanic conditions and undersea topography that
         provides for a highly productive ecosystem and a wide variety of
         marine habitats. The area is characterized by a narrow continental
         shelf fringed by a variety of coastal types. The Monterey
         Submarine Canyon is unique in its size, configuration and proximity
         to shore that provides for strong seasonal upwelling. The high
         productivity of the area supports the most diverse algal community
         in the Nation. Bay waters are also inhabited by large numbers of
         pinnipeds, whales, fish stocks, otters and seabirds that are often
         visible from the shore. The abundant fish stocks support a
         valuable commercial and recreational fishery. The high water
         quality and the resulting variety of biota and their proximity to
         shore is one of the prime reasons for the international renown of
         the area as a prime tourist iocation. The quality and abundance of
         the natural resources has attracted man from the earliest
         prehistoric times to the present and as a result the area contains
         significant archeological and paleontological resources. The
         Monterey Bay environment, its living resources, and human
         activities in the area are described in Part II, Section II.

         The plan for managing the proposed Sanctuary is provided in Part
         II, Section III. This plan contains guidelines to ensure that all
         management actions undertaken in the first five years after
         designation are directed to resolving important issues as a means
         of meeting Sanctuary objectives. Management actions are considered
         in three program categories: resource protection, research, and
         education. Resource protection will involve cooperation with other
         agencies in formulating policies and procedures including the
         enforcement of regulations for visitor use. Research will include
         baseline studies, monitoring, and predictive studies to provide
         information needed in resolving management issues. Education
         programs will be directed to improving public awareness of the

                                          xiv









        Sanctuary's resources and the need to use them wisely to ensure
        their viability.

        The management plan calls for the promulgation of seven new
        regulations when the Sanctuary is designated. These regulations
        cover hydrocarbon activities; discharges; overflights; alteration
        of or construction on the seabed; historical resources; and marine
        mammals and seabirds. Two other activities are potentially subject
        to regulations; commercial (other than fishing) vessel traffic and
        operation of "thrill craft".

        The administrative framework for managing the proposed Sanctuary
        (Part II, Section IV) recognizes the need for cooperation and
        coordination among all participants in Sanctuary management and
        delineates the roles of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
        Administration's Marine and Estuarine Management Division, the
        State of California, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Sanctuary Manager
        and staff, and a Sanctuary Advisory Committee in resource
        protection, research, education, and general administration.

        Alternatives in developing the proposal to designate a National
        Marine Sanctuary at Monterey Bay were considered in terms of
        achieving optimum protection for the ecosystem, improving
        scientific knowledge of the area, and promoting public
        understanding of the value of Bay area resources (Part III). Based
        on these criteria, Sanctuary designation was preferred to the
        alternative of no action, and preferred boundary, management, and
        regulatory alternatives were selected. The environmental
        consequences of each of these alternatives are described in Part
        IV.

        The emergence of new issues and other unforeseeable factors may
        affect specific aspects of Sanctuary management as described in
        this plan. However, the overall goals, management objectives and
        general guidelines will continue to be relevant. Once the
        Sanctuary is designated, the aim is carefully to adjust the plan to
        changing circumstances in light of the experience gained in actual
        management.
















                                        Xv












       Introduction


































                                                                  I












         PART 1: INTRODUCTION


         A.   Authority for Designation

              Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries

         Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1431 et seg., (MPRSA)

         authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate discrete areas of

         the marine environment of special national significance as National

         Marine Sanctuaries to ensure comprehensive management and

         protection of their conservation, recreational, ecological,

         historical, research, educational, or aesthetic resources and

         qualities. Selection of a site as an Active Candidate for

         designation as a National Marine Sanctuary formally begins the

         National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) environmental impact

         analysis process. The U.S. Congress directed the National Oceanic

         and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (P.L. 100-627, section 205)

         to designate Monterey Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary by

         December 31, 1989.   This directive by Congress automatically

         advances Monterey Bay to Active Candidate status. NOAA manages the

         program through the Marine and Estuarine Management Division (MEMD)

         in the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management.


         B.   Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program

              Consistent with the mission of developing a system of National

         Marine Sanctuaries for the purpose of serving the long-term benefit

         of the public, the following goals were established for the

         Program:






                                          2










            I.   Enhance resource protection, through comprehensive and
                 coordinated conservation and management tailored to the
                 specific resources, that complements existing regulatory
                 authorities;

            2.   Support, promote and coordinate scientific research on,
                 and monitoring of, the site-specific marine resources to
                 improve management decision-making in National Marine
                 Sanctuaries;

            3.   Enhance public awareness, understanding, and wise use of
                 the marine environment through public interpretive and
                 recreational programs; and

            4.   Facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary
                 objective of resource protection, multiple use of these
                 marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other
                 authorities.


       C.   Terms of the Designation

            Section 304(a)(4), 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1434(a)(4), of the MPRSA

       provides that as a condition of establishing a National Marine

       Sanctuary, the Secretary,of Commerce must set forth the terms of

       the designation. The terms must include: (a) the geographic area

       included within the Sanctuary; (b) the characteristics of the area

       that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, historical,

       research, educational or aesthetic value; and (c) the types of

       activities that will be subject to regulation in order to protect

       those characteristics. The terms of the designation may be

       modified only by the same procedures through which the original

       designation was made.


       D.   Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program

            Eight National Marine Sanctuaries have been established since

       the Program's inception in 1972 (Figure 1):

                                         3
















                                                      FIGURE 1


                                     40
                               National Marine Sanctuary Program

                                 North Nget
                                 sould
                     Western
                     Washington
                     Omw Coast

                       Cordell
                       Bank
                Gulf of     0
                the Farallones
                    Monwff                                                              Norfolk Canyon
                    Bay                                                                  U.S.S. Monitor
                       Channel
                       Islands
                          Santa Moni
                          Bay                                                      Gray's Reef

                                                                 400' Garden          Largo
                                                                   Banks            Affigator Reef
               Fagatele         A Proposed                             Looe Key     Sombrero Reef
               Bay              0 Congre_uionaUy Mandated                        American Slwal
                                9 Designated












            The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary serves to protect the
            wreck of the Civil War ironclad, U.S.S. MONITOR. It was
            designated in January 1975 and is an area one mile in
            diameter, 16 miles southeast of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina.

            The Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, designated in
            December 1975, provides protection and management of a 100
            square mile coral reef area south of Miami, Florida.

            The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, designated in
            September 1980, consists of an area of approximately 1,252
            square nautical miles off the coast of California adjacent to
            the northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island. The
            sanctuary ensures that valuable habitats for marine mammals,
            including extensive pinniped assemblages and seabirds, are
            protected.

            The Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary, designated in January
            1981, consists of a submerged section of the Florida reef
            southwest of Big Pine Key. The site, five square nautical
            miles in size, includes a beautiful "spur and groove" coral
            formation supporting a diverse marine community and a wide
            variety of human uses.

            The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, designated in
            January 1981, is a submerged live bottom area located on the
            South Atlantic continental shelf due east of Sapelo Island,
            Georgia. The sanctuary, which encompasses about 17 square
            nautical miles protects a highly productive and unusual
            habitat for a wide variety of species including corals,
            tropical fish, and sea turtles.

            The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary,
            designated in January 1981, is a 948 square nautical mile area
            off the California coast north of San Francisco. It provides
            a habitat for a diverse array of marine mammals and birds as
            well as pelagic fish, plants, and benthic biota.

            The Fagatele Bay National Marine sanctuary in American Samoa
            was designated in August 1986. The 163-acre bay contains
            deepwater coral terrace formations that are unique to the high
            islands of the tropical Pacific. It serves as habitat for a
            diverse array of marine flora and fauna included the
            endangered hawksbill turtle and the threatened green sea
            turtle.

            The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, designated in May,
            1989, is a 397 square nautical mile area off the central
            California coast and contiguous with the northern boundary of
            the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

                                        5.










              Cordell Bank and its surrounding waters, because of a rare
              combination of oceanic conditions and undersea topography,
              provide a highly productive marine environment for a rich
              variety of benthic organisms as well as fish, marine mammals
              and seabirds in a discrete well defined area.


              In addition the Marine and Estuarine Management Division is in

         the process of studying, or preparing draft or final designation

         documents for, ten additional proposed Sanctuaries around the coast

         of the United States. These proposed Sanctuaries are in North

         Puget Sound and Western Washington Outer Coast, Washington; Santa

         Monica Bay, California; Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts; CMDR

         Barney's Flotilla, Maryland; Norfolk Canyon, Virginia; Alligator

         Reef, Sombrero Reef and American Shoal, Florida; and Flower Garden

         Banks, Texas (Figure 1).



         E.   History of the Pronosal

              The State of California nominated the Monterey Bay area in

         1977, along with nine other marine areas offshore for consideration

         as National Marine Sanctuaries. In response to these nominations,

         NOAA selected three sites for further consideration: Channel

         Islands, Point Reyes-Farallon Islands, and the Monterey Bay area.

         In December 1978, NOAA released an Issue Paper on these three

         sites, presenting several boundary and regulatory options for each

         proposal. Public hearings on the Issue Paper were held and, based

         on the responses, NOAA declared all three sites as Active

         Candidates on August 10, 1979.





                                          6









           This process led to the designation of the Channel Islands

       National Marine Sanctuary on September 21, 1980 and the Point

       Reyes-Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary (later renamed the

       Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary) on January 16,

       1981. In 1980, NOAA determined that work on the proposed Monterey

       Bay Sanctuary would be delayed due to the complex analyses and

       corresponding staff time required for the other two California

       sites.

           On December 14, 1983 NOAA announced in the Federal Register

       (48 FR 56253) that it had removed Monterey Bay from the list of

       active candidates for three reasons: (1) the existence of two

       other National Marine Sanctuaries in California (Channel Islands

       and Gulf of the Farallones) that protect similar marine resources

       and the Program's policy, established in 1980, to consider a

       diverse array of sites and resources; (2) the proposed area's

       relatively large size and the surveillance and enforcement burdens

       this would impose on NOAA; and (3) the wealth of existing marine

       conservation programs already in place in the Sanctuary area.

           In 1988, when Congress reauthorized and amended Title III of

       the MPRSA, it specified in Section 205 of P.L. 100-627 that NOAA

       designate Monterey Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary by December

       31, 1989. This statutory requirement reinstated Monterey Bay as an

       Active Candidate for Sanctuary status.

           NOAA held two scoping meetings in the Monterey Bay area during

       January, 1989, to solicit public comments on the proposed

       Sanctuary. Notice of the scoping meetings was published in the


                                        7









         following four newspapers: the Monterey Peninsula Herald, Salinas

         Californian, Watsonville Register-Pajaronian and Santa Cruz

         Sentinel. The first meeting was held on January 25, 1989 from 6:30

         to 10:00 pm in the Monterey Conference Center, City of Monterey,

         Monterey County, and the second scoping meeting was held on January

         26, 1989 from 6:30 to 10:00 pm in.the Chambers of the Santa Cruz

         County Board of Supervisors, in Santa Cruz City, Santa Cruz County.

         All interested persons were invited to attend. Those attending the

         meeting were asked to comment on readily identifiable issues, to

         suggest additional issues for examination, and to provide

         information useful in evaluating the site's potential as a

         Sanctuary. A figure of a study area was presented as an example of

         the area under consideration for ultimate designation as National

         Marine Sanctuary (Figure 2). The response was overwhelmingly

         favorable to proceeding with the evaluation.


         F.   Purpose and Need for Designation

              The proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary meets all

         of the site identification criteria developed by the Marine and

         Estuarine Management Division (NOAA, 1983). Typical of the

         Oregonian province, the Bay is strongly influenced by cool,

         relatively clear waters dominated by the California current. The

         Monterey Submarine Canyon results in a strong upwelling of

         nutrient-rich water. Consequently, the nearshore waters and

         diversity of habitats are highly productive and support

         exceptionally rich and abundant floral and faunal communities that



                                           8













           1230               40'                20'              1220                 40'                20'
                                'San Gregorio      pescadero Creek

                                               e cadero Point


                                  Pigeon P int

                                     P   no uevo
                                   .1e @-?r                               Soquel Creek
       370                                     Dav port       Santa                                         370
                                VIO                                                    Pajaro
                                                                                       River
                                                              60                       Elkhorn
                                    1,000                                              Slough
                                                                                  Moss
                                                                                 Landing
                  'S"                                1100

         40'                                  000                                                           40'

                                                                         Monterey
                                                                         Carmel

                                       81                                Point
                                                                'R"      Lobos       Carmel
                                                                                     River


         20' - -                                                 Poi it  u    Little Sur River              20'
                                                                                 Big Sur River


                          Study Area                        'Oe      --,@Partington  Point
                          State Waters                   V                           \1    Big
                                                                                         Creek
                                                     000
                                                                               150
                                           OV                                   01f)
                                                                                  Lopez Point
        360                                                                                           -360


                  0    5
                  62%f1jj Nautical Miles
                  0   5 Statute Miles                                               Cape San Martin
                                                                                                 11\
                   Depths in Fathoms

                                                                                              Ragged Point
                               I                    @,O-O\           I              ) I           L
           1230               40'                20'               1220                40'                20'

            Figure 2. Proposed Monterey Bay Sanctuary Study Area.









         are very important in central and northern California. The variety

         of habitat assemblages is one of the major determinants of the rich

         intertidal and subtidal communities and represents the range of

         habitats to be found in the Oregonian province. The high density

         of habitat types and community assemblages provides an excellent

         environment for a wide variety of research projects and educational

         opportunities.

              While there are submarine canyons elsewhere in the Oregonian

         province, the Monterey Submarine Canyon is unique in its size,

         configuration, and proximity to shore. This canyon, along with

         adjacent submarine canyons, enriches local water through strong

         seasonal upwellings, modifies currents and provides habitat for

         pelagic communities. The proximity of the canyon to the shore also

         provides a unique opportunity to the scientific community for deep-

         sea research. Monterey Bay itself is a rare geological feature as

         it is one of the few large bays along the Pacific coast. This fact

         lends additional importance to this area as a resting and staging

         area for migrating birds.

              The area also supports one of the greatest diversities of

         marine mammals in the world. Among these are several endangered

         species, including the California gray whale (Eschrichtius

         robustus), finback whale (Balaenoptera physalus), humpback whale

         (Megaptera novaeangliae), sperm whale (Physeter catodon), and the

         threatened California sea otter (Enhydra lutris).

              All species of pinnipeds commonly found off the central and

         northern California coast are found in the Monterey Bay area. Aho


                                          10









      Nuevo State Reserve and has been cited as the most important

      pinniped rookery and resting area in central and northern

      California.

           The proposed Sanctuary area also encompasses approximately

      one-third of the entire Southern sea otter range in California.

      However, the majority of otters (females and pups) are found south

      of the Monterey Peninsula. The official northern limit to their

      distribution is at Pigeon Point.

           Monterey Bay plays a major role for avifauna as a staging

      habitat during migrations, and as wintering and summer habitat.

      Bird species diversity is very high. Birds are attracted to the

      area due to the nutrient rich waters and resulting food resources,

      the protected bay environment, and location along the Pacific

      flyway. Breeding populations are generally small and scattered.

      The entire world population of the Ashy Storm-Petrel (Oceanodroma

      homochroa) (5000-10,000) can be found feeding in the area

      immediately above the Monterey canyon from August to November.

           The wide variety and abundance of these natural resources are

      of outstanding value to the local, state, regional, national and

      international community. Questions have been raised about whether

      the existing regulatory regime adequately protects Monterey Bay

      resources from the increasing pressure of human activities. The

      U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries

      Service, for example, share authority to protect many individual

      species but neither protects the species habitat or considers,

      under a holistic management structure, the interactions and


                                       11









         potential threats of 'man's activities on the natural resources.

         The designation of Monterey Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary

         would provide the means for addressing such deficiencies and

         provide additional protection and coordination where needed.

              A unique feature of the Monterey Bay area is the combination

         of biological and physical characteristics in the area that provide

         outstanding opportunities for scientific research on many aspects

         of marine ecosystems. The diverse habitats are readily accessible

         to researchers. Six major research facilities are found in the

         area. These institutions have a long history of research and large
         databases possessing a considerable amount of baseline information

         on the Bay area and its resources. However, there has been a lack

         of coordination among the different research institutions resulting

         in some apparent overlap of research effort and lack of

         comprehensive oceanographic and ecological studies. The planned

         management program will work with the existing infrastructure of

         research and educational programs to coordinate studies and efforts

         that increase our understanding of ocean and atmospheric processes.

              The Marine and Estuarine Management Division is already

         responsible for the management of the Elkhorn Slough National

         Estuarine Research Reserve in cooperation with the State of

         California, Department of Fish and Game. The proposed Monterey Bay

         Sanctuary designation would provide a unique opportunity for the

         establishment of coordinated coastal zone management and research

         effort through the integration of the facilities and resources and

         programs of the Reserve and the Sanctuary. This type of programl


                                          12









       emphasizing land-sea interactions, could then serve as an

       innovative model for other coastal areas of the United States where

       local land issues and coastal zone problems have traditionally been

       separated from offshore, marine issues in terms of jurisdiction and

       research effort.

           The diverse resources of the Monterey Bay area are enjoyed by

       the residents of this area as well as the numerous visitors. The

       population of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties was 544,000 in 1985

       and is projected to increase to 755,000 by 2005. The projected

       growth is based in large part on the attractiveness of the area's

       natural beauty. The area also supports several economic

       activities. The most important activity directly dependent on the

       resources is commercial fishing, which played an important role in

       the history of Monterey Bay and continues to be a very important

       activity vital to the region's economy.

           Related to fisheries are several aquaculture operations within

       the Monterey Bay area, which are dependent in large part on a clean

       source of ocean waters. Some operations collect organisms directly

       from the Bay while others grow and produce their own stocks through

       captive breeding.

           While Monterey Bay has thus far enjoyed the reputation as an

       internationally renowned scenic area with good water quality, such

       success can not realistically be expected in the future without

       deliberate protection.

           So far the variety of human uses has not dramatically altered

       or damaged the resources of Monterey Bay. However, many people are


                                       13









         concerned about the potential conflicts and cumulative effects as

         the area becomes more heavily populated and visited by increasing

         numbers of tourists. In addition to tourism and recreational

         increases, business, commercial and industrial uses of the area are

         also increasing. oil and gas exploration, development and

         production in the northern Bay area is being considered with

         proposed Lease Sale #119, although the schedule for the Lease Sale

         process has been deferred. It should be noted that at this time

         Lease Sale #119 is currently on hold in an early phase of the

         presale process. Thus far, only the "Call for Information" has

         been completed and no further activities are being carried out.

              The Bay area also is a place for dredge and waste disposal.

         Two sites off Moss Landing are used for discharging dredge spoils.

         Point source pollution from municipal and industrial wastes is

         dumped into the waters at various outfalls and municipal plans for

         additional outfalls and discharges into Monterey bay are being

         considered. Non-point agricultural runoff also enters the Bay

         primarily from the major agricultural areas of the Salinas and

         Pajaro Valleys. To a large extent these activities are presently

         regulated by existing management authorities; however, Sanctuary

         designation can provide additional legal authority, research,

         monitoring, and managetent coordination to ensure that these

         activities continue in a way that protects the resources of

         Monterey Bay.

              Making a -more indirect use of the area are the commercial

         ships that regularly traverse the outer reaches of the area as part


                                           14









       of the route from San Francisco to Los Angeles, with infrequent

       vessel traffic to Moss Landing, Santa Cruz, or Monterey. Although

       this traffic is not yet a major concern, contingency plans designed

       to react to oil spills resulting from tanker accidents are being

       formulated and can be coordinated with Sanctuary designation.

            Existing programs to protect significant resources within the

       Monterey Bay area and to provide recreational and interpretive

       opportunities have placed considerable emphasis on the protection

       of coastal resources but have not given the same attention to

       marine resources. Such critical marine areas as the waters around

       Afio Nuevo Island and over the Monterey Submarine Canyon receive no

       special attention by resource managers. The waters of the Big Sur

       and San Mateo coastline receive limited protection but lack a

       mechanism to establish research priorities and coordination and

       develop Emergency Response plans for potential accidents such as

       groundings and/or oil spills. With current resources of existing

       programs being limited, the coordination of resource protection and

       management programs is essential. The Monterey Bay Sanctuary could

       provide an important role in such coordination.



       G.   The Plan for Managing the Sanctuary

            The remainder of this document consists of a draft management

       plan and draft environmental impact statement for the proposed

       Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The plan provides

       information on the resources and uses of the proposed Sanctuary, as

       well as Sanctuary goals and objectives. Programs (Resource


                                        15









         Protection, Research, and Education) for implementing the goals and

         objectives are described. The plan proposes actions for resolving

         immediate management concerns and formulates guidelines for

         continuing long-term management.












































                                          16










                                                Sanctuary Management Plan
























































                                        17










         PART II: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN

         Section I: A Management Plan for the Proposed Monterey Bay National
                    Marine Sanctuary

         A.   Introduction

              National Marine Sanctuaries are designated in areas of the

         marine environment selected for their conservation, recreational,

         ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic

         resources and qualities. The Marine Protection, Research, and

         Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, and its implementing

         regulations (15 CPR Part 922) require that a management plan be

         prepared for each proposed Sanctuary. Once the Sanctuary is

         designated, the plan will be implemented. In general, management

         plans focus on Sanctuary goals and objectives, management

         responsibilities, research and education programs, and policies to

         guide plan implementation.

              The plan establishes an administrative framework in

         recognition of the need for cooperation and coordination to ensure

         effective management. The Marine and Estuarine Management Division

         (MEMD), National oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), is

         responsible for management of the site.

              Variable funding for staff and program development over the

         next several years may affect specific aspects of Sanctuary

         management described in this plan. Modifications to the scope and

         scale of the programs may have to be made because of such .

         unforeseeable changes in the level of funding. The goals and

         objectives of the plan will, however, remain unchanged.



                                          18










       B.   Sanctuary Goals and Obiectives

            Sanctuary goals and objectives provide the framework for

       developing the management strategies. The goals and objectives

       direct Sanctuary activities towards the dual purposes of public use

       and resource conservation and are consistent with the intent of the

       National program.

            The management strategies planned for the proposed Monterey

       Bay National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS) are directed to the goals and

       objectives outlined below. It should be noted that, although the

       Sanctuary goals are listed discretely, they are actually

       overlapping. For instance, the research and education efforts both

       contribute to resource protection and to enhancing public use of

       the Sanctuary.



       1.   Resource Protection

            The goal assigned the highest priority for management is to.

       protect the marine environment, resources and qualities of the

       MBNMS. Many of the activities that affect the marine environment

       are presently governed by existing State and Federal regulations

       under the jurisdiction of many different agencies. A National

       Marine Sanctuary may serve the function of coordinating the

       activities of these management and regulatory agencies. The

       specific objectives of resource protection efforts are to:


            coordinate policies and procedures among the agencies sharing
            responsibility for protection and management of resources;




                                        19









              Encourage participation by interested agencies and organiza-
              tions in the development of procedures to address specific
              management concerns (e.g., monitoring and emergency-response
              programs);

              Develop an effective and coordinated program for the
              enforcement of Sanctuary regulations;

         o    Enforce Sanctuary regulations in addition to other regulations
              already in place;

         0    Promote public awareness of, and voluntary compliance with,
              Sanctuary regulations and objectives, through an
              educational/interpretive program stressing resource
              sensitivity and wise use;

              Ensure that the water quality of Monterey Bay is maintained at
              a level consonant with Sanctuary designation;

              Establish memoranda of agreement and other mechanisms for
              coordination among all the agencies participating in Sanctuary
              management;

              Ensure that the appropriate management agency incorporates
              research results and scientific data into effective resource
              protection strategies;

         o    Reduce threats to Sanctuary resources.

         2_   Research

              The purpose of Sanctuary research activities is to improve

         understanding of the Monterey Bay environment, resources and

         qualities, to resolve specific management problems, and to

         coordinate and facilitate information flow between the various

         research institutions, agencies and organizations. A major

         emphasis of the research program will be to encourage studies that

         investigate the natural processes at the land-sea interface. For

         example, studies that integrate the facilities of the Elkhorn

         Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve with deep sea and/or

         coastal research will help increase our understanding of the role

         of estuaries in coastal productivity. Research results will be

                                          20









       used in education programs for visitors and others interested in

       the Sanctuary, as well as for resource protection. The strategies

       to be employed in the research program are to:

            Establish a framework and procedures for administering
            research to ensure that research projects are responsive to
            management concerns and that results contribute to improved
            management of the Sanctuary;

       o    Incorporate research results into the interpretive/education
            program in a format useful for the general public;

       o    Focus and coordinate data collection efforts on the physical,
            chemical, geological and biological oceanography of the
            Sanctuary;

            Encourage studies that integrate research from the variety of
            coastal habitats with nearshore and open ocean processes;

       0    Initiate a monitoring program to assess environmental changes
            as they occur due to natural and human processes;

       0    Identify the range of effects on the environment that would
            result from predicted changes in human activity or natural
            phenomena;

       0    Encourage information exchange among all the organizations and
            agencies undertaking management-related research in the
            Sanctuary to promote more informed management.

       3.   Education

            The education program should be directed to improving public

       awareness and understanding of the significance of the Sanctuary

       and the need to protect its resources and qualities. The

       management objectives designed to meet this goal are to:

        0   Provide the public with information on the Sanctuary and its
            goals and objectives, with an emphasis on the need to use
            these resources wisely to ensure their long-term viability;

       o    Broaden support for the Sanctuary and Sanctuary management by
            offering programs suited to visitors with a range of diverse
            interests;

            Provide for public involvement by encouraging feedback on the
            effectiveness of education programs and collaborate with other

                                        21









              organizations to provide interpretive services, including
              extension and outreach programs and other volunteer projects,
              complementary to the Sanctuary program; and

         o    Collaboration with Sanctuary management staff in extension and
              outreach programs, and participation in other volunteer
              programs.



         4.   Visitor Use
              The Sanctuary goal for @isitor management is to facilitate, to

         the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource

         protection, public and private uses of the resources of the

         Sanctuary not prohibited pursuant to other authorities. Specific

         management objectives are to:

              Encourage the public who use the Sanctuary to respect
              sensitive Sanctuary resources and qualities.

         0    Provide relevant information about Sanctuary regulations and
              use policies;

              Collaborate with public and private organizations in promoting
              compatible use of the Sanctuary; and

              Monitor and assess the levels of use to identify and control
              potential degradation of resources and minimize potential user
              conflicts.
























                                          22









       Section II: The Sanctuary Setting

       A. The Regional Context

            1. Sanctuary Location

            Monterey Bay is located along the central California coast

       about 50 miles (80 km) south of San Francisco (Figure 3). It is

       California's second largest bay and one of the few major bays along

       the entire Pacific Coast of the United States. Perhaps its most

       significant feature is also its least obvious: it possesses the

       deepest and largest submarine canyon along the west coast of North

       America.

            The bay is an open embayment approximately 20 nautical miles

       (nmi) (37 km) long, north to south, and up to 9 nmi (16 km) wide in

       an east-west direction. it is symmetrical in shape with bights in

       the extreme northern and southern ends. It covers an area of
       approximately 160 nmi2 (550 kM2) (Breaker and Broenkow, 1989).

       Monterey Canyon, equivalent in size to the Grand Canyon, divides

       the bay into two more-or-less equal northern and southern parts.

            The proposed Sanctuary area includes both Monterey Bay itself

       and the adjacent coastline to the north and south. Specifically,

       it includes a Sanctuary area of approximately 2,200 square nautical

       miles and includes the coastal and ocean waters over, and submerged

       lands under the entire Monterey Canyon between the northern

       boundary of Pescadero Marsh, 2.0 nmi north of Pescadero Point, and

       the southern boundary of Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park and

       Area of Special Biological Significance (ASBS), 2.5 nmi south of

       Partington Point, and extending from these sites seaward


                                        23







                    Regional Context

                    1230                       40'                         20'                      1220                          40'                        20'
                                                   '-San Greg@orio          I Pescadero Creek

                                                                      Pescadero Point
                                                        110
                                                  -**'Pigeon @oint
                                                         Pt. Ano N6vo                                           Soquel Creek

                                                      @1-1                                    !@anta
                370                                                      Dave\npo                                                                               370
                                                   500                             \
                                                                                                            -z-                . Pajaro
                                                                                         N,                  0                    River
                                                                                                              CO                  Elkhorn
                                                        1,000                                                                     Slough
                                                                                                                           Moss
                                                                                                                          Landing
                                                                                1100                              W


                40' - -                                                                                                                                         40'


                                                                                                             Monterey
                                                                                                             Carmel


                                                                                                             Point
                                                                                                             Lobos
                                                                                                                               Carmel
                                                                                                                               River


                                                                                                          0
                 20'                                                                                                 Little Sur River                           20'
                                                                                                   Poi  Ysur
                                                                                                                         Big Sur River

                                                                                                             A %, %.
                                                                                                       -,,Partingt%d*N@ol
                                       Preferred Boundary                                                                              Big
                                                                                                                                  0  Cree
                                                                                @OON
                                                                                   0
                                       StateWaters
                                                                 1100                                                  IV
                                                                                                                       L
                                                                                                            .10,
                                                                                                        .1-1               Lo'p'ez    oint\--\
                360                                                                                                                                             360


                            0        5
                            62!S2!Fw Nautical Miles
                            0      5   Statute Miles                                                                         Cape San           rtin

                                                                             0
                               Depths in Fathoms                                                                                                 AO
                                                                                                                            0
                                                                                  .0                                                                  ""Point
                                                                                                                                            Ragged
                    1230                       40'                         20'                      1220                          40'                        20'
                                                                ary
                                                                                                                             @C                 rtin
                                                                                                                                            Ragg @e@@oint
                    Figure 3. Proposed Monterey Bay Sanctuary Preferred Boundary Alternative.









       approximately 18 nmi on a southwesterly heading of 2400 and joined

       by an arc of approximately 46 nmi drawn from Moss Landing over the

       entire Monterey Canyon complex out to the abyssal plain at 1,500

       fathoms (approximately 3,000 m). The land-side boundary extends to

       the mean-high tide level but Moss Landing, Santa Cruz and Monterey

       Harbors are all excluded from the Sanctuary boundaries (Figure 3).

            The coastline setting varies from sandy beaches and rocky

       outcrops to sandstone cliffs and sand bluffs north of Santa Cruz,

       to over 25 miles of wind-swept dunes and beaches that fringe part

       of the bay, to the rugged rocky coastal areas of Monterey Peninsula

       and Big Sur. The nutrient-rich waters of the bay support extensive

       fish, invertebrate, seabird, and marine mammal populations while

       many commercial fisheries provide a significant economic benefit to

       the region and the nation.



            2. Regional Access

            The Monterey Bay area has been a popular seaside resort since

       the late 1800's. To the north is the major San Francisco-Oakland

       Metropolitan area with a population of around five million people.

       Highway Number 1 parallels the coast throughout the area, making

       coastal access possible in many places. North of the Monterey

       Peninsula, the shoreline is very accessible because of the large..

       amount of public ownership. South of the peninsula the rugged

       nature of the terrain and more private ownership make ocean access

       difficult, although many miles of the southern coast are owned and

       managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation.


                                        25










         B. Sanctuary Resources

              The unique marine resources of the Monterey Bay area are

         largely the result of a major topographic feature of the seafloor

         and a set of oceanographic conditions that combine to produce the

         highly productive waters characteristic of the bay. The size,

         configuration, and proximity to shore of the Monterey Submarine

         Canyon produces strong seasonal upwelling of nutrient-rich bottom

         waters. These highly productive nearshore waters in turn support

         diverse floral and faunal populations. The extensive kelp beds,

         and the diversity of rock types, sediment types, and shoreline

         characteristics combine with the nutrient-rich waters to form

         several habitat assemblages.

              Monterey Bay has the most diverse algal community in North

         America. The area supports one of the largest diversities of

         marine mammals in the world, including the endangered California

         gray whale, finback whale, humpback whale, sperm whale, and

         California sea otter. Aho Nuevo, at the northern end of the

         proposed Sanctuary area, is the most important pinniped rookery and

         resting area in central and northern California. The bay area is

         important as a staging habitat for avifauna along the Pacific

         Flyway. The waters support extensive fish populations and major

         west coast commercial fishing industries.



         1. Environmental Conditions

                   (a) Geology

                   The Monterey Bay region is located on the continental


                                          26









       margin within the California Coast Ranges province. It is situated

       on a major structural unit of the earth's continental crust called

       the Salinian Block. About 20 million years ago, this block was

       displaced northward from the southern Sierra-Nevada Mountain Range

       on the Pacific tectonic plate by movement along the San Andreas

       Fault. Faults in the Monterey Bay area lie primarily within two

       major, essentially northwest-southeast-trending fault zones: the

       Palo Colorado-San Gregario and the Monterey Bay fault zones (H. G.

       Green, pers. comm., 1989). The Monterey Bay Fault Zone is located

       in Monterey Bay between Monterey and Santa Cruz. It forms a

       diffuse zone, 10 to 15 km wide, of short en echelon, northwest-

       trending faults (Green, 1977). The Palo Colorado-San Gregario

       fault system is formed by the San Gregario fault which extends from

       Point Aho Nuevo to Point Sur where it connects with either the Palo

       Colorado fault (Dohrenwend, 1971; Green, 1977) or the San Simeon

       fault. Movement in this active Monterey Bay Fault Zone caused the

       recent (17 October, 1989) San Francisco Bay area earthquake, with

       its epicenter of 7.1 on the Richter Scale near Santa Cruz.

           The most prominent geological feature of Monterey Bay is the

       Monterey Submarine Canyon. The main canyon begins in 18 m of water

       about 100 m offshore from Moss Landing. There are two main

       branches of the Monterey Canyon: Soquel Canyon to the north and

       Carmel Canyon to the south. An additional canyon - Ascension

       Canyon - indents the shelf off of Aho Nuevo. The entire canyon

       extends about 45 nmi (82 km) offshore to the foot of the

       continental slope at a depth of about 2925 m. At about 1830 m


                                        27









         .depth, the height of the canyon walls attain proportions similar to

         that of the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River (Shepard and Dill,

         1966). Today Monterey Canyon is actively being excavated and

         exhumed. This activity continues to be tectonically controlled as

         fault rupture brought about by plate motion causes earthquakes that

         stimulate slumping and turbidity flows within the canyon.

         Continued movement along strike-slip faults is also displacing a

         segment of the deeper part of the canyon to the north (Green, in

         press).

              The substrate of the region is variable (Martin and Emery,

         1967). The surface sediment types tend to follow the seafloor

         contours (Figure 4). Nearshore the sediments are sand and fine

         sand, offshore they are sand and mud. In both areas, the sediments

         overlie beds of sandstone, siltstone, and conglomerate. From the

         mid to late Miocene (approximately 15 million years ago) sediments

         were deposited in the Monterey Bay area that over time created the

         marine shale that is currently considered to be of primary

         hydrocarbon potential, specifically in the Afio Nuevo and La Honda

         Basins.

              The sediments in the canyon vary from sand nearshore to mud in

         the deeper areas. Rocky outcrops are found on the walls of the

         canyon. About 3.2 million cubic yards of sediment are deposited in

         the bay during the winter and spring months by the San Lorenzo

         River, Soquel Creek, Aptos Creek, Pajaro River, and the Salinas

         River (Griggs, 1986). Elkhorn Slough, a large estuary, also

         empties into the bay.


                                           28














            1230                 40'                  20'                1220                   40'                 20'

                                                         Pescadero Creek

                                                   escadero Point




                                                                                  Soquel Creek


                                                                     Santa
        370                                                                                                            370


                                                                                                Pajaro
                                                                                                River

                                                                                                Elkhorn
                                        1,000                                                   Slough
                                                                                           Moss
                                                                                          Landing



                                                   '000
         40'                                                                                                           40'

                                                                                Mon erey
                                                                                Carmel
                       Shell and Coral

                                                                                Point
               E3      Gravel                                                   Lobos
                                                                                              Carmel
                                                                                              River
                       Rock


          20'          Sand                                                            Little Sur River                20'

                       Fine Sand                                                         Big Sur River


                                                                             ............
                       M u d a n d S a n d
                                                                           T..
                                                                                                    Big
                                                                                                   Creek
                Ej     Mud                                 000                           110
                                                                                         Oil
                                                                                          Lopez Point
         360                                                                                                           360


                   0     5
                           Nautical Miles
                   0    5                                                                    Cape San Martin
                   6?W% Statute Miles
                     Depths in Fathoms                                                                      S
                                                                                                             )l
                                                                                                        Raggeq Point
            1230                 40'                  20'                 1220                  40'                  20'
             Figure 4. Monterey Bay Area Sediment Types (NOAA, 1982).









              The Monterey Bay area is characterized by a narrow continental

          shelf and is surrounded by a variety of coastal types. The

          rough,boulder-strewn headlands of Point Pinos at the southern part

          of the bay are composed of granite. The white dunes and beaches of

          Pacific Grove are derived from the weathering of these granites.

          Sedimentary rocks, mostly shales, form the slopes of the Salinas

          Valley and the flat coastal shelf at the north end of the bay

          (Gordon, 1977). Tpe northern coastline has sand bluffs and flat-

          topped terraces of mudstone as well as rocky intertidal areas.

          From Soquel Point southward almost to Moss Landing, cliffs fronted

          by sandy beaches predominate. Broad sandy beaches backed by large

          dunes extend southward from here to the rocky headland of the

          Monterey Peninsula.

             Ab) Meteorolg_qy

              In the Monterey Bay area seasons are weakly developed. The

          area has a moderate maritime climate with the general pattern of

          wet winters and relatively dry summers. January and February are

          usually the wettest months, while.July and August are virtually

          without rainfall (Gordon, 1977). The amount of rainfall varies

          markedly not only year to year but also on both sides,of the bay.

          Monterey averages about 15 inches (38 cm) annually; Santa Cruz

          averages about 28 inches (69 cm).

              During the period of March through October the prevailing

          winds are from the northwest. Winter winds are variable, often

          from the west or southwest. Winds are strongest in May (averaging

          14 knots) and weakest between November and January (averaging 3


                                          30









      knots) (Breaker and Broenkow, 1989). The cool water of the

      California Current flows south along the coast during March through

      October; however, between November and February this current moves

      offshore and is replaced with the warmer northward flowing waters

      of the Davidson Current. The net effect of these alternating

      currents is that the Monterey Bay climate is characterized by both

      northern temperate and southern sub-tropical features.

           Temperatures along the shoreline can vary significantly

      depending upon protection from the dominant northwest winds and

      storms. For example, Aho Nuevo has a distinct microclimate making

      it warmer, and with more sunshine and fog-free days than coastal

      areas directly to the north or south (Weber, 1981). Both annual

      and diurnal temperature ranges are small because of the moderating

      influence of the ocean.

           The central California coast is characterized by a recurrent

      fog during spring and summer. Heavy fog predominates in the

      morning near the coast with clearing usually occurring with the

      afternoon's warmer temperature. The fog is caused when the warm

      moist air associated with the prevailing westerly winds comes in

      contact with the cold upwelled waters along the coast.

            (c) Waves and Currents

           The height of the waves in the proposed Sanctuary vary with

      the seasons. Under more stable summer conditions, the waves are

      able to build broad, gently-sloping beaches. Winter conditions

      produce higher waves that transport sand to the offshore zone and

      erode beaches (Gordon, 1977).


                                       31









               Water temperatures in the bay appear to be largely controlled

          by the oceanographic conditions off-the coast. Surface water
          temperatures average 520F (110C) to 540F (120C) during late f all and

          early summer. No distinct thermocline is present during this

          period. Surf ace temperatures in the summer reach 590F (150C) and

          higher (Harville, 1971). Infrared satellite images taken during

          spring and summer, often show cold upwelled water across the

          entrance of Monterey Bay and that sea-surface temperatures farther

          inside the Bay are higher than elsewhere, reflecting the importance

          of local heating within the Bay (Breaker and Broenkow, 1989).

               The California Current System is a part of the great clockwise

          circulation of the North Pacific Ocean. At high latitudes the

          waters move eastward under the influence of the strong westerly

          winds, and near the coast of North America these waters divide into

          two branches. The smaller component turns northward into the Gulf

          of Alaska; the larger component turns south-eastward to become the

          California Current.

               The California Current flows southward along the coast during

          the spring and summer (Figure 5). The water is clear and cool, of

          low salinity, with a high nutrient and dissolved oxygen content.

          Water temperatures at the surface range between 520F (110C) and

          55*F (130C). As the current flows southward, it is deflected

          offshore by a combination of the earth's rotation, the prevailing

          northwest winds, and encounters with the coast and Monterey

          submarine canyon. As the surface waters are moved offshore they

          are replaced with the cold, nutrient-rich waters from below. This


                                            32









                                                -,Point Ano Nuevo                    Point Ano Nuevo
             4 Point Ano Nuevo

                                                         Santa Cruz
                        Santa Cruz                                                           Santa Cruz




                                                          %6)


                                                0
                          Monterey                          Monterey                          M'o*nterey
             0                                    -)3
                                                  53

                0
                                                             Big Sur                            Big Sur
                         '4 Big Sur

                   C)








                                                                                                              Point
                                                                                                              Piedras
                                           Point Piedras                   Point Piedras
                                                                                                              Blancas
                                                Blancas                         Blancas
                                                               B

                           Direction of Flow                                  Area of Major Upwelling


            Figure 5. Surface Ocean Currents in the Monterey Bay Vicinity: (A) Spring to Late Summer,
                        California Current, Upwelling; (B) Late Fall Through Winter, Davidson Current; (C)
                        Late Summer to Early Fall, Oceanic Period (Modified from Association of Monterey
                        Bay Area Governments, 1978).









         process of upwelling introduces the nitrates, phosphates, and

         silicates that are essential for high phytoplankton production in

         the surface waters, which in turn is responsible for the highly

         productive waters of Monterey Bay. This period of upwelling occurs

         almost continuously between March and October.

              There is a short period of time after upwelling stops where

         the California Current is still the dominant current pattern but

         water conditions change slightly. This so-called oceanic period

         (Figure 5) is marked by the absence of upwelling and a warming of

         the surface water temperature to more than 550F (130C).

              The currents off the coast of California are variable in space

         and time with strong onshore-offshore directed jets and filaments.

         These highly transient coastal jets have typical surface currents

         of 50 cm/sec (Robert Haney, pers. comm., 1989). Large eddies, some

         as large as 60 miles (96 km) in diameter, are ableto transport

         seawater transverse to the mean flow, i.e., normal to the coast (J.

         B. Wickham, pers. comm., 1989). A large area of upwelling, about

         60 miles (96 km) in diameter, lies 60 miles (96 km-) south of.Point

         Sur. Filaments of cold water may be carried more than 100 miles

         (160 km) from this area (Breaker and Mooers, 1986).

              Between November and February when the prevailing northwest

         winds have ceased, the California Current moves offshore and is

         replaced by the northward flowing Davidson Current (Figure 5).

         This current contains relatively warm water and is driven northward

         by winds from the southwest (Gross, 1972). It normally is found at

         depths of over 200 m running counter to the California Current.


                                          34










       Once it rises to the surface, it forms a wedge between the

       California current and the coast. Its rate of flow is less than

       one knot. Upwelling stops during this period but returns in March

       with the return of the California Current. Below depths of about

       150 m, the Davidson Current is termed the California Undercurrent

       and is present most of the year.

            The circulation of Monterey Bay is weak and variable and

       strongly influenced by offshore currents which are dominated by

       eddies and offshore jets. Current meter observations show surface

       circulation to be northward about two-thirds of the time; however,

       major reversals in flow direction may occur for weeks at a time

       (Breaker and Broenkow, 1989). Non-tidal current speeds average

       about 5 to 10 cm/sec. A clockwise eddy in the southern Bay has

       recently been confirmed. The deep circulation in Monterey Canyon

       is frequently towards the shore.

            Many processes affect the circulation in the bay, including

       winds, upwelling, the submarine canyon, bottom friction, tides,

       local heating, river discharge, eddies, mixing, offshore

       circulation, oceanic fronts, spring transition events, and El Nino

       episodes.

            Wind-driven, coastal upwelling occurs north and south of

       Monterey Bay. These upwelled waters may be advected into the bay.

       offshore upwelling apparently occurs occasionally across the

       entrance of the bay. The onshore current flow in the submarine

       canyon is consistent with bathymetrically induced upwelling. These

       complex currents and canyon related upwellings provide the


                                        35









         nutrient-rich waters which contribute to the unique qualities of

         the proposed Sanctuary.

              (d) Water Quality

              The water quality in the central California region is known to

         be'very good (MMS, 1987). The periodic upwelling and extensive,

         year-round mixing with the open ocean result in well-buffered,

         highly productive and well-oxygenated offshore waters. However, a

         few specific areas within Monterey Bay have shown DDT

         concentrations above detectable levels. The California Department

         of Health and Human Services (DHS) is sampling the Bay's fish

         population for any toxins including pesticides and the State Mussel

         Watch Program is collecting data that show certain non-point and

         point source coastal discharges are degrading water quality in

         specific areas. Until further information is available and

         analyzed the California Regional Water Quality Control Board

         (CRWQCB), Central Coast Region, has determined in its Draft Water

         Quality Control Plan (1989) that it can only classify Monterey Bay

         as a Potential Water Quality Limited Segment.

              current monitoring progams by the State and studies required

         by dischargers for NPDES permits, as well as periodic conferences

         such as the State of the Bay, may help supply the necessary

         information to assist a decision on the classification of water

         quality in the Monterey Bay area.

              (e) Habitat Types

              The Monterey Bay area is located in the Oregonian province

         subdivision of the Eastern Pacific Boreal Region. This province is


                                         36









       characterized by a rich cold-temperate flora and fauna (Briggs,

       1979). The Monterey Bay area, however, is home to a number of warm

       water invertebrate species characteristic of the California

       province to the south. This overlap and co-occurrence of warm and

       cold water species contributes to the diversity of the living

       natural resources in the Monterey Bay area.

            Habitats can be characterized by their water depth, distance

       from shore, and the type of substrate. The habitats in the

       Monterey Bay area are unusual because of the many diverse types

       that are found together in a relatively confined area (Figure 6).

       The five types of habitats found in the bay area are: 1) submarine

       canyon habitat, 2) nearshore sublittoral habitat, 3) rocky

       intertidal habitat, 4) sandy beach intertidal habitat, and 5) kelp

       forest habitat.




            Submarine Canyon Habitat - This habitat is found over the

       canyon beyond the continental shelf in waters over 200 m deep. The

       waters of the bay support oceanic species of fish, birds, and

       marine mammals. Upwelling from the canyon supports most of the

       primary productivity for the entire bay. The canyon edge serves as

       a feeding area for endangered blue and fin whales, Pacific white-

       sided dolphins, northern right whale dolphins, Risso's dolphins,

       Dall's porpoise, and possibly the blue shark. Meso- and

       bathypelagic fishes include the lanternfish (Myctophidae),

       sablefish, deepsea sole, and Pacific rattail. Fish, as well as




                                       37














                  1230                   40'                     20'                  1220                      40'                    20'
                                            'San Greg6rip        I Pescadero Creek
                                                         53 Pescadero Point

                                               Pigeon Poin
                                                                    3
                  -(-F                           Pt. Ano  Nue                                   Soquel Creek
                                            100 1@1  2                   5       Santa
             370                                              Davenpor                                                                    370

                                            500            1
                                                                                                4               Pajaro
                                                                               2                                River

                                                                                 60                             Elkhorn
                                                1,000                                          CD
                                                                                                e-              Slough
                                                                              0
                                                                                                          Moss
                                                                     11ho                                 Landing
                                                                                             2      4
              40,                                            000                              &                                      - 40'

                                                                                              Monterey
                                                                                              Carmel


                                                                                              Point
                                                                                  a           Lobos
                                                                                                             Carmel
                                                                                                             River

                                                                                                 5

              20'-- HABITAT TYPES                                                                    Little Sur River                     20'
                                                                                      Point'Su    3
                         i Submarine Canyon                                                2            Big Sur River
                         2 Nearshore Sublittoral
                         3 Rocky Intertidal                                                   A 1
                         4 Sandy Beach In                                                -\,Partington Point
                                                                                                                    Big
                                                                                                                00 Creek
                         5 Kelp Forest        tertidal
                                                        00
                                                                                                         Lopez Point
            360                                                                                                                          360


                         0     5
                         62&j!g Nautical Miles
                         0    5                                                                             Cape San Martin
                         61WN Statute miles
                                                                                                            C,


                          Depths in Fathoms

                                                                                                                        Ragged Point
                                                                      0-0                                  )    I          L
                 1230                    40'                    20'                   1220                      40'                   20'
                 Figure 6. Types of Habitat within Monterey Bay Area (NOAA, 1982).









       euphausiid crustaceans (krill) and other organisms, compose a "deep

       scattering layer" that undergoes vertical migrations to the surface

       waters. The benthic community of the canyon is virtually unstudied

       except for an occasional grab or trawl taken by Moss Landing Marine

       Laboratories. Recent video transects of the canyon down to 400-

       500 m by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute do, however,

       indicate a considerable diversity of organisms. Sponges,

       gorgonians, starfish, brittle stars, crinoids, and sea urchins

       appear to be the dominant large invertebrates (James Nybakken,

       pers. comm.,1989).

            A team of USGS and NOAA workers using the submersible ALVIN

       discovered numerous biological communities nourished by seepages of

       sulfide and methane-rich fluids from the fan or valley-floor

       sediments. These deep-sea communities are significant as they not

       only increase our understanding of the fluid-dynamics of large deep

       sea sediment fans but also provide basic knowledge of abyssal

       communities that include species also found in hot hydrothermal

       vents at spreading centers (EEZ News, October, 1989).



            Nearshore Sublittoral Habitat - This habitat is found in the

       nearshore waters of the continental shelf in depths from just

       beyond the surf to 200 m depth. The food chain is based on

       planktonic productivity supported by upwelling of nutrient-rich

       waters from the Monterey Canyon. Pelagic organisms found in this

       habitat include phytoplankton and zooplankton, squid and octopus,

       and most of the important commercial fish (salmon, albacore,


                                        39









         mackerel, and anchovy). Marine birds and California sea lions feed

         throughout the habitat. Shallow nearshore inhabitants include

         Harbor porpoise and Minke whales.

              The nearshore benthic habitat is characterized by a soft

         bottom composed of unconsolidated sand and mud sediments. This is

         the most extensive bottom habitat in Monterey Bay. Two major

         groups of invertebrates are found in this habitat: 1) the infauna,

         which live buried within the sediment, comprise about 90 percent of

         all the bottom-dwelling organisms; and, 2) the epifauna, which live

         on or crawl or move over the bottom. Both groups are patchily

         distributed. Many benthic organisms have a pelagic phase in their

         life histories (Nybakken, 1982).

              The subtidal invertebrate fauna of the shallow offshore waters

         are found in a far greater number of species than are the

         intertidal fauna. For example, the sandy intertidal habitat has

         only 29 species and/or genera, the subtidal habitat includes more

         than 400 species and/or genera. However, less is known about these

         subtidal species than is known about the intertidal species (James

         Nybakken, pers. comm., 1989).

              The dominant invertebrate groups in the shallow subtidal

         waters are polychaetes, molluscs, and crustaceans. Crustaceans are

         dominant in shallow areas; polychaetes are dominant in deeper

         waters.




         o    Rocky Intertidal Habitat - This habitat is found on rocky

         substrate between the lowest tidal level and the highest tidal


                                          40










                                        I


       level. Organisms living in this area must be able to withstand

       periodic desiccation, high temperature and light, low salinities,

       and strong wave action (Nybakken, 1982). Variation in the degree

       of exposure to these environmental factors can create marked

       zonation patterns within this habitat (Foster et al., 1988).

       Marine plants are primarily red, brown, and green algae. The

       invertebrates include mostly sessile species such as mussels,

       barnacles, and anemones. Mobile grazers and predators include

       crabs, amphipods, littorine snails, limpets, sea stars, and sea

       urchins. Tidepool fish include the striped surfperch, tidepool

       sculpin, tidepool snailfish, and cabezon.

            Rocky intertidal habitats are probably the most well studied

       of all habitats in and adjacent to Monterey Bay. These habitats

       are not uniform within the bay, but vary in composition within

       short distances.




       0
            Sandy Beach Intertidal Habitat - Sandy beaches are the

       dominant intertidal habitat in Monterey Bay. The environmental

       conditions that exist in this habitat between high and low water

       require almost all organisms to bury themselves in the sand. This

       is a very dynamic habitat with constantly shifting sands caused by

       wave action and the longshore transport of sand. The overall

       productivity of this habitat is lower than that for rocky

       intertidal habitats (Nybakken, 1982).

            Benthic diatoms are the only marine algae that may be present.

       Oakden and Nybakken (1977) found 29 genera or species of animals in


                                        41









         transects taken over the course of a year. Polychaete worms,

         bivalve molluscs, and crustaceans were the predominant

         invertebrates found. Sand dollars and gastropod molluscs are also

         found here (Wilson, 1986). The only fish that are common are those

         that use sandy beaches for spawning, e.g., the surf smelt.



              Kelp Forest Habitat - Kelp is one of an order of large brown

         algae. It attaches to rocky substrate and grows in water depths

         from about 2 m to 20 m. The floating portions of these plants form

         dense canopies on the sea surface. Kelp forests provide critical

         habitat for encrusting animals such as sponges, bryozoans, and

         tunicates, as well as for juvenile fish, molluscs such as abalone,

         algae, and for other invertebrates. Fish associated with kelp beds

         include greenling, lingcod, bocaccio, and many species of

         surfperches and rockfish. Gray whales have been reported to feed

         near kelp forests and to seek refuge in them from predatory killer

         whales (Baldridge, 1972). Kelp also provides a food resource for

         fish, and for grazing and detritus-feeding invertebrates, such as

         isopods and sea urchins. Predators, such as sea stars and sea

         otters, are also active there.

              Kelp detached and transported during storms provides a source

         of food for other local habitats. Sandy beach fauna utilize the

         kelp washed up on the beach. Kelp material that sinks may provide

         a source of energy for deep water benthic organisms. Fish,

         particularly juvenile rockfish, utilize the habitat provided by

         rafts of drifting kelp (Foster and Schiel, 1985).


                                          42









            Sea otters and harbor seals are commonly associated with kelp

       forests in this area, and otter biology and the effects of sea

       otters on kelp communities have been the subject of numerous

       completed (reviewed in Van Blaricom and Estes, 1988) and continuing

       studies. The exact effect that sea otters have on the community

       structure of the Monterey Bay kelp forests remains unclear. Sea

       otters are known to prey on sea urchins. Sea urchins are known

       grazers on kelp. Comparisons of kelp forests with and without sea

       otters have shown that sea otter predation on sea urchins has a

       beneficial effect on the distribution and growth rates of kelp.

       Sea otters have been described as "keystone species" which play a

       major role in determining community structure (Estes and Palmisano,

       1974). However, because other factors also affect kelp

       distribution and abundance, this role of sea otters is not totally

       accepted (Foster and Schiel, 1985). Kelp does appear to be

       increasing in distribution in areas where sea otters live (Reidman,

       1986).




       2. Natural Resources

            Monterey Bay supports a wide array of temperate cold-water

       species, with occasional influxes of warm-water species. This

       species diversity is directly related to the diversity of habitats

       described above. The living natural resources which will be

       protected by Sanctuary designation are the plankton, algae,

       invertebrates, fish, seabirds, and marine mammals.




                                        43










              (a) Plankton

              Plankton species present in the Monterey Bay area are

         primarily characteristic of the cold-water California region, but

         also include a few warm-water species (Holton et al., 1977; Riznyk,

         1977; Garrison, 1979). Upwelling from the canyon carries some deep

         water species close to shore.

             Diatoms are the primary component of the phytoplankton. The

         spring to late summer period of upwelling with its nutrient-rich

         waters causes a seasonal variation in the standing stock of

         phytoplankton. The highest primary productivity is associated with

         the upwelling period; the lowest during late fall through winter

         when the warmer Davidson Current predominates and upwelling ceases.

         Dinoflagellate blooms occur in the fall in the warmer waters.

         Satellite imagery indicates that phytoplankton concentrations are

         frequently higher in the northern regions of the bay, with low

         phytoplankton waters entering the bay from the south around Point

         Pinos (Hauschildt, 1985).

             Unlike phytoplankton, which are limited to the euphotic zone

         (approximately the upper 100 m), zooplankton occur at all depths

         and are able to migrate vertically up to several hundred meters.

         The phytoplankton are fed upon by a variety of zooplankton such as

         ciliates, copepods, euphausiids, and pelagic tunicates.

         Zooplankton are in turn an important food source for fish and other

         organisms. Dense concentrations of euphausiids occur in the

         surface waters and in deeper layers from 100 to 400 m from April to

         November (Barham, 1956; Schoenherr, 1988). These swarms serve as


                                         44









       food for a variety of adult fishes, whales and sea birds (Harvey,

       1979; Schoenherr, 1988), and for juvenile fishes which prey on

       euphausiid eggs and larvae (NOAA Rockfish Recruitment Cruise

       Reports, 1986-1988). Dense swarms of gelatinous pelagic tunicates

       also occur periodically from early spring to mid-fall (Barham,

       1956).

            (b) Algae

           Large marine algae, or seaweeds, are diverse and abundant in

       the Monterey Bay area (Table 1). The extent of this diversity is

       shown by the presence of over 450 of the 669 species of algae

       described for California (Abbott and Hollenberg, 1976). The area

       has the largest marine flora of the temperate northern hemisphere,

       with numerous endemic species and the only population of one large

       understory kelp (Eisenia arborea) between southern California and

       Canada. It has been suggested that Monterey Bay may represent a

       biogeographic boundary for the distribution of algae; this,

       however, may be because the bay area has been studied more

       intensively than others (reviewed in Foster et al., 1988).

            The seaweeds of the Monterey Bay area are composed of three

       main phyla: red algae (Rhodophyta: 69 percent of all species),

       brown algae (Phaeophyta: 20 percent), and green algae (Chlorophyta:

       10 percent). They occur primarily in areas of rocky substrate and

       only rarely in water deeper than 40 m (Abbott and Hollenberg,

       1976). The most extensive algal communities are dominated by

       forests of giant kelp (Macrocysti pyrifera) and bull kelp

       (Nereocystis leutkeana). Bull kelp rejuvenates itself annually;


                                        45










           Table 1.        Representative Algae Associated with the Diverse
                           Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area.

                           Representative                            Common
           Habitat              Algae           Classification         Name

           Submarine       phytoplankton        Chaetoceros spp.     diatoms
           Canyon          phytoplankton        Ceratium spp-    dinoflagellates


           Nearshore     No suitable substrate
           Sublittoral



           Sandy           phytoplankton                             diatoms
           Intertidal



           Kelp            Kelp            Macrocystis Pyrifera      giant kelp
           Beds            Kelp            Nereocystis leutkeana     bull kelp
                      fucalean algae       Cystoseira


           Rocky           red algae            Endocladia spp.
           Intertidal      brown algae          Fucus spp.           rockweed
                           green algae          Ulva spp.            sea lettuce









       giant kelp is generally perennial, growing all year. The Santa

       Cruz County coast between Terrace Point and Point Afio Nuevo has

       changed from almost total dominance of giant kelp in 1911 to an

       increase in the number of bull kelp stands (Yellin et al., 1977).

       Although sea otters may produce further changes, the primary

       factors affecting these kelp forests appear to be storms and

       substrate composition (reviewed in Foster and Schiel, 1985).

            (c) Invertebrates

            The Monterey Bay area has one of the most diverse and species-

       rich invertebrate faunas of any marine area of similar size in the

       entire world (James Nybakken, pers. comm., 1989). This diversity

       can be illustrated by the following facts: 1) Of the 33 or so

       invertebrate phyla, the only ones that have not been collected in

       Monterey Bay are Loricfera and Pogonophora; 2) For some groups

       (e.g., shallow water starfish), Monterey Bay may well be the

       richest area in the world; 3) There may be more species of molluscs

       in Monterey Bay than in any other locality outside of tropical or

       semi-tropical areas (Smith and Gordon, 1948, in J. Nybakken, pers.

       comm.). Those researchers listed 725 species of molluscs from the.

       Monterey Bay alone. For limpets and chitons, the bay region is the

       richest and most diverse in the world (David Lindberg, pers. comm.,

       1989); 4) Monterey Bay is a faunal break on the Pacific Coast for

       molluscs (Valentine, 1966). The bay is the northern limit of the

       range for many southern species and the southern limit of the range

       for many northern species; 5) Monterey Bay has a relative abundance

       of some species which are uncommon or rare where they occur. This


                                        47









         includes the strange animal named Poeobius, which has been

         considered a missing link between the annelids and the sipunculans.

         Also, the cnidarian Tetraplatia, which is rare in the world's

         oceans, has been taken in abundance in Monterey Bay.

              The distribution, species composition, and abundance of the

         invertebrate fauna in Monterey Bay are determined by many factors.

         The submarine geology and the types of rocky substrate or

         unconsolidated sediments, the submarine canyon and associated

         upwelling, the offshore currents and circulation patterns, the kelp

         forests, and the presence of mammal predators all influence the

         niches occupied by the various species (Table 2). The rocky

         intertidal habitat supports the widest array of invertebrate

         species (Ricketts et al., 1985; Smith and Carlson, 1975; Morris et

         al., 1980). Characteristic species include the

         periwinkles,isopods, barnacles, limpets, sea snails, crabs,

         chitons, mussels, sea stars, and anemones. Research into the

         recruitment patterns of crabs and crab bed locations in northern

         Monterey Bay gives an example of how the distribution of a species

         can be influenced by local circulation patterns. Temporal tracking

         of several species of crabs, including the commercially important

         Dungeness crab, indicates that they are not produced locally but

         are advected into local waters by the southerly flowing California

         Current (Monty Graham, pers. comm., 1989).

              Invertebrates found in the sandy beach intertidal habitat are

         dominated by numerous species of polychaete worms, crustaceans, and

         molluscs. Nearshore benthic invertebrates include polychaetes and


                                          48











        Table 2. Representative Invertebrates Associated with the Diverse
                  Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area (J. Nybakken, pers.
                  comm., 1989).


                        Representative                      Common
        Habitat         Invertebrates   Classification      Name
        Submarine       hexactinellid   Porifera            glass sponge
        Canyon          gorgonians      Cnidaria            soft coral
                        euphausiids     EuRhausia Pacifica  krill
                        bivalve         Calyptogena         clam
                        crinoids        Echinodermata       sea lily

        Nearshore       polychaetes     Aricidea sp.        bristle-worms

        sublittoral     bivalves        Macoma sp.          burrowing clam
                        snails          Olivella biplicate  olive snail
                        crabs           Blepharipoda        spiny sand crab
                                          occidentalis
                        mysids          Acanthomysis davisi opossum shrimp
                        tunicates       Doliolum tritonis   salps

        Sandy           bivalves        Tivela stultorum    pismo clam
        Intertidal      crabs           Emerita analoga     mole crab
                        amphipods       Orchestoidea spp.   sand hoppers
                        sea urchins     Dendraster          sand dollar
                                          excentricus
                        snails          Olivella            olive snail
                                          columellaris

        Kelp            gastropods      Haliotidae          abalone
        Beds            bryozoans       Membranipora        encrusting
                                                              bryozoan
                        tunicates       Ascidiacea          sea squirt
                        gastropods      Acmaea spp.         limpet
                        sea urchins     Stronqvlocentrotus  purple sea
                                          P_U_rPuratus        urchin
                        gastropods      Tegula              turban snails

        Rocky           sea snails      Littorina spp.      periwinkles
        intertidal      sea stars       Asteroidea spp.     starfish
                        barnacles       Balanus spp.        acorn barnacles
                        bivalves        Mytilus spp.        mussels
                        sea anemones    Anthopleura         aggregate sea
                                          elegantissima       anemone
                        sea snails      Tegula funebralis   Black Turban
                                                              snail









         other worms; molluscs such as snails and bivalves; ostracods,

         amphipods, isopods, and other crustaceans; and starfish.

              Squid, octopus, jellyfish, salps, heteropods, and euphausiids

         are some of the macro-invertebrates found in the pelagic

         environment. Numerous larval invertebrates are also found there

         during their planktonic stages of development.

              Invertebrates found in deep water and the canyon include

         various species of hexactinellid sponges and gorgonians (soft

         corals). Nybakken (pers. comm., 1989) has collected specimens of

         the clam Calyptogena, which is the same genus as the giant clams of

         the thermal vent areas of the Galapagos.

              Invertebrate species harvested by commercial and recreational

         fishermen include squid, spot prawn, Dungeness crab, abalone, and

         pismo clam.

              (d) Fishes

              The diversity and abundance of the fish fauna in the Monterey

         Bay area is a significant resource. Generally, the area exhibits

         the very rich cold-temperate fish fauna of the Oregonian province

         (Briggs, 1979). The same environmental factors that determine the

         distribution, abundance, and species composition of the other

         living resources of the area also affect the fish communities. In

         addition to the presence of the submarine canyon and the upwelling

         of nutrients, kelp beds provide shelter and food for juvenile and

         adult fish, while offshore rocky reefs are prime feeding and

         spawning areas for many species of fish.

              The diverse habitats of the area each have their own



                                          50









       characteristic assemblage of fish (Table 3). Although the fish

       fauna of Monterey Bay are relatively well known (Kukowski, 1972;

       Cailliet et al., 1977, in Anderson et al., 1979), fish in the

       submarine canyon are characterized by a variety of little known

       meso-and bathypelagic species. Because the canyon allows deep-

       living species to come close to shore, many uncommon deep-sea

       fishes have been taken in Monterey Bay. Anderson et al., (1979)

       reports 110 species of deep-living fishes belonging to 41 families

       were captured in the bay by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories or by

       fishermen. Several of these species were previously unrecorded in

       the area, while others were extremely rare or far beyond their

       normal range. The persimmon eelpout (Maynea californica) was once

       thought to be an extremely rare species. It has recently been

       found to be abundant in the Monterey Canyon in association with its

       own unique bottom drifting seaweed habitat (Cailliet and Lea,

       1977). A rare, deep-water North Pacific frostfish (Benthodesmus

       elongatus pacificus), a species unknown in California, was caught

       in Monterey Bay in 1968 (Anderson and Cailliet, 1975). A rare

       prowfish (Zaprora silenus) was caught on the north shelf of the

       submarine canyon in 1973 (Cailliet and Anderson, 1975). The

       commercially important sablefish spawns in the deep waters of the

       canyon but lives in relatively shallow waters as juveniles

       (Cailliet and Osada, 1988).

           Fish of the nearshore subtidal habitats exhibit the greatest

       diversity. This habitat includes many commercially important fish

       such as the pelagic schooling species (northern anchovy, Pacific


                                       51










            Table 3. Representative Fishes Associated with the Diverse
                      Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area (G. Cailliet, pers.
                      comm., 1989).


            Habitat        Common Name          Genus/Species

            Submarine      deep-sea sole        EmbassichthVs bathybius
              Canyon       sablefish            Anoplopoma fimbria
                           persimmon eelpout    Maynea californica
                           Pacific hake         Merluccius productus
                           spiny dogfish        Scrualus acanthias

            Nearshore      Pacific sardine      Sardinops caeruleus
              Sublittoral  jack mackerel        Trachurus symmetricus
                           California halibut   Paralichthys californicus
                           Northern anchovy     Engraulis mordax
                           bocaccio             Sebastes paucispinis

            Sandy          white surfperch      Phanerodon furcatus
              Intertidal   topsmelt             Atherinops affinis
                           starry flounder      Platichthys stellatus
                           speckled sanddab     Citharichthvs--stigmaeus
                           Pacific sandlance    Ammodytes hexapterus


            Kelp Beds      rockfishes           Sebastes spp.
                           kelp greenling       Hexagrammos decagrammus
                           painted greenling    Oxylebius pictus
                           lingcod              Ophiodon elongatus

            Rocky          tidepool snailfish   Liparis florae
              Intertidal   tidepool sculpin     Oligocottus maculosus
                           monkey-face eel      Cebidichthys violaceus
                           rockweed gunnel      Xererpes fucorum
                           blackeye goby        Coryphopterus nicholsii









       herring, jack mackerel, sardine), the large predators (king salmon,

       sablefish, sharks), and some demersal species (English and petrale

       sole). Many important species of rockfish are found over rocky

       reefs. Monterey Bay was the southern extent of spawning for the

       king (chinook) salmon, although they do not presently spawn in any

       of the Bay's streams.

            Sandy intertidal areas are used by small pelagic species

       (grunion and smelt) that use the beaches of the inner bay for

       spawning. Other species that forage near sand flats include the

       surf perch, striped bass, jack smelt, sand sole, sanddab, and

       starry flounder.

            Most of the finfish found in shallow rocky reefs are also

       common in kelp beds. The kelp canopy, stipes, and holdfasts

       increase the available habitat for pelagic and demersal species and

       offer protection to juvenile finfish. Greenling, lingcod, and

       numerous species of rockfish are the dominant fishes. The rocky

       intertidal habitat is characterized by a rather small and

       specialized group of fish adapted for life in tide pools and wash

       areas. The most representative species are the monkey-face eel,

       rock eel, dwarf surfperch, juvenile cabezon, sculpins, and blennies

       (California Department of Fish and Game, 1979).

            Sardines were the basis for an extensive fishery in the

       19301s. Overfishing caused stocks of the Pacific sardine to

       decrease until the fishery collapsed.

            (e) Seabirds

            The Monterey Bay area historically has been recognized as a


                                        53









         uniquely important-region of seabird occurrence (Loomis 1895, 1896;

         Beck 1910). Several environmental features are responsible for the

         diverse assemblage of birds in the area:

              the bay is located on the Pacific Flyway, allowing the birds a
              place to stopover during both north and south migrations
              between southern wintering grounds and northern breeding
              sites.

              the upwelling of nutrient-rich waters over the submarine
              canyon support highly productive food webs which provide
              abundant seabird prey.

              plumes of upwelling in the outer shelf regions also act to
              concentrate prey near the surface in "fronts" at the plume
              edges (Briggs et al., 1983a, 1984, 1987a, b; Briggs and Chu,
              1986, 1987).

              the availability of food in a bay protected on three sides
              allows birds that normally feed far offshore to seek shelter
              during storms.

         0    the diversity of habitat types along the shore increases the
              variety of bird species which utilize the bay area.

              Ninety-four seabird species are known to occur in the Monterey

         Bay region, of which about thirty species predominate in their

         preferred seasons and habitats (Briggs and Chu, 1987). Table 4

         lists some important seabirds and their.seasonal status. Thirteen

         species are resident breeders or former breeders within the region.

         Common breeding species include Brandt's cormorants, western gulls,

         pigeon guillemots, and common murres (Dohl, 1983). The location of

         important seabird colonies are shown in Figure 7.

              The majority of seabirds occur here as non-breeding

         residents/visitors and spring/autumn migrants. The area is

         important habitat for visiting autumn and winter populations of

         ashy storm-petrels, California brown pelicans, sooty and short-!-

         tailed shear-waters, western grebes, common murres, marbled

                                           54










        Table 4. Representative Seabirds and their Seasonal Status in the
                  Monterey Bay Area (from Briggs, et al., 1983).

        Breeding Species


        Double-crested cormorant            Forster's tern
        Brandt's cormorant                  Common murre
        Pelagic cormorant                   Pigeon guillemot
        Western gull                        Marbled murrelet
        Caspian tern                        Rhinoceros auklet
        Tufted puffin                       Brown pelican (until 1959)
        Snowy Plovers

        Winter resident/visitors


        Common loon                         Black scoter
        Arctic loon                         Surf scoter
        Western grebe                       Harlequin duck
        Red-necked grebe                    Herring gull
        Laysan albatross                    Glaucous gull
        Northern fulmar                     Black-legged kittiwake


        Spring/autumn migrants

        Flesh-footed shearwater             Long-tailed jaeger
        Mottled petrel                      South Polar skua
        Brant                               Laughing gull
        Red phalarope                       Sabine's gull
        Horned puffin                       Arctic tern
        Pomarine jaeger                     Common tern


        Summer/autumn (nonbreeding) residents/visitors

        Buller's shearwater                 Black storm-petrel
        Biack-footed albatross              Royal tern
        Pink-footed shearwater              Elegant tern
        Sooty shearwater                    Xantus' murrelet
        Black-vented shearwater             Ashy storm-petrel

        Rarities

        Yellow-billed loon                  Brown booby
        Short-tailed albatross              King eider
        Cape petrel                         Black tern
        Greater shearwater                  Thick-billed murre
        Least storm-petrel                  Black skimmer
        Red-billed tropicbird               Little gull














                    1230                      40'                    20'                    1220                      40'                     20'
                                                 '-San Gregorio       I Pescadero Creek

                                                                  escadero P   oint
                                                    110

                                                  Pi geon Point
                                                 Ano Nuevo Island                                     Soquel Creek
                                                 100
                 370                                               Davenport          Santa                                                      370

                                                 500
                                                                                                                      Pajaro
                                                                                                     0                River
                                                                                      SO             12@              Elkhorn
                                                    1,00                                             CD
                                                                                                                      Slough
                                                                                                                Moss
                                                                          15.1                                 Landing
                                                                          00

                         Ano Nuevo Island
                  40'             Santa Cruz                                                                                                     40'
                            Elkhorn Sloug                                                            Monterey
                              Cypress Poin                                                           Carmel
                                        Carme
                                 Point Lobos                                                         Point
                                                                                                     Lobos
                               Lobos Rocks                                                                         Carmel
                                Castle Rock                                                                        River
                                    Point Sur
                  20'           Pfeiffer Point                                                             Little Sur River                      20'
                            Partington Point                                            Point Sur
                                                                                                              Big Sur River


                                                                                              -^,,Partington Poin         Big
                                                                          000                                            Creek
                                                            SOO,                                            du
                                                                                                             0j) /)
                                                                                                               Lopez Point
                360                                                                                                                              360


                            0      5
                            6&M Nautical Miles
                            0     5                                                                               Cape San Martin
                            615N Statute Miles

                                                                       0
                              Depths in Fathoms                       110                                        U,
                                                                                                                                    0

                                                                            0                                                  Ragged Point
                    1230                      40'                    20'                    1220                      40'                      20'
                                                                                                     0int
                                                  O@NPoin                                            obos
                                                                                                                  C,              @tin
                                                                                                                                   ged@Point


                    Figure 7. Location of Important Seabird Nesting Areas (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981; in
                                   NOAA, 1982).









       murrelets, Cassin's and rhinoceros auklets, surf scoters, and

       several species of gulls. Spring and fall migrant species include

       phalaropes, Pacific loons, common and arctic terns, and pomarine

       and parasitic jaegers. Four species of endangered birds are found

       in the area: the short-tailed albatross, the California brown

       pelican, the American peregrine falcon, and the California least

       tern. One species, the western snowy plover, is a candidate

       species for being listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S.

       Department of the Interior. The California brown pelican nested at

       Point Lobos until 1959 (Baldridge, 1974). The brown pelican now

       breeds during the summer in southern waters and migrate into the

       area in large numbers in September and October. They currently

       roost on Afio Nuevo Island, Elkhorn Slough, and Point Lobos. The

       California least tern nested at Moss Landing early in the century.

       In 1973, the coast south of San Francisco contained only 20

       colonies with a total of fewer than 700 pairs (Udvardy, 1977).

       Peregrine falcons feed along the shores of the bay, especially

       around Point Lobos and Elkhorn Slough. Five nests have been

       identified in Big Sur (Roberson, 1985).

            Ashy storm-petrel populations currently number less than

       10,000 birds. About 85% of them breed on the Farallon Islands.

       Almost all of them come to Monterey Bay to feed over the submarine

       canyon during the summer and fall (Roberson, 1985).

            Additional facts about several species further indicate the

       importance of the Monterey Bay area to seabirds. The southernmost

       relic population of the severely threatened marbled murrelet


                                        57









         occupies several isolated sites in the Santa Cruz Mountains. Aho

         Nuevo Island was recently colonized by rhinoceros auklets (their

         southernmost confirmed nesting site) and contains the largest

         colony of western gulls in the region (Lewis and Tyler, 1987). The

         seacliffs of Santa Cruz and Monterey counties support more nesting

         pigeon guillemots than the Farallon Islands, which has the largest

         single colony in California.

              During spring migration, large numbers of shorebirds gather on

         the beaches. Common migrant shorebirds include sandpipers,

         turnstones, plovers, sanderlings, willets, and godwits. Many of

         these species also winter in the area in large numbers. Elkhorn

         Slough seasonally harbors over 30,000 shorebirds during migrations

         (Stenzel et al., MS). Nearly a fifth of California's breeding

         population of snowy plovers nest on the beaches in the area and

         this species is especially common in the vicinity of Pescadero

         Marsh. In addition to being a candidate species for the endangered

         or threatened list, the plover is also a Species of Special Concern

         in California (Remsen, 1978).

              Sea ducks and geese use the coves along the bay for staging

         during spring migration. Afio Nuevo Bay is an important wintering

         site for Harlequin ducks (a species of Special Concern) and brant.

              (f) Marine Mammals

              Twenty-six species of marine mammals have been observed in the

         Monterey Bay area, including five species-of pinnipeds (seals and

         sea lions), one fissiped (the sea otter), and twenty species of

         cetaceans (whales and dolphins) (Table 5). Figure 8 shows the


                                          58










        Table 5. Marine mammals found in the Monterey Bay area. Status
                   abbreviations: SR - seasonal resident, YR - year-round
                   resident, ST - seasonal transient (A. Baldridge, pers.
                   comm., in Heimlich-Boran, 1988)

        Common Name                     Genus/Species                  Status


        PINNIPEDS:


        California sea lion             Zalophus californianus           SR
        Steller sea lion*               Eumatopias lubatus               SR
        Northern elephant seal          mirounga angustirostris          SR
        Northern fur seal               Callorhinus ursinus              ST
        Guadelope fur seal              Arctocephalus townsendi          ST
        Harbor seal                     Phoca vitulina                   YR


        FISSIPED:


        Southern sea otter              Enhydra lutris                   YR


        CETACEANS:

        California  gray whale          Eschrictius robustus             ST
        Blue whale                      Balaenoptera musculus            ST
        Fin whale                       Balaenoptera physalus            ST
        Minke whale                     Balaenoptera acutorostgata       SR
        Humpback whale                  Megaptera novaengliae            ST
        Pacific right whale             Eubalaena glacialis              ST
        Sperm whale **                  Physeter catadon                 ST
        Pygmy sperm whale               Kogia breviceps                  ST
        Baird's beaked whale            Berardius bairdi                 ST
        Cuvier's beaked whale           Ziphius cavirostris              ST
        Short-finned pilot whale        Globicephala macrorhynchus       ST
        Killer whale                    Orcinus orca                     ST
        False killer   whale            Pseudorca crassidens             ST
        Risso's dolphin                 Grampus griseus                  SR
        Pacific white-sided dolphin     Lagenorhynchus obliquidens       SR
        Northern right whale dolphin    Lissodelphis borealis            SR
        Dall's porpoise                 Phocoenoides dalli               SR
        Harbor porpoise                 Phocoena phocoena                SR
        Bottlenose dolphin              Tursiops truncatus               ST
        Common dolphin                  Delphinus delphis                ST

            Endangered    Threatened













                 1230                  40'                 20'                1220                 40'                  20'
                                         San Gregorio        Pescadero Creek                                            T

                                                   St Pescadero Point
                                                    H   St
                                          Pigeon Point
                                                        C
                                             Pt. Ano Nuevo                            Soquel Creek
                                        100             St S       H
                                                                         Santa
             370                        500             Davenport        C. -Z    S                                       370
                                                                       H S@ C                      Pajaro
                                                                                                   River

                                                                        SO                         Elkhorn
                                            1,000                                                  Slough
                                                                       I--   -Z/,            H
                                                                          F                   Moss
                                                                                              Landing
                                                              1100                     U3


             40' - -                                   000                                                                40'
                                                                                /SHCS
                                                                                I
                                                                                t@onterey
                                                                                t   M
                                                                                    carmel


                                                                                    Point
                                                                                 H  Lobos        Carmel
                                                                                                 River
                                                                                  S

                                                                                    H
             20' - -                                                                S     Little Sur River                20'
                       C= California Sea Lion                                   it Sur
                       E= Northern Elephant Seal                                            Big Sur River
                       F= Northern Fur Seal
                       H= Harbor Seal                                                         H,
                       S= Sea Otter                                             --@,Partington Point   Big
                       St= Stellar Sea Lion         \--@'-7,oo                                    \'-'0 Creek
                                                   00                                     110"
                                                                                           L n /)
                                                                                              Lopez Point
            360                                                                                                           360


                       0     5
                       6J!5j!1jj Nautical Miles                                                               E
                       0    5                                                                   Cape San Martin
                              Statute Miles

                        Depths in Fathoms                  IS
                                                               '0-0
                                                            V N                                           Raggeq Point
                1230                  40'                 20'                1220                  40'                 20'
                Figure 8. Principal Sea Otter and Pinniped Areas of Concentration in the Monterey Bay Area
                            (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981; California Departmentof Fish and Game, 1980;
                                                                                                              E
                                                                                                CZ             jn



                                                                                                              g eq Point




                            in NOAA, 1982).









      principal sea otter and pinniped breeding and haulout areas.

           The five species of pinnipeds considered common in the

      Monterey Bay area include California sea lions, Stellar sea lions,

      Northern elephant seals, Northern fur seals, and Pacific harbor

      seals. An additional species, the Guadeloupe fur seal, has been

      reported from records of sick animals stranded on the beach. one

      juvenile male was found along the shore near Fort Ord in April 1977

      (Webber and Roletto, 1987). Aho Nuevo is the most important

      pinniped breeding site in the area and is the most important

      pinniped rookery and resting area in central and northern

      California.

           In any season, California sea lions are the most abundant

      pinniped in the area (Bonnell et al., 1983). They breed farther

      south along the coast in the summer, then migrate northward,

      reaching their greatest numbers in the Monterey Bay area in autumn.

      Sea lions haul out on offshore rocks and islands. The greatest

      numbers occur on Afio Nuevo Island, with the fall population

      reaching more than 7,000 animals. Both the haul-out sites and the

      foraging grounds are essential to the health of the species. other

      popular haul-out sites include the offshore rocks of the outer

      coast between the Monterey Peninsula and Point Sur, and the long

      breakwater of Monterey Harbor.

           Although Afio Nuevo Island has the largest breeding population

      of Stellar (northern) sea lions south of Alaska (Loughlin et al.,

      1984), the numbers of this species have been declining throughout

      their range over the last 30-year period. Due to this rapid


                                       61









         decline in the species NOAA published on 5 April, 1990 an emergency

         rule listing the Stellar sea lion as threatened to be followed by a

         permanent ruling. These sea lions presently breed almost

         exclusively on offshore rocks to the northwest of Aho Nuevo Island.

         The latest aerial survey (in the summer of 1985) showed the

         population to be 1,169 animals, including 328 pups (Bonnell and Le

         Boeuf, unpubl. data). The population declined to a low during the

         1983 ocean temperature anomaly (El Nino), but recovered to pre-El

         Nino levels in 1984 and 1985. NOAA will be developing a "recovery

         plan" for this species with special attention to rookery areas such

         as Aflo Nuevo.

              Northern elephant seals breed in the winter months and then

         disperse to feed in pelagic waters throughout the eastern North

         Pacific. A portion of the population returns to the colony later

         in the year to undergo an annual molt. Peak abundances occur on

         land in the spring when juvenile males and females haulout to molt.

         The largest populations are on Afio Nuevo Island and the adjacent

         mainland point. The breeding population at these locations

         presently numbers about 3,500 animals (Le Boeuf, unpubl. data).

         The spring population on land exceeds 4,000 animals. Estimates

         based on population structure indicate that elephant seals of the

         Afto Nuevo colony account for about 4% of the entire world

         population of this species (M.L. Bonnell, pers. comm., 1989).

              Pacific harbor seals are year-round residents in the area.

         They haul out at dozens of sites along  the coast from Point Sur to

         Aho Nuevo. Peak abundance on land is reached in late spring and


                                          62









       early summer when they haul out to breed, give birth to pups, and

       molt. More than 1,800 animals were counted on land in this area

       during a survey in 1982. This represents more than 11% of the

       entire state population (Bonnell, et al., 1983). A summer of 1986

       census counted 1,364 seals on only 38 of the 72 known haul out

       sites in the area (Hanon, et al., 1987). Favorite haul out sites

       are isolated sandy beaches and rocky reef areas exposed at low

       tide.

           Northern fur seals occur in the open waters over the Monterey

       Canyon in winter and spring. They feed offshore after migrating

       from the Pribilof Islands. The greatest density of animals are

       found well offshore over the continental slope in waters from 100

       to 1,000 fathoms (200 to 2,000 m) depth. Northern fur seals rarely

       haul out on land, although they are occasionally seen on Afio Nuevo

       Island. They have a declining population presently estimated at

       1.2 million animals. This species,has been proposed for

       designation as a depleted species by the NOAA.

            Of the twenty species of cetaceans seen in the Monterey Bay

       area (Table 5), about one-third occur with frequency. Six of the

       whales are listed as endangered species: the blue, fin, humpback,

       gray, right, and sperm.

            Gray whales are seasonal migrants. They travel close to shore

       and are the object of most of the whale watching in the area. They

       pass through the area twice on their yearly migration from Alaska
       to Baja California where they breed and then return. Reilly (1984)

       estimated the 1980 population of gray whales to be 15,0,0.0 animals.


                                         63









              Blue whales have significantly increased in numbers within and

         adjacent to Monterey Bay. Once considered only a summer visitor of

         limited numbers, blue whales have become a major constituent of the

         cetacean fauna from late spring until late autumn or early winter.

         Over 40 animals were counted in one day in Monterey Bay in the

         summer of 1986 (T. Dohl, pers. comm., 1989). Less

         than 2,000 blue whales exist in the eastern north Pacific (Haley,

         1987). They migrate from northern feeding areas to waters off Baja

         California and Central America in the fall.

              Minke whales are one of the largest whales that feed close to

         shore within Monterey Bay. Up to 12 animals are regularly seen in

         the southern bight of the bay and south to Point Sur during summer

         (A. Baldridge, pers. comm., in Heimlich-Boran, 1988).

           . Fin whales have increased in numbers and length of stay in the

         area in recent years. This species utilizes the Monterey, Soquel,

         and Carmel canyons for feeding. They are found in greatest numbers

         at the heads of each of these canyons in depths of 200 m to 2000 m

         (T. Dohl, pers. comm. 1989).*

              Humpback whales are often seen in nearshore waters from 100 m

         to 200 m depth. Although still an endangered species, their

         numbers have increased dramatically throughou't,central California

         beginning in the early 1980's. At first limited to the general

         area of the Farallon basin, they are now found in coastal waters

         from Point Sur to Pillar Point from late-April to mid-December.

              The Pacific Right whale is an extremely endangered species.

         Fewer than 200 individuals may inhabit the entire North Pacific


                                          64









       (Braham and Rice, 1984). Little is known about this species; its

       breeding areas are unknown but presumed to be on their wintering

       grounds in warmer waters. No right whales have been seen in

       Monterey Bay, but they were seen in 1986 and 1987 in the waters off

       of Half Moon Bay, north of Afto Nuevo (Scarff, 1987).

            Sperm whales are occasionally seen offshore at the mouth of

       the Monterey Canyon. Pilot whales, false killer whales, and two

       species of rare beaked whales have also been sighted.

            Killer whales have been seen throughout the bay, occasionally

       attacking gray whales (Baldridge, 1972).

            Two species of porpoise are commonly found in the bay: Dall's

       porpoise and the harbor porpoise. The harbor porpoise is usually

       found over sandy bottoms just off the surf in the north central

       part of the bay. Dall's porpoise is seen frequently along the edge

       of the canyon.

            Pacific white-sided dolphins, northern right whale dolphins,

       and Risso's dolphins are the most numerous cetaceans in the area.

       All three species will often travel together in a school.

            Bottlenose dolphins are found in small numbers (12-18) within

       the bay seemingly on a year-round basis. Common dolphins are found

       all year, sometimes in schools of 400-600 animals. This species is

       normally considered a warm water animal and was once thought to

       extend north only to Point Conception. Both dolphin species have

       increased in numbers in recent years (T. Dohl, pers. comm., 1989).

            The California or southern sea otter is a threatened species

       that is found throughout the shallow waters of Monterey Bay from


                                        65










         Point Pinos to Afio Nuevo Island. Sea otters inhabit a narrow zone

         of coastal waters, normally staying within about one mile from

         shore. They forage in both rocky and soft-sediment communities as

         well as in the kelp understory and canopy. They seldom are found

         in open waters deeper than 30 m, preferring instead the kelp beds

         which serve as vital resting, foraging, and nursery sites. Otters

         are an important part of the marine ecosystem. By foraging on

         kelp-eating macroinvertebrates (especially sea urchins) sea otters

         can, in many instances, influence the abundance and species

         composition of kelp assemblages and animals within nearshore

         communities (Riedman, 1987).

              The California sea otter population is a remnant of the North

         Pacific population that was decimated by the commercial fur trade

         in the 18th and 19th centuries. In 1914, this population in

         California occupied a few miles of the rocky Point Sur coast and

         was estimated to contain about 50 otters. By 1938, when the public

         became aware of these remnant otters, the total California

         population was between 100-300 animals. Between 1938 and 1976 the

         population increased at about 5 percent per year. From 1976 until

         the early 1980's, the population did not grow at allf mainly

         because of the number of otters drowning from entanglement in

         fishing nets. Since state legislation restricted the use of

         entangling nets, spring population counts may be increasing at

         about 8 percent per year (in Saunders, 1989). However, this

         population growth rate is still much lower than the growth rates of

         sea otter populations in the Aleutian Islands. In addition to the


                                          66







                                          1230                            1220                             1210

                    380                       Pt. Reyes                                                                                   380


                                                              San Francisco
                                                                L @
                                                              Half Moon Bay




                                                                  Pescadero Pt.
                                                                   Pigeon Pt.
                                                                    Ano Nuevo Pt.


                    3
                        0                                               Pt Santa Cruz
                      7                                                       Soquel Pt.

                                                                                     Monterey Bay


                                                                                  Monterey
                                                                                Malpaso Cr.
                                                                                 Bixby Cr.

                                                                                  Pt. Sur
                                                                        1938.          Pfeiffer Pt.
                                                                                         Hot Springs (Essien)

                    360                                           U947                                                                    360
                                                                                                 Cape San Martin

                                                             IL1959                                   Pt. Piedras Blancas

                                                                                                            Cambria
                                                        11972                                                    Cayucos Pt.
                                                     1975                                                          Morro Bay
                                                                                                                   Pt. Buchon
                                                1981
                                          11984                                                                           Pismo Beach
                    350                                                                                                  Santa Ma a R.- 35 0






                                                                                                                       Pt. Conception
                                                                                   Mont
                                                                                 Malpas
                                                                                  B,xby

                                                                                  Pt. S
                                                                   ?1938@




                    340                      1                               1                               1                            340
                                          1230                            1220                              1210

                         Figure 9. Rate of Range Expansion (1914-1984) of the California Sea Otter
                                         Population (Reidman, 1986).









         entanglement in fishing nets, other possible factors for the low

         population growth include illegal shooting, white shark attacks,

         pathological disorders, starvation, and adverse weather conditions.

         The most recent census (1988) indicates a total population of fewer

         than 1800 animals (Saunders, 1989). Approximately 31 percent of

         this population is currently found in the area from Point Sur north

         to Afio Nuevo/Pigeon Point. Figure 9 shows the rate of sea otter

         range expansion from 1914 to 1984. A state-designated Sea Otter

         Game Refuge extends from Carmel south to Cambria, encompassing

         about half the otter's established range.



         3.   Cultural and Historical Resources

              Cultural and historical resources are prehistoric and historic

         remains comprising a non-renewable resource base that provides

         anthropologists and historians with information for reconstruction

         of past cultural systems and behaviors (ELM, 1980). The coastal

         lands of central California contain numerous archaeological sites,

         most of which represent Native American resources.

              Recent geologic history has produced a number of geomorphic

         changes in the Monterey Bay area as a result of sea level change,

         tectonics and changing erosion and sedimentation rates. As a

         result there may be many undiscovered inundated prehistoric

         aboriginal sites within the proposed Sanctuary. The gap in  our

         understanding of the full historical significance of these

         resources presents an exciting and fertile area for additional

         research into the history of Monterey Bay.


                                          68









            Archaeological evidence suggests that the earliest human

       occupancy of coastal California began well over 10,000 years ago

       with immigrants who were primarily hunters. About 7,500 years ago

       the people became dependent on shoreline resources and seed

       gathering (Meighan, 1965, in Gordon, 1977). More recently, the

       Monterey Bay area is within the former territory of the Costanoan

       Indians.   The Costanoan economy was a continuation of the

       dependence of previous cultures on the shoreline resources. Old

       habitation sites can be located today by kitchen midden deposits

       (also called shellmounds) which accumulated in the villages. Many

       of these deposits on the coast are found in sand dunes. More than

       a dozen shellmounds are located on the dunes at Afio Nuevo Point.

       Many shellmounds are found above the rocky shoreline of the

       Monterey Peninsula.

            Offshore cultural and historical resources include aboriginal

       remains and sunken ships and aircraft. An in-house study conducted

       by the BLM in 1979 to compile and organize available shipwrecks

       data identified 1,276 vessels of historic interest that were

       reported lost along the central and northern coast of California.

            The lighthouse at Point Pinos has been designated a national

       and California historic site. Multiple historic sites are located

       at Santa Cruz, Carmel and Monterey.










                                         69










         C.   Human Activities

         1.   Commercial Fishing and Mariculture

              The Monterey Bay area has a large and economically important

         commercial fishing industry. The major commercial fishing ports

         are Moss Landing, Santa Cruz, and Monterey. Table 6, derived from

         1987 California Department of Fish and Game statistics, shows a

         summary of the poundage and ex-vessel value (greater than $20,000)

         of landings of some of the commercial species at four ports in

         Monterey Bay. In 1987, a total of over 29 million pounds of fish

         with a value of almost $10 million was landed at Moss Landing,

         Monterey, Santa Cruz, and Salinas. The diversity of the commercial

         catch is shown by the number of different species or species groups

         landed at each port: 89 at Monterey, 69 at Moss Landing, 59 at

         Santa Cruz, and 5 at Salinas. These statistics also include

         shrimp, crab, octopus, squid, eels, lobster, abalone, and sea
         urchins. Market squid represented the la rgest catch ih terms of

         poundage (over 12 million pounds), followed by rockfish (6 million

         pounds), mackerel (2.5 million), sole (almost 2 million pounds),

         tuna (1.3 million pounds), and anchovy (1.15 million pounds). The

         various species of rockfish represented the most important fish in

         dollar value ($2.1 million). Additional valuable species include

         salmon ($2 million), swordfish ($1.53 million), squid ($1-2

         million), and tuna ($.98 million).

              There are four main types of commercial fisheries in the

         Monterey Bay area: 1) a troll fishery for salmon and albacore, 2)
         a trawl fishery for the various species of rockfish and flatfish,


                                          70






      Table      6    -. Summary of poundage and value (over $20,000 only) of fisheries data for 1986 for
      .the Ports of Santa Cruz, Moss LAndi-Ag, and Monterey - Salinas (cmbined). California Dept. of Fish
      and Gane,  1987.



                                   Santa Cruz                         Moss Landing                           Monterey + Salinas
                               Pounds          Value            Pounds          Value                 poilnci.@            Value
      Salmon                   193iO85      565,070           276,218         793,564                   236,520           658,754

      Rockfish (all)           56,317         32,651        3,257,030        1,052,225                2,675,657         11029,697

      S%vrdfish                34,558       135,771             96,129        381,664                   262,441         1,019,270

      Squid                                                 4,056,560         381,905                 8,312,730           843,392

      Sole (all)                                            1,717,164         541,344                   261,855           105,296

      Tuna                     501,583        39,263        1,195,167         868,427                    97,779            69,410

      Sablefish                                               !613,360        182,953                   258,867            57,979

      Cal. Halibut             501769       113,524                                                      39,672            86,054

      White Croaker                                           215,161           68,004                   81,350            20,857

      Lingcod                                                 171,660           57,856                  139,675            52,762

      Mackerel                                                                                        2,546,110            144,693

      Sanddab                                                   75,593          24,366

      Shark                    14,669       21,660                                                       87,531              86,591

      Anchovy                                                                                         1,153,530'             75,077

      other                    101,040     101,299            508,927           80,047                  290,767            134,010

      Total                    500,991 1,009,238            12,182,969       4,438,355            16,444,484             4,383t842









         3)!a gill and trammel net fishery for California halibut, rockfish,

         and white croaker and 4) a roundhaul and lampara net fishery for

         squid,'anchovy, and herring. Figure 10 shows the location of

         primary commercial fishing areas and types of gear utilized.

          .- A small trap fishery for sablefish consisting of one to three

         boats also exists within the bay.

             Approximately 6 to 15 gill-net boats participate in this

         fishery off Monterey Bay (Personnal Communication, Marine Resources

         Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March 1990). This method of

         fishing is now restricted to waters deeper than 20 fathoms and

         maybe restricted in the future to beyond 30 fathoms.

             There are approximately 8 trawlers participating in this

         fishery using a mixture of otter trawls and roller trawls. No

         trawlers are currently allowed within 3 miles of the coast

         (Personal Communication, Marine Resources Division, Monterey Bay

         area, CDF&G, March 1990).

             In general fishing activity is extensively regulated.to not

         only ensure continuous production of fish stocks for long-term

         harvest but also to minimize by-catch and reduce potential conflict

         with marine mammals and seabirds. For a detailed description of

         the existing regulatory regime governing fishing see the sections

         on fishing activities in the environmental consequences of the

         status quo regime and exising authorities in Appendix 2.

             There are presently eleven mariculture operations within the

         area. Silverking Oceanic Farms in Davenport operates a silver and

         king salmon hatchery. Up to one million fish may be released to



                                         '7 2






                   40'                                      20'                                    1220                                         40'
                      "-San Gregorio                              Pescadero Creek

                                                    Pescadero Point


                            Pigeon Point
                                 Pt. Ano Nuevo                                                                       Soquel Creek
            370                                            avenp t.                       Santa
                                                                                           Cruz                                                                        370
                                                                                          Rockfish                      Halibut,
                        500                                                                                             White Croaker
                                                                                                                                                Pajaro
                                                                                                                                                River
                               1,000                                                                                                            Elkhom
                                                                                                                                                Slough

                                                                         Sablefish
                                                                                                                                     Moss
                                                                     1100 Rockfish                                                   Landing
                                                                         English, Rex                                                Halibut
                                                                         Dover Sole,                                                 White Croaker
                                                                         Bocaccio,
                                                                         Chilipepper                                 Squid
               40'                                    000                Rockfish                                                Mar et
                                                                                                                                 Crab
                                                                                                                                                                       401
                                                                              Lingcod                            o   Iooo              Blue, Olive
                                                                              Rockfish
                                                                                                                                       Rockfish
                                                                                                                 Moriterey
                                                                                                                 Carmel              Lingcod,
                                                                                                                                     Rockfish

                                                                                                                                       Spot Prawn
                                                                            Sabletish                            Point
                                                                                                                 Lobos                       Carmel
                                    Longlining                                                                                               River
                                    Trolling
                                    Trapping
               20'                  Gillnetting                                                                               Little Sur River                         20'
                                    Trawling                                                     Point Sur
                                    Seining                                                                                          Big Sur River
                         0            5
                         006 Nautical Miles
                         0          5                                                                            A
                         6EWW Statute Miles                                                             ---Partington Point                              Big
                             Depths in Fathoms                   -@000                                                                                Creek
                                              00                                                                                 190
             360                                                                                                                     LopezIPoi                         360
                   40'                                       20'                                    1220                                        40'

                    Figure 10. Location of Primary Commercial Fishing Areas in Monterey Bay (AMBAG, 1978).









          the ocean annually. These fish mature in the ocean with about two

          to three percent of them eventually returning to the farms to spawn

          where they are harvested for sale. This company is planning to

          raise Atlantic salmon in pens for eventual sale.

               Pacific Mariculture is involved in research to determine the

          feasibility of culturing abalone for sale to restaurants and

          markets. It is now completing research and development at the Long

          Marine Laboratory and recently received approval from Santa Cruz

          County for production of abalone.

               Pacific Mariculture is the only bivalve mollusc hatchery in

          California. It produces oyster and clam seed for grow-out to other

          growers.

               There are two inactive oyster leases (Danny Burns Shellfish

          and Monterey Bay Marine Farm) which are limited in their operations

          because of water quality problems in the Elkhorn Slough growing

          waters.

               Sea Life Supply raises sea hares (a species of nudibranch or

          sea slug) in grow-out pens near the mouth of ELkhorn Slough. They

          are used for neurophysiological research.

               Until recently, ocean Genetics, Inc. operated an algae

          research farm where a variety of forms of algae were grown for

          chemical extracts, such as agar and medicinal materials. A new

          company, Quantify, Inc., was recently started and is presently

          raising algae using Long Marine Laboratory water to produce

          phycobiliproteins.

               Granite Canyon Marine Laboratory of the California Department


                                          74









       of Fish and Game is actively involved in aquaculture research. It

       is presently studying the feasibility of abalone aquaculture and

       planning some form of marine finfish aquaculture.

            Until 1988, Aquaculture Enterprises, Inc. operated a lobster

       hatchery and grow-out. Most research involved hybrid development

       to maximize growth rates. Some lobsters were sold to market.

            Abalone West and Pacific Abalone Farms are each involved in

       red abalone research and development.

            Kelp is harvested commercially. KELCO Company harvests a

       portion of the kelp canopy in Carmel Bay for alginate extraction.

       Kelp.is also harvested as food for abalone in local aquaculture

       facilities (Foster, pers. comm., 1989).



       2. Oil and Gas Activities

            Activities in the Central California Planning area began in

       1963 when the first Federal OCS oil and gas lease sale resulted in

       the acceptance of bids for 29 tracts in the area off San Francisco.

       Twelve exploratory wells were drilled but no development occurred

       and all leases were relinquished in mid-1968.

            The Minerals Management Service, within the U.S. Department of

       Interior, is authorized to prepare and implement 5-year plans which

       identify the federal waters to be opened for offshore oil drilling.

       The current 5-year plan divides California into northern, central,

       and southern planning regions. The first lease sale scheduled for

       the Central California region is Lease sale #119, which covers

       approximately 1.7 million sea-bottom acres (Figure 11). However,


                                        75










                                                 124'                      40'                        20,  38*                          123o               40'                       20'



                                        124-
                                                                                                              Point Reyes
                                                                                                                        % 1% Drak s
                                                                                                                                        ey

                                                                                                                                                                                                        122*

                                                                                                                          Duxbury Peint
                                                                                                                Gulf of the
                                                                                                                Fara ones
                                                                                                                      1/0 eS
                                                                                                          National Marine Santuary
                                                                                                                                        Point Bonita
                                                                                                                                        /intLogos
                                                                                                                                        Po

                                                                                                                                        b. in F;ancisco
                                                                                                                                                              Oakland
                                                                                                                                                                                                        38'

                                                                                                                          d4j@-&i       @edro


                                         37*
                                                                                                                                        Point





                                                                                                                                        regoro
                                                                                                            ... .......                                                                                 4.'
                                                                                              . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                                                                                                                        int
                                                                                                                          T.


                                                                                                                                        rit
                                                                                                                                        Pescadero
                                                                                                                                        Creek

                                          40'
                                                                                                                                        vo




                                                                                                                          a             port
                                                                                                                                                 Santa     Soquel Creek                                 20'
                                                                                                                                                 Cruz


                                                                                                                                                 it
                                         20'


                                                                                                                                                               Pajaro River
                                                                                                                                                 03   Moss    Elkhorn Slough
                                                                                                                                                      Landing                                           37*
                                                                                                                                        Mo2jer
                                       123'                                                                                             Carmel
                                                                                                                                        Point
                                        36                                                                                              Lobo@                              N                            121*
                                                                                                      IS                                         Carmel River
                                                                                                               Point Sur                Little Sur River
                                                                                                                                        Big Sur River                                                   40'

                                                                                                                                        Partington Point      0     5
                                                                                                                                                              i"i,@r" "a""i, M"s
                                         40'                                                                                                                           atute miles
                                                                                                                                                              Dewns,nTath-
                                                                                                                                        Big Creek

                                                                                                                                        Lopez Point
                                                    7-@g* 177    Most Likely Areas                                                                                                                      20
                                                                 for Platforms                                                          IPlaskett Rock
                                                                 Areas Proposed for                                                     Cape     ISan Martin
                                         20'                     Offshore Oil Drilling
                                                   Ej                                                                                   Salmon Creek
                                                                 Lease Sale #119
                                                                 Preferred Sanctuary Boundary                                           Point    Piedras Blancas                                        36*
                                                                 State Waters Boundary
                                                                                                                                                 San Simeon Creek

                                                                                                                                                 Cambria
                                                                                                                                                  L
                                                                 122*                       40'                         20'                      121*                      40,
                                             Pigure 11. Potential Oil and Gas Development in the Vicinity of Monterey Bay.









        future 5-Year Plans may consider leasing other geographical areas

        within the central California planning area that may contain

        additional hydrocarbon resources.

            The current Lease Sale process, which takes up to two years,

        includes public hearings, environmental studies, and

        recommendations from the Governor. The outlined process in Figure

        12 for Lease Sale #119 is currently on hold in the early phase of

        the pre-sale process. Thus far, only the "Call for Information"

        step has been completed by MMS for the proposed sale and no further

        activities are being carried out.

            All state waters, within three miles of shore, off central

        California have been designated an oil and gas sanctuary. No oil

        and gas leasing is permitted within this three-mile state limit.

            The six central California coastal counties (Monterey, Santa

        Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma) are

        cooperatively sponsoring a Central Coast Counties OCS Regional

        Studies Program to identify and assess the implications of

        potential offshore oil development related to,Lease Sale 119.



        3. Commercial Shipping

            Approximately 39 tankers and 166 cargo and passenger ships

        pass the Monterey coast every month (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

        Service, 1986). Almost all of these vessels are U.S. flag vessels

        transporting cargo between U.S. West Coast northern and southern

        ports. Some commercial shipping vessels enter Monterey Bay. In

        1986, a total of 5 vessels offloaded at either Monterey Harbor or


                                        77






                                              CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
                                             LEASE SALE SCHEDULE

                                                     Lease SaIe#j 19 DEFERRED

                             1988           Nov.                  I CALL
                                            Dec.               I COMMENTS I
                                            Jan.
                                            Feb.
                                            Mar.                  SCO NG
                                            Apr.
                                            May
                             1989           Jun.
                                            Jul.
                                            Aug.
                                            Sept.
                                            Oct.
                                            Nov.
                                            Dec.
                                            Jan.                   I DEIS]
                                            Feb.                I HEARINGT--
                                            Mar.
                                            Apr.
                                            May
                             1990           Jun.
                                            Jul.
                                            Aug.                    I FEIS
                                            Sept.                        I
                                            Oct.                     PNOS
                                            Nov.                         1.
                                            Dec.           GOV'S COMMEN
                                            Jan.
                             1991           Feb.                      FN
                                                 r.                  S@LEJ
                                            DEIS: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
                                            FEIS: Final Environmental Impact Statement
                                            PNOS: Proposed Notice of Sale
                                            FNOS: Final Notice of Sale Deferred
                                                                  I






                          Figure 12. Lease Sale #119 Schedule. (From Central Coast
                                      OCS Region Studies Program, January 1989).









       Moss Landing Harbor (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986). Until

       1982, commercial vessels delivered oil products to Pacific Gas and

       Electric's (PG&E) power generating plant at Moss Landing. The

       plant is able to operate on either gas or oil fuel and just

       recently returned to oil for its fuel source. PG&E was denied

       permission to construct an offshore marine terminal for off-loading

       oil from 90,000 DWT tankers.
            Most of the commercial shipping along the coast follows

       customary north-south shipping lanes. The U.S. Coast Guard had

       proposed to establish a routing system composed of amended Traffic

       Separation Schemes (TSS) and new Shipping safety Fairways (SSF)

       along the coast of California. A TSS is an internationally

       recognized routing measure that separates vessels into opposing

       streams of traffic through the establishment of traffic lanes. A

       SSF is an area in which no fixed structures are permitted.

            The San Francisco TSS was proposed to be extended 28 nmi to

       the southeast along the coast to a point approximately due west of

       Santa Cruz. Two parallel one-mile wide SSF were proposed from the

       termination of the extended TSS to the Santa Barbara Channel TSS at

       Point Arguello. With the exception of the waters off Point

       Conception, the proposed routing system followed current traffic

       patterns along the coast. Pillar Point was the nearest area of the

       coast to the amended shipping lanes (about 5 nmi). . Point Sur was

       approximately 8 nmi away, while Afio Nuevo was 10 nmi distant.

            This proposal is now on hold and-alternatives to the TSS

       described above are being considered that would provide additional


                                        79









         safeguards from the possibilities of collisions and of oil spills

         reaching the shore of the Monterey Bay area.

              Recent implementation of Annex V of MARPOL by the United

         States makes it illegal for any vessel to dump plastic trash

         anywhere in the ocean or navigable waters of the United States and

         illegal to dump other types of garbage in the ocean depending on

         the type of garbage and the distance from shore (see Appendix 2 for

         details of these restrictions).



         4. Military Activity

              There are two military activity areas within Monterey Bay

         (Figure 13). The U.S. Army administers a restricted firing range

         impact area extending 8,000 yards offshore from its Fort Ord

         military installation. Its purpose is to provide a safety buffer

         for the public against stray rounds from the small arms firing

         ranges. Activities are prohibited in the restricted area on days

         when the ranges are being used. This danger zone is also utilized

         for Navy mine warfare operations from February 16 through July 31

         each year.

              The U.S. Navy has an operating area in the northeast section

         of the Bay that can be used for mine sweeping practice maneuvers.

         Minehunting training is conducted by Navy minesweeping ships in

         this section of Monterey Bay twice per quarter and each exercise

         lasts about one week. Inert metal shapes are placed (or moored) on

         the bay floor and are located only by sonar; nothing is dragged

         through the water during these training exercises and all objects


                                          80















                1230                     40'                       20'                     1220                        40'                        20'
                                            'San Gregorio           I Pescadero Creek
                                              'I,               esca ero Point
                                                 1-10


                                                Pigeon Point
                                                  Pt. Ano Nuevo                                       Soquel Creek

                                                                                     Santa
            37"                                       ----f      Davenport            Cruz                                                          370

                                             500
                                                                                                                       Pajaro
                                                                                                                       River

                                                                                     SO                                Elkhom
                                                  1,000                                                                Slough
                                                                                                                Moss
                                                                                                                Landing
                                                                        1100


            40' - -                                             000                                                                                 40'

                                                                                                    Monterey
                                                                                                    Carmel


                                                                                                    Point
                                                                                                    Lobos              Carmel
                                                                                                                       River



             20'                                                                                            Little Sur River                        20'
                                                                                          Point Sur

                                                                                                               Big Sur River
                                 Naval Operating Area


                                 Army and Navy
                                 Restricted Area                                              --,,,Partington Point         Big
                                                                                                                       \,0 Creek
                                                                        @00                            ljl@
                                                          1500                                               &0
                                                                                                              olj@ /)
                                                                                                                Lopez Point
            360                                                                                                                                     360

                        0        5
                        61%J!W Nautical Miles
                        0     5                                                                                    Cape San Martin
                                                                                                                       I
                        6EWN statute miles                                                                          C,

                          Depths in Fathoms
                                                                                                                  CD
                                                                          ,0-0                                                   Ragged Point
                I I                        I                         I V                                                              L
                1230                      40'                       20'                     1220                       40'                        20'
                Figure 13. Nearshore Military Activity Areas in Monterey Bay.









         are recovered after completion (Capt. Larson, Pers. Comm., August,

         1989).

              A Warning Area (W-285) exists to the west of the proposed

         Sanctuary and overlaps the western boundary. It is in frequent use

         for both air and surface training -- 700 scheduled uses occur per

         month (Capt. Larson, Pers. Comm., August, 1989).

              A military air training route (IR-207) exists across the

         proposed Sanctuary starting from between Carmel and Monterey and

         proceeding northwest. It is used exclusively for air navigation at

         an altitude of 3000 feet above mean sea level with approximately 30

         flights per month (Capt. Larson, Pers. Comm., August, 1989).

              All of these areas are marked on either nautical charts or on


         San Francisco Sectional Aeronautical Charts.




         5. Research and Education

              The highly diverse biota and the physical features of Monterey

         Bay combine to provide outstanding opportunities for scientific

         research. The wide variety of habitats are all readily accessible

         to researchers. There are nine research and/or education programs

         in the area (Figure 14).

              The Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University is 1 ocated

         in Pacific Grove. The main research effort is in using intertidal

         organisms to study cellular and developmental biology, immunology,

         and ndurobiology. Research is also conducted on the ecology of the

         rocky intertidal zone of the Hopkins Marine Life Refuge located

         offshore of the laboratory.


                                          82
















               1230                      40'                        20'                    1220                         40'                      20'
                                            '-San Gregorio             Pescadero Creek                                  T-

                                                                escadero Point


                                               Pigeon Point
                                                  Pt. Ano Nuevo                                       Soquel Creek
                                             0
                                               \----          n @\                   Santa
           370                                               A Devenport                                                                            370

                                             Soo
                                                                                                                        Pajaro
                                                                                                    0                   River

                                                                                                    co
                                                                                                                        Elkhorn
                                                 1,000                            .0 60                          Moss   Slough
                              Ano Nuevo State Reserve 9
                                                                        100                                     Landing
                                          Long Marine Lab
            40' - -            Elkhorn Slough National                                                                                              40'
                          Estuarine Research Reserve
                             Moss Landing Marine Lab                md                              M n erey
                            N;Ival Posgradyate School and                                           Carmel
                  (',enter for Ocean Ana vsis an Pre Iction (NOAA
                                monterey Bay Aquarium                                               P int
                                 Hopkins Marine Station                                a            Lobos            Carmel
                         Pt. Lobos Ecological Reserve                                                                River
                           Granite Canyon Marine Lab

            20' - -                                                   0                                    Little Sur River                         20'
                                                                                         Poi   t Sur
                                                                                                              Big Sur River


                                                                                                    A
                                                                                              --\,Partington Point          B'g
                                                                       @0,0,0                                             Creek
                                                          00
                                                                                                                Lopez Point
           360                                                                                                                                      360

                       0       5
                       62SR!W Nautical Miles
                       0     5                                                                                     Cape San Martin
                                 Statute Miles
                                                                                                                    Q


                         Depths in Fathoms

                                                                                                                                Ragged Point
               11                                                                                                  )    I            L
               1230                      40'                        20'                    1220                         40'                      20'
               Figure 14. Existing Research and Education                     Programs in the Monterey Bay Area.









              The Naval Postgraduate School is operated by the U.S. Navy in

         Monterey. Research is conducted exclusively on physical

         oceanography. The school shares access to the research vessel

         maintained by Moss Landing Laboratories. Recently NOAA's Center

         for Ocean Analysis and Prediction has shared facilities with the

         Naval Postgraduate School and assists in the distribution of NOAA's

         ocean and atmospheric data to local users at universities as well

         as other State and Federal agencies.

              Moss Landing Marine Laboratories of San Jose State University

         conducts research in many fields, e.g., oceanography, geology,

         invertebrates, ichthyology, marine algae, and marine mammal and

         seabird behavior.   The Laboratory facilities, located at Moss

         Landing, were destroyed in the recent earthquake. Their activities

         are being continued at a temporary location in Salinas. The

         Laboratories operate the R/V Point Sur for research cruises.

              The Long Marine Laboratories and the Institute of Marine

         Sciences of the University of California at Santa Cruz conducts

         research on cetaceans, pinnipeds (especially at Afio Nuevo), sea

         otters, invertebrates, and plankton.

              Granite Canyon Marine Laboratory of the California Department

         of Fish and Came is located on the Big Sur coast. In addition to

         its involvement in mariculture research, it is presently conducting

         two large studies in marine toxicology. The Marine Bioassay

         Project is developing sensitive tests using marine species for

         evaluating the toxicity of municipal/industrial effluents. The Oil

         Spill Cleanup Agent or Dispersant Toxicity Project is evaluating


                                         84









      the toxicity and toxicological properties of oil spill disperants,

      utilizing sensitive marine life forms (Michael Martin, pers. comm.,

      1989).

           The Monterey Bay Aquarium is operated. by a non-profit

      foundation, and conducts a variety of research through their

      Research Division. Research is primarily focused on the natural

      nearshore habitats of the Bay, especially the kelp forest

      communities and sea otters. The Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

      Institute was incorporated in May 1987. It is planning an

      extensive research project to study the Monterey Submarine Canyon.

      It will use the R/V Point Lobos to launch a remote-operated

      unmanned submarine to explore the deep waters of the canyon (S.

      Webster, personal communication, 1989).

           Extensive marine and coastal education and interpretive

      efforts complement Monterey Bay's many research activities. For

      example, over 7 million visitors, assisted by 500 volunteer guides

      trained in interpreting the marine environment, have experienced

      the interpretive exhibits of the Monterey Bay Aquarium since it

      opened in fall of 1984. Over 70,000 school children participate in

      aquarium education programs each year (J. Packard, personal

      communication, 1989). A number of other institutions have highly

      successful interpretive programs as well. For example: Pt. Lobos

      Ecological Reserve, Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research

      Reserve, Long Marine Laboratory and Aho Nuevo State Reserve all

      have excellent docent programs serving the public, and marine

      related programs for school groups and teachers (J. Packard,


                                       85









         personal communication, 1989). In addition, marine related post-

         secondary and/or postgraduate education is available through three

         local colleges: the University of California Santa Cruz; Moss

         Landing Marine Laboratories and the Naval Postgraduate School.



         6. Agriculture

              Commercial agriculture is an important activity in the land

         surrounding the bay. Agriculture includes both irrigated and non-

         irrigated agriculture as well as semi-agricultural land uses

         (lawns, cemeteries, dairies, and feedlots). Monterey County was

         once known as "The Salad Bowl of the World" because of the wide

         variety of vegetables grown there. Table 7 lists the major crops

         produced in Monterey County. This county alone produces 90 percent

         of U.S. artichokes, 60 percent of its broccoli, 50 percent of its

         cauliflower and mushrooms, 25 percent of its celery, and up to 80

         percent of its lettuce (Monterey County Agriculture, Food for

         Thought, 1988). Santa Cruz County agricultural production includes

         berries, fruits, nuts, vegetables, field crops (hay.and pasture),

         nursery crops, and products from the apiary, poultry, and cattle

         industry (Table 7). Strawberries were the most valuable crop in

         1988 with a total value of 58 million dollars. Lettuce was the

         second most valuable at 18 million dollars, followed by roses (16

         million), apples (14 million), and raspberries (almost 14 million).

         Total agricultural production for 1988 was 166 million dollars.






                                          86









        Table 7. Major Agricultural Crops Produced in Monterey (Monterey
                  County Agriculture, Food for Thought, 1988) and Santa
                  Cruz (Robley Levy, pers. comm., 1989) Counties.

                                       MONTEREY


                        Head and Leaf Lettuce     Dry Pasture Land
                        Broccoli                  Brussels Sprouts
                        Strawberries              Raspberries
                        Nursery                   Alfalfa Hay
                        Cauliflower               Chili Peppers
                        Celery                    Spinach
                        Mushrooms                 Potatoes
                        Wine Grapes               Barley
                        Artichokes                Cabbage
                        Cattle                    Parsley
                        Tomatoes                  Eggs
                        Carrots                   Apples
                        Salad Products            Napa
                        Asparagus                 Dry Beans
                        Milk                      Poultry
                        Green onions              Dry Onions
                        Sugar Beets               Cherry Tomatoes
                        Seeds                     Anise


                                      SANTA CRUZ


                        Bushberries               Lettuce
                        Raspberries               Mushrooms
                        Strawberries              Chives
                        Apples                    Cabbage
                        Avocado                   Peas
                        Wine Grapes               Corn
                        Apricots                  Broccoli
                        Peaches                   Squash
                        Plums                     Beets
                        Pears                     Anise
                        Persimmons                Tomatoes
                        Walnuts                   Snap Beans
                        Lemons                    Spinach
                        Kiwis                     Poultry
                        Artichokes                Cattle
                        Brussel Spouts            Apiary
                        Cauliflower               Nursery
                        Celery                    Hay and Pasture










          7. Ocean Waste Disposal

               a) Point Source Discharges

               There are four municipal and two industrial sources of

          discharges which empty into Monterey Bay (Figure 15): the city of

          Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility; 2) the city of Marina; 3)

          the city of Watsonville; 4) the Monterey Regional Water Pollution

          Control Agency (MRWPCA) consisting of the cities of Castroville,

          Monterey, Salinas, Seaside and Fort Ord, 5) the Pacific Gas and

          Electric power plant at Moss Landing, and 6) the National

          Refractories plant at Moss Landing. The Carmel Sanitary District

          has an outfall which discharges 2. 2 million gallons daily (mgd) of

          secondarily treated sewage into Carmel Bay. Table 8 presents a

          summary of present discharges into Monterey Bay and Carmel Bay.

          All point-source municipal dischargers into the ocean in the

          Monterey Bay area are required to obtain a National Pollutant

          Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit that contains terms and

          conditions requiring monitoring of effluent to ensure water quality

          standards are maintained.

               A Monterey Bay regional sewage system is being constructed by

          the MRWPCA north of the city of Marina. The treatment plant, which

          was scheduled for completion in the summer of 1989, will replace

          small treatment plants at Monterey, Seaside, Fort Ord, Salinas, and

          Castroville (Marina will tie into this regional system at a later

          date). The outfall associated with the new system has been

          completed and receives the collective wastes from the five small

          treatment plants mentioned above. The new treatment plant, when


                                           88















                                         Santa Cruz








                                         North Monterey Bay
                                                                                       Ae@
                                          Prohibition Area


                                                                                   e6.



                                                                            2


                       MONTEREY BAY                                             3
                                                                          A
                                                                         B      4     Moss
                                                                                      Landing

                       K E Y
                 city of Santa Cruz
                 Municipal Wastewater
                 City of Watsonville
                 Municipal Wastewater
                 P.G.& E. Industrial
                 Discharge
                 National Refractories.
                 and Mineral Corp.
                                                                  \01
                 Industrial Discharge
                                                          Pt. Pinos &
             05  Monterey Regional
                                                     Southern Monterey Bay
                 Water Pollution                        Prohibition Area
                 Control Agency
                 Regional Wastewater
                 Marina Co. Water
                 District Municipal
                 Wastewater
                                                                Monterey
                 Carmel sanitary
                 District
         L
                 Dredged Material
                 Disposal Sites
                                             Carmel Bay
                                                                 Carmel River
                 Disposal Site SF-1 2
                 Disposal Site SF-14                 0

      Figure 15. Existing Ocean Discharges and Dredged Material Disposal Sites in Monterey and
                Carmel Bays (Modified from Earth Metrics, 1986).








        Table     8        SLZ24ARY OF PRESENT DISCHARGES INTO MONTEREY AND CARKM BAYS (1987) (E. Melvin, pers. cam., 1989).


                                             Flow (MGD)                 Treatinent                Outfall(ft)
                       Enti              Design    Current                 Level                Length      Depth



                       MMICIPAL VOL=


                       Santa Cruz            21.0      12.8             Primary                 12,250          110

                       Watsonville           13.4       7.945           Primary                  8000            64

        Monterey       Marina                @2.0      1.5274          Secondary                 2500            45
           Bay

                       MRWPCA                         total 19.74                               11,300           97

                        Castroville          0.8         0.6            Secondary
                        Monterey             6.0         5.8            Secondary
                        Salinas 1       7.5  (5.5)       8.9             Secondary
                        Seaside              2.0         1.9        Advanced Primary
                        Fort Ord             4.2         2.54           Secondary

                                                     total 42.0124


                       INDUSTRIAL VM=

                       PGE                   ?        961.0 (1985)      Cooling water            600             45


                       National              ?        0.011 (1985)              ?                620             43
                       Refractories
                                                    total 961.011



        Camiel         MUNICIPAL WAM
         Bay             Canuel              ?          2.2             Secondary                 ?              ?









       fully operational, will be able to treat 29..6 million gallons of

       wastewater per day. A 40% increase in capacity was planned into

       this regional system to handle the anticipated regional growth in

       population through the mid-1990's. The present population of

       544,000 people in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties is projected to

       increase to 755,000 by the year 2005 (AMBAG, 1987).

            The cities of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, located outside the

       coastal counties, have adopted a Long Term Wastewater Management

       Plan. The overall objective of the plan is to provide wastewater

       treatment and disposal capacity to accommodate the projected growth

       of the two cities. The method of disposal selected is the

       discharge of tertiary effluent into the Pajaro River during wet-

       weather months and land disposal during dry-weather months (Ross,

       pers. comm., 1989). The existing 6.1 mgd capacity will be expanded

       in steps to the ultimate capacity of approximately 15 mgd.

            The City of Santa Cruz is presently using two ocean outfall

       structures, both shown on Figure 15. The new structure, which is

       12,250 feet in length, in about 110 feet of water and one mile from

       shore, is the primary discharger of wastes. The previously used,

       old 2,000 foot outfall may be used only during peak wet weather

       flows.




       (b) Non-Point Source Discharges

            marine water quality is monitored by the California Water

       Resources Control Board through its State Mussel Watch Program and

       the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system (NPDES)


                                        91









          pursuant to the Clean Water Act. The State Mussel Watch programl

          which began in 1977, is operated under interagency agreement with

          the Water Resources Control Board by the California Department of

          Fish and Game, Marine Pollution Laboratory, and involves monitoring

          toxic pollutant levels in resident and transplanted California

          mussels, resident Monterey Bay mussels, and transplanted

          freshwater clams at selected stations from coastal, bay, and

          estuarine areas. Hayes and Phillips (1987) report the major trends

          in trace metals and synthetic organic substances identified after a

          decade of monitoring in this program. Monitoring results show the

          following:

               1) Resident California mussels from the Monterey Harbor area

          contain higher lead levels than elsewhere in California or

          worldwide.

               2) Freshwater clams transplanted to the innermost freshwater

          drainage (closer to the agriculture areas) that lead to Monterey

          Bay contain the highest levels of 26 pesticide and pesticide

          degradation products ever measured during the program. Chlordane,

          endosulfan, and DDT are some of the substances identified.

               3) The highest levels of pesticides (dacthal, endosulfan, and

          endrin) ever measured in California mussels were found in mussels

          transplanted to the outer, more saline portions of the drainage to

          Monterey Bay.

               4) High levels of tributyltin (used in anti-fouling paints)

          are found in mussels transplanted to semi-enclosed harbors with

          extensive boating activity. Low-levels of tributyltin (0.083 ppm,


                                           92









       wet weight) were found in mussels in Elkhorn Slough.

            The high level of lead found in the mussels of Monterey Harbor

       was traced to a slag heap of lead smelting waste which had been

       placed on the inner harbor shore as railroad fill. Lead isotopic

       analyses were used to identify this slag deposit as the principal

       source of the lead (Flegal et al., 1987). Lead (and zinc) may also

       be leaching into the bay from the wastes associated with the more

       than 30 canneries that used to operate along Cannery Row (Loehr and

       Collias, 1983).

            Elevated levels of mercury have been found in mussels at

       several locations along the California coast, including Afio Nuevo

       Island. All sample locations are the site of very large pinniped

       and marine bird colonies. The elevated levels of mercury appear to

       be due to natural perturbations of the mercury cycle by higher

       organisms with anthropogenic sources being of secondary importance

       (Flegal et al., 1981).

            Petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations were measured using

       Mussel Watch techniques. Resident mussels were shown to have

       higher than expected petroleum hydrocarbon body burdens in Carmel

       Bay, an area thought to be relatively contaminant free (Martin and

       Castle, 1984).

            A wide range of pesticides have been entering the drainage to

       Monterey Bay from the surrounding agriculture areas for a long

       period of time. Studies other than the Mussel Watch Program have

       indicated other adverse effects on the water quality of the bay.

       The State Board Toxic Substances Monitoring program and the


                                        93









          Department of Food and Agriculture studied DDT levels in soils and

          sediments of the Blanco Drain Area. They concluded that undegraded

          DDT from past legal agricultural use remains at significant levels

          in soils and becomes available to aquatic life when it is eroded in

          to waterways (Hays and Phillips, 1987). Both agencies suggest that

          better on-farm soil management practices could reduce the amount of

          DDT reaching the bay. DDT and its degradation products were found

          in the tissues of all eight species of marine fishes caught and

          analyzed from Monterey Bay (Shaw, 1972).

              The California Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with

          the California Department of Health Services is conducting an

          aquatic toxicology evaluation program in Monterey Bay (Welden,

          1988). The main objectives of the program are to determine the

          average chemical contaminants found in a range of the most common

          commercial and sport-caught fish in the bay and to give a current

          risk-assessment of the effects of consuming them. This study was

          scheduled to be released in the fall of 1989.

              Another source of non-point source pollution is the garbage

          generated by ships that used to be disposed of into the ocean

          during voyages. Studies done by the National Academy of.Science

          (1975) and more recently by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) analyzed

          the types, density and sources of garbage generated by commercial

          and recreational vessels. The recent USCG analyzes were estimated

          on a per voyage basis because under Annex V of MARPOL, ports will

          be required to provide reception facilities for vessel wastes

          garbage. Thus "ports of call" will provide vessels the opportunity


                                          94










      to offload wastes into land facilities rather than into the ocean

      as was past practice.



      8. Ocean Dredging and Sand Mining

           Both maintenance dredging and commercial sand mining occur

      within Monterey Bay. Disposal of dredged material in the bay is

      regulated under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10

      of the Rivers and Harbor Act of 1899. A Waste Discharge

      Requirement (WDR) permit is needed before one can dump in the

      ocean. The WDR is similar in form to the NPDES permits for point-

      source discharges with similar requirements for monitoring of the

      activity to ensure the deposit meets water quality standards.

           A sediment budget analysis performed for Monterey Bay

      indicates a budget deficit. This signifies an erosional rather

      than a depositional trend for the Bay (Oradive, 1986). The results

      of the analysis indicate that about 2.1 million cubic yards of

      sediment are deposited annually into the bay while an estimated

      2.34 million cubic yards of sediment are lost annually. Sediment

      deposition occurs from cliff erosion, river discharges, and

      longshore drift, with over half of the total coming from the river

      discharges. Sediment losses occur from deposition into the

      submarine canyon, sand mining operations, off-shore deposition by

      rip currents, and eolian sediment transport to the dunes.

           Longshore transport along the bay is generally in a southerly

      direction. The discharge of sediment from the San Lorenzo, Pajaro,

      and Salinas Rivers has, through the ages, combined with this


                                       95









         southerly transport and the prevailing northwesterly breeze to

         build the expansive sand dunes along the bay (McGee, 1986). Sand

         for commercial use has been dredged in the bay area for the last 70

         years (Clark and Osborne, 1982). Deposits in the southern part of

         the bay are presently being mined by the Monterey Sand Company.

         This company operates sand extraction plants in Marina and Sand

         City. About 150,000 cubic yards of sand have been extracted every

         year since 1978. Erosion of the beach has occurred in the vicinity

         of this mining and some researchers believe it has increased

         because of the mining (Griggs, 1986; McGrath, 1986, 1987).

         Combellick and Osborne (1977) state that mining and weak longshore

         transports of new sand are the principal factors causing erosion.

         Because most sand transported along the northern bay is lost to the

         submarine canyon, the only source of suspended sand in the southern

         bay is the Salinas River. This river source does not appear to be

         ad equate to support sand mining without erosion occurring. Porter

         et al. (1979) concluded in 1975 that the quantity of sand supplied

         to the southern beaches from the Salinas River is inadequate to

         consider the mined sand as a renewable resource (in Clark and

         Osborne, 1982). The major source of the mined sand thus appears to

         be the historic and current erosion of the nearshore sand dunes.

         Current State Lands Commission leases and Corps of Engineers

         permits are being reviewed. Additionally, an environmental impact

         statement has been required by the Corps of Engineers for renewal

         of local sand mining permits.

              Periodic dredging of sediments is required at several harbors.


                                          96









       The boat harbor of Santa Cruz is dredged annually removing 100,000

       to 130,000 cubic yards of sand. Moss Landing harbor requires

       dredging every two to three years. Most dredge spoils from this

       dredging are currently used for beach nourishment by being pumped

       directly to beaches east and south of the harbors.

             Two offshore sites are presently being used for dredged

       material disposal (Figure 15). Disposal of dredged material has

       occurred intermittently off the end of Sandholdt Pier at Moss

       Landing about 400 feet from shore since 1947 (Disposal Site SF-

       12). When dredge spoils do not meet disposal criteria for beach

       nourishment, they must be taken by barge to a deep water disposal

       site near the head of the submarine canyon (Disposal Site SF-14).



       9. Recreational Activities and Tourism

            The moderate climate, rich diversity of marine flora and

       fauna, and variety of coastal types present many recreational

       opportunities for residents and tourists alike. Shoreline and

       nearshore recreation occurs throughout the bay area, with

       concentrations from Point Lobos to Santa Cruz.

            Monterey Bay has been a tourist attraction since the late

       1800's. The most recent estimate of tourist visitors to the area

       was 18 million annually (AMBAG, 1978). The total number of

       tourists to Santa Cruz annually is 2.5 million (Santa Cruz County

       Conference and Visitors Council, pers., comm, 1989). There were

       1,723,311 overnight visitors to Monterey Peninsula in 1988

       (Monterey Peninsula Chamber of Commerce, pers. comm., 1989). The


                                         97









         primary recreational activities are sportfishing, boating, hiking,

         skindiving, sightseeing, nature observation, and surfing.

              Many existing attractions are open to the public. The

         Monterey Bay Aquarium opened in 1984 and currently attracts about

         1.6 million visitors annually (S. Webster, per. comm., in

         Heimlich - Boran, 1988). Thirty-one state beaches, parks, refuges,

         reserves, and historic parks are operated by the California

         Departments of Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game (Table 9).

              Numerous protected areas of special environmental significance

         allow varying levels of public use. These include the Point Lobos

         Ecological Reserve, the Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve, the Afio

         Nuevo State Reserve, the Pacific Grove Marine Garden Fish Refuge,

         the Hopkins Marine Life Refuge, and the California Sea Otter Game

         Refuge. The Afio Nuevo State Reserve attracts over 140,000 visitors

         annually (Coastal Concern, 1989).

              Recreational boating activities originate primarily in the

         harbors of Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Moss Landing. Each harbor has

         a marina servicing recreational boaters, commercial fisherman, and

         partyboat charters. Approximately 2,100 boat slips are available

         in these harbors. All the marinas are full and have long waiting

         lists. Five boat ramps, one at Santa Cruz, and two each at Moss

         Landing and Monterey, are available for launching small boats from

         trailers. The boat ramp at Santa Cruz was used to launch

         approximately 8,000 boats in 1987 (Santa Cruz Port District, 1987).

         overnight berths are available in the marinas for transient




                                          98









         Table 9. Units of the California State Park System within the
                   proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

         (Adapted after Table from R.E. Felty, Regional Director, Department
         of Parks and Recreation, Personal Communication, February, 1989)
         and Pacific Coast Ecological Inventory Maps (Monterey and San
         Francisco), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981.

         San Mateo County


         Bean Hollow (SB)
         Afio Nuevo (SR and ASBS)
         Pescadero (SB)

         Santa Cruz County

         Big Basin Redwoods (SP)
         Wilder Ranch (SP)
         Natural Bridges (SB)
         Lighthouse Field (SB)
         Twin Lakes (SB)
         Capitola (SB)
         New Brighton (SB)
         Seacliff (SB)
         Manresa (SB)
         Sunset (SB)

         Monterey CountV

         Hopkins Marine Life Refuge (SF)
         California Sea Otter Game Refuge (SF)
         Zmudowski (SB)
         Moss Landing (SB)
         Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (State/Federal)
         Salinas River (SB)
         Marina (SB)
         Monterey (SB)
         Monterey (SHP)
         Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge (SF and ASBS)
         Asilomer (SB)
         Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve (SR and ASBS)
         Carmel River (SB)
         Point Lobos (SR and ASBS)
         Garrapata (SP)
         Pfeiffer Big Sur (SHP)
         Andrew Molera (SP)
         Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Underwater Park (SP and ASBS)

         SR = State Reserve
         SP = State Park
         SF = State Refuge
         SB = State Beach
         SHP = State Historic Park
         ASBS = Area of Special Biological Significance








        boaters. The use of "thrill craft" such as jet-skis or mini-

        motorboats has begun to become a highly popular sport.

             Recreational fishing is a very popular activity both in

        Monterey Bay and the exposed coastal areas (Figure 16). Five major

        types of recreational fishing are pursued: private boat or skiff

        fishing, partyboat fishing, spearfishing, pier and shore (surf)

        fishing, and shellfishing. Skiff fishing is limited almost

        entirely to sheltered Monterey and Carmel Bays. Most of the skiff

        catch is made up of white croaker, several species of rockfishes,

        Pacific sanddab, lingcod, and mackerel (Table 10). The rugged

        nature of some sections of the coast make shorefishing impossible.

        Where the shoreline can be reached there is excellent rocky-shore

        fishing for lingcod, kelp greenling, cabezon, surfperch, and

        rockfishes. Most sandy beaches offer good surf fishing for

        surfperches and flatfishes (Table 10). Pier fishing is available

        on the public piers in Monterey, Seacliff State Beach, Capitola,

        and Santa Cruz. Jetties at Moss Landing harbor and Santa Cruz

        Small-Craft harbor provide good fishing for surfperch, starry

        flounder, and rockfishes. Table 10 also shows the main fish

        species caught from piers and jetties. Surf smelt and night smelt

        are netted in the surf off sandy beaches during certain months of

        the year.

             Partyboats operate primarily out of Monterey, Moss Landing,

        and Santa Cruz harbor; a total of 25 were operating in 1987. The

        Big Sur coast is a very popular partyboat fishing area (Table 11).

        Salmon, lingcod, mackerel, and many varieties of rockfish are the


                                         100







                        40'                                           20'                                      1220                                            40'
                             '-San Gregorio                           I Pescadero Creek

                                                            Pescadero Point
                                      "0 14
                                  Pigeon Point
                              1,00 *     Pt. Ano Nuevo                                                                            Soquel Creek
                                                                                                                     Abalone,
                                                                                                    Santa            Little-Neck Clam
                      0                                                                                               / I                    Jacksmelt
                 37                                              Davenport                                                                   Bocaccio, Surfperch-                      370
                                                                                                     Cruz-                                   White Croaker
                                                                                                                                             Pismo Clam
                           _z_ 500
                                                                   Cabezon,                                                                  Surfperch
                                                                                                    M
                                                                   Greenlin                                                                           am       Pajaro,
                                                                           g'                                                               Pismo C
                                                                   Rockfish                                                          V            I-'River
                                                                   Rockfish, Lingcod,                                                        Muo           Igton
                                                                   Cabezon, Greenling, I                                                              -.-."S-
                                                                   Abalone                                                                                     Elkhorn
                                     1,000                         U            %_.@                                                                           Slough
                                                                                              1*00
                                                                                Rockfish, Flatfish                                                  Moss
                                                                                Lingcod, Salmon
                                                                              0
                                                                                     Rockfish %, Salmon                                               anding
                                                                                00 - White Croaker                                               Pismo Clam
                                                                                    Sandab
                                                                                          \_4                                                         Surfperch
                                                                           Rockfish, Lingcod                                                      Restricted Area
                    40'                                                   Cabezon, Greenling                                                      Fishing Allowed                      40'
                                                                                                                                                 On Certain Days
                                                                                        Cabezon,
                                                                                        Greenling,                     0:        onierey              California Halibut
                                                                                        Rockfish                             M
                                                                                                                             Carmel
                                                                                 Greenling, Lingcod
                                                                                 Rockfish, Cabezon
                                                                                         j
                                                                                                                             Point
                                                                                                                             Lobos                         Carmel
                                EM         Partyboat Fishing                                                                                               River
                                           Partyboat &
                                EmSkiff Fishing
                                El         Skindiving
                    20'                                                                                                                    Little Sur River                            20'
                                .......    Clamming                                                         Point Sur
                                           Pier & Shore
                                           Fishing                                                                                              Big Sur River
                              0              5
                                                Nautical Miles
                              0            5                                                                                 A
                                                Statute Miles                                                            Parting on Point                               Big
                                                                                                                                                           \,> Creek
                                    Depths in Fathoms                   -11000
                                                                                                                                 111@                          00
                                                    00
                                                       0
                       0-                                                                                                                          LopezlPoint                              0
                 36      40'                                          20'                                      1220                                        .   40'       1             36
                          Figure 16. Location of Primary Sportfishing and Shellfishing Areas in Monterey Bay (From
                                           Central Coast OCS Regional Studies Program, 1989).









           Table 10.       Major Species of Fish Caught from Private or Rental
                           Boats, Beaches, Piers and Jetties (Marine
                           Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey, 1987).


                Private or Rental Boats                   Beaches,

                Blue rockfish                             Barred surfperch
                Pacific sanddab                           Staghorn sculpin
                Rockfishes (general)                      Flatfishes
                Longfin sanddab                           Surfperches
                Lingcod                                   Calico surfperch
                Gopher rockfish                           Senorita
                Albacore tuna                             Silver surfperch
                Yellowtail rockfish                       Walleye surfperch
                Chilipepper                               Black perch
                Brown rockfish                            Rockfishes (general)

                Piers                                     Jetties

                Staghorn sculpin                          Surfperches
                Jacksmelt                                 Rockfishes (general)
                White croaker                             Staghorn sculpin
                Pile perch                                Northern sculpin
                White seaperch                            Pile perch
                Surfperches                               Rainbow seaperch
                Lingcod                                   Senorita
                Chinook salmon                            Starry flounder
                Rainbow  trout                            Cabezon
                Kelp rockfish                             White croaker









          Table 11. Fish Caught by Commercial Partyboat Fleet For the Ports
          of Monterey, Moss Landing, and Santa Cruz (California Department of
          Fish and Game, 1987)

                                                                Number of
               Species                                          Fish Caught

               Rockfish (unspecified)                              373,849
               Salmon (all species)                                 12,755
               Lingcod                                              11,133
               Pacific mackerel                                     4,162
               Sablefish                                            3,208
               Jack mackerel                                        1,773
               Flatfish (unspecified)                               1,024
               Cabezon                                                390
               Albacore tuna                                          318
               Sanddab                                                236
               Whitefish, ocean                                       100
               White croaker                                            64
               Pacific bonito                                           27
               California halibut                                        17
               Petrale sole                                               4
               White seabass                                              1
               Sturgeon                                                   1
               All Others                                            9,253
                                                          Total    418,978



          Note: Total based on 451461 anglers fishing from 25 boats in 1987.









         main species caught.

              Clam digging in ocean waters has been all but eliminated

         because of sea otter foraging, while other shellfish such as

         limpets and mussels are harvested from rocky tidepools. Abalone

         were once collected on rocky shore areas but their numbers have

         dwindled from overharvesting and sea otter predation.

              The Monterey Bay area is well known for recreational diving.

         The area from Cannery Row on the Monterey Peninsula to Point

         LobosState Underwater Reserve is the most popular diving area in

         all of central and northern California. More than 70 percent of

         all diving between Point Conception and Oregon occurs in this area

         (U.S. Department of the Interior, 1987). Other underwater parks

         popular with divers include Carmel Bay State Underwater Park and

         Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Underwater Park (McMillon, 1982).

         Rosenberg (1987) presents an excellent guide to diving in the

         Northern California and Monterey Peninsula area.

              Opportunities for nature observation include whale watching,

         viewing seabird nesting and roosting sites, and observing marine

         mammal pupping and haul-out areas. Partyboats are used for nature

         observation tours, including watching blue whale and migrating

         California gray whales. One company (Shearwater Journeys), which

         offers natural history boat trips, takes over 3000 people each year

         out on Monterey Bay to view seabird and marine mammals (Sheila

         Baldridge, pers. comm., 1989) Rocky shorelines provide the hiker

         with the opportunity to view the fascinating flora and fauna

         associated with the rocky intertidal habitats.


                                         104









            Surfing is a popular activity throughout the bay area,

       especially at Pacific Grove, Moss Landing, Asilomar Beach, the

       mouth of the Big Sur river, and Santa Cruz. The main surfing

       season runs from late summer through early spring (J. Young, pers.

       comm., 1989). Santa Cruz has been a major surfing area since the

       turn of the century. Its long history is traced in the Santa Cruz

       Surfing Museum. Wind surfing has also increased in popularity in

       the last few years with major competition located in the small bay

       south of Aho Nuevo.














































                                       105










         Section III: Action Plan




         A.   Overall Management and Development Concept

              The first task upon Sanctuary designation will be to establish

         liaison with the appropriate agencies to ensure the Sanctuary

         mandate can be carried out through a cooperative management

         strategy. Samctuary staff will meet with other agencies and

         institutions operating in the area to familiarize them with the

         Sanctuary mandate and staff, and determine appropriate working

         relationships. For example, discussions with California

         Departments of Fish and Game and Parks and Recreation, Regional

         Water Quality Control Boards, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and

         Wildlife Service, local businesses, Association of Monterey Bay

         Area Governments, towns and cities, agricultural and fishing

         representatives and research institutions would determine resources

         most in need of management.

              A Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Committee

         (SAC) will be created by the Marine and Estuarine Management

         Division to assist the Sanctuary Manager in policy making. The

         Committee will consist of appointed representatives of governmental

         agencies, research and education, and commercial and environmental

         interests. The SAC will create subcommittees to assist in

         developing programs in research, education, recreation, and

         planning and facilities for the Sanctuary. The SAC will play a key

         role in determining what the management priorities should be, and

         in bringing the othb-r agencies together.


                                         106









            The Sanctuary staff will work with other agencies to

       coordinate resource management programs and look for necessary

       support for such programs. The Sanctuary also will support

       management-related research and monitoring through funding,

       staffing, and other means that may be available and appropriate.

            Other immediate and high priority activities will include

       reviewing development or management proposals that will impact upon

       the marine resources, providing policy advice to other agencies

       working in the proposed Sanctuary area, and making presentations to

       appropriate levels of government.

            Another priority will be to assist in coordination and support

       of existing interpretive and education programs, such as those of

       the California Department of Parks and Recreation and the Monterey

       Bay Aquarium. MEMD headquarters and Sanctuary staff will review

       and develop educational materials, signage, interpretive displays

       and appropriate facilities in cooperation with existing programs.

       Interpretive information provided to those using the Sanctuary for

       recreation uses may help them enjoy their visit more and increase

       their awareness of Sanctuary resources.

            The general public and interested organizations in central and

       northern California will play important roles in attaining resource

       protection goals in the Sanctuary. Interpretive programs fostering

       public understanding and, hence, support for management objectives,

       are inherent in the plan's concept. The establishment of a MBNMS

       will provide an excellent opportunity to inform the public about

       the value of efforts to protect its fragile resources and the need


                                        107









        for a long-term management framework. Effective communication will

        depend on publications, exhibits, and special events that convey

        the significance of the Sanctuary's resources to both the in-state

        and out-of-state public.

             The management plan proposes actions tailored to specific

        issues affecting the Sanctuary. The plan recognizes the need for a

        balanced approach reflecting the existing protection priorities and

        the multiple use character of the area. Implementation of this

        plan will require cooperation and coordination among many federal,

        state and local government agencies as well as private

        organizations and individuals. See Appendix 2 for a listing and

        brief description of the various state and federal management

        authorities which have statutory responsibility for.protecting

        marine resources in the proposed Monterey Bay National Marine

        Sanctuary area. Information exchange, sharing facilities and

        staff, and the coordination of policies and procedures for resource

        protection will be features of all programs, including research and

        education. The plan is designed to guide management of the

        proposed MBNMS for the first five years after implementation.

        During this period, management initiatives will generally fall into

        three basic programs: Resource Protection, Research, and Education.

        The remainder of this section describes guidelines and initiatives

        for each program.








                                         108










      B.   Resource Protection

      1.   General Context in Management

           The proposed designation of Monterey Bay as a National Marine

      Sanctuary focuses attention on the value of the area's resources.

      To ensure that these resources are protected, the Sanctuary

      resource protection program includes: (1) coordination of policies

      and procedures among the agencies sharing responsibility for

      resource protection; (2) participation by other agencies in the

      development of new procedures to address specific management

      concerns (i.e., monitoring and emergency-response programs); and

      (3) the enforcement of Sanctuary regulations in addition to those

      already in place.

           In formulating the proposed Sanctuary regulatory regime NOAA:

      first, analyzed the resources and human uses of the Monterey Bay

      environment; second, analyzed the existing regulatory regime with

      regard to protection of the resources and qualities of the Monterey

      Bay area from possible harmful human activities; third, proposed

      alternative regulatory regimes, including relying on the existing

      regulatory regime, to protect the proposed Sanctuary's resources

      and qualities; fourth, analyzed the environmental consequences of

      each regulatory alternative, including no additional action with

      Sanctuary designation, to the resources and qualities of the

      Monterey Bay area; and fifth, proposed draft regulations based on

      the preferred course of action, the one deemed necessary to protect

      Sanctuary resources and qualities.

           The choice of proposed regulations was not only based on the


                                       109









         environmental consequences of each action but also constrained by

         the MPRSA, which states in Section 304(c):

         (1) Nothing in this title shall be construed as terminating or
         granting to the Secretary the right to terminate any valid lease,
         permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access if the
         lease, permit, license, or right -
              (A) was in existence on the date of enactment of the Marine
         Sanctuaries Amendments of 1984, with respect to any national marine
         sanctuary designated before that date: or
              (B) is in existence on the date of designation of any national
         marine sanctuary, with respect to any national marine sanctuary
         designated after the date of enactment of the Marine.Sanctuaries
         Amendments of 1984.
         (2) The exercise of a lease, permit, license, or right is subject
         to regulation by the Secretary consistent with the purposes for
         which the sanctuary is designated.





         2.   Designation Document and Sanctuary Regulations

              A summary of the existing regulatory regime in the area of the

         proposed MBNMS is included in Part III--(Section 1) Status Quo

         Alternative. The proposed Designation Document (Appendix 1)

         describes the relationship between Sanctuary designation and other

         regulatory programs. The proposed Designation Document also

         includes a list of activities subject to regulation now or in the

         future.

              To ensure protection of Sanctuary resources and conservation

         of Monterey Bay's valuable habitat, NOAA proposes seven additional

         regulations governing oil, gas and mineral activities; discharges

         and deposits (from both within and from outside of the boundaries);

         historical resources; alteration of or construction on the seabed;






                                         110









       marine mammals and seabirds; and overflights. If necessary to

       protect Sanctuary resources, vessel traffic and "thrill craft" may

       be regulated in the future.

            However, any of the prohibited activities other than exploring

       for, developing, or producing oil, gas or minerals in the Sanctuary

       could be conducted lawfully if: Necessary for national defense or

       law enforcement; necessary to respond to an emergency threatening

       life, property, or the environment; or pursuant to:

             (1) a National Marine Sanctuary permit;

             (2) a certification by the Director of the Office of Ocean and

       Coastal Resource Management of a valid lease, permit, license, or

       other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local

       authority of competent jurisdiction as of (or if conducted pursuant

       to any valid right of subsistence use or access, in existence as

       of) the effective date of this designation subj.ect to complying

       with any terms and conditions imposed by the Director as he or she

       deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was

       designated; or

             (3) a valid lease, permit, license, or other authorization

       issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent

       jurisdiction after the effective date of Sanctuary designation,

       provided that the Director was notified of the application in

       accordance with the requirements set forth in the Sanctuary

       regulations and the Director did not object to the issuance of such

       authorization, and such authorization contains, and the owner or

       holder complies with, such terms and conditions,


                                        ill









         as the Director deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and

         qualities.

              the prohibitions would apply to United States-flag vessels and

         to persons who are citizens, nationals or resident aliens of the

         United States and to foreign-flag vessels and persons not citizens,

         nationals, or resident aliens of the United States to the extent

         consistent with generally recognized principles of international

         law, and in accordance with treaties, conventions, and other

         agreements to which the United States is a party.

              The first activity prohibited would be exploring for, develop-

         ing, or producing oil, gas or minerals in the Sanctuary. The

         resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area, particularly sea

         otters, sea birds, and pinnipeds that use the haul-out sites, kelp

         forests and rocks along the Monterey Bay coast, and the high water

         quality, are especially vulnerable to oil and gas activities in the

         area. A prohibition on oil and gas activities within the proposed

         Sanctuary boundaries will provide partial protection from oil and

         gas activities for the resources and qualities within the proposed

         boundaries. A prohibition on mineral activities within the

         proposed Sanctuary is necessary to be consistent with the

         prohibition on the fifth activity as discussed below.

              The second activity prohibited would be depositing or

         discharging from any location within the boundaries of the

         Sanctuary materials or other substances except fish, fish parts,

         chumming materials or bait used in or resulting from normal fishing

         operations in the Sanctuary; biodegradable effluents incidental to


                                          112









      vessel use generated by marine sanitation devices approved by the

      U.S. Coast Guard; water generated by routine vessel operations

      (e.g., cooling water and deck washdown) excluding bilge pumping; or

      engine exhaust. This prohibition is necessary in order to protect

      the Sanctuary resources and qualities from the effects of

      pollutants deposited or discharged into the Sanctuary.

           The third activity prohibited would be depositing or

      discharging, from beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary, materials

      or other substances, except for the exclusions discussed above for

      the second activity, that subsequently enter the Sanctuary and

      injure a Sanctuary resource or quality. The intent of this

      prohibition is to protect the Sanctuary resources and qualities

      from the harmful effects of land and seagenerated non-point and

      point source pollution.

           The fourth activity prohibited would be moving, possessing, or

      injuring or attempting to move, possess, or injure a Sanctuary

      historical resource. Historical resources in the marine

      environment are fragile, finite and non-renewable. This

      prohibition is designed to protect these resources so that they may

      be researched and information about their contents and type made

      available for the benefit of the public.   This prohibition does

      not apply to accidental moving, possession or injury during normal

      fishing operations.

           The fifth activity prohibited would be drilling through,

      dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or

      constructing, placing or abandoning any structure or material on


                                       113









         the seabed of the Sanctuary, except as a result of: anchoring

         vessels;-normal fishing operations; routine harbor maintenance;

         installation ofnavigation aids; maintenance of mariculture

         operations existing as of the effective date of these regulations;

         and the construction of docks and piers. The intent of this

         prohibition is to protect the resources of the Sanctuary from the

         harmful effects of activities such as, but not limited to,

         excavations for archeological purposes, drilling into the seabed,

         strip mining, ocean mineral extraction and dumping of dredge

         spoils.

              The sixth activity prohibited would be taking marine mammals

         in the Sanctuary or seabirds in or above the Sanctuary, except in

         accordance with and as permitted by regulations promulgated under

         the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species

         Act (ESA). The term "taking" includes all forms of harassment.

         The MMPA and the ESA both prohibit the taking of specific species

         protected under those Acts. Sanctuary enforcement officials may

         consider harassment cases pursuant to the MMPA and ESA. The

         proposed prohibition would overlap with the MMPA and ESA but also

         extend protection for Sanctuary resources on an environmentally

         holistic basis. It would include all marine mammals in the

         Sanctuary and seabirds in or above the Sanctuary.

              The seventh and final activity prohibited would be flying

         motorized aircraft at less than 1000 feet above the Sanctuary

         within three nautical miles of State of California designated

         reserves, parks, beaches or refuges, or the Los Padres National


                                         114









       Forest. This prohibition is intended to protect marine birds and

       mammals from the disturbance and harassment of low-flying aircraft.

       For example, seabirds are often congregated near the shoreline and

       sea otters are distributed among the kelp beds within three

       nautical miles of the coastline.


            Vessel Traffic

            At present only a few, large commercial vessels visit the

       Monterey Bay region, mainly to dock at Moss Landing. The area has

       had a long history of safe vessel traffic but there still remains a

       threat to the valuable resources of the Monterey Bay area from

       possible collisions and spills of hazardous materials. NOAA has

       determined that existing shipping safety regulations are adequate

       and that no immediate action is necessary. However, NOAA will

       maintain close communication with the United States Coast Guard to

       evaluate the need for additional regulations and/or emergency

       response plans and equipment. In the future regulations may be

       promulgated that may include but are not limited to one or a

       combination of the following: (1) coast-wise vessel traffic be

       routed outside the boundaries of the Sanctuary, (2) all large

       vessels inbound to and outbound from Monterey Bay be restricted to

       port access route(s), (3) oil barge traffic be prohibited within

       the Sanctuary, and (4) special designs be required, such as double

       hulls, for petroleum and other hazardous substance transport

       vessels in the Sanctuary. The regulations could, for example,

       restrict vessel traffic from specified areas such as around Afio

       Nuevo or prohibit vessel traffic within specified distances from


                                       115









          the shore unless the vessel was entering or leaving a harbor within

          the Sanctuary boundaries.

               OReration of "Thrill Craft"

               "Thrill Craft" means any motorized vessel which is generally

          less than thirteen feet in length as manufactured, is capable of

          exceeding a speed of twenty miles per hour, and has the capacity to

          carry not more than the operator and one other person while in

          operation. The term includes but is not limited to jet skis, wet

          bikes, surf jets, miniature speed boats, and hovercraft.

               These craft can pose a serious threat to the resources of the

          Monterey Bay area. There is a potential for collisions with marine

          mammals and birds, injury to kelp beds,- and disturbance, due to the

          noise and exhaust, of the craft to organisms near and on the

          surface at large distances from the source of the craft. NOAA will

          monitor the activities of these "thrill craft" to determine, first,

          if indeed there is a threat to the resources and, second, if

          regulations should be promulgated prohibiting these activities in

          specified zones.



               Emergencies

               Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of,

          loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize

          the imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury, any

          activity, including those not listed in the scope of regulations,

          is subject to immediate temporary regulation, including

          prohibition, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.


                                          116












            Defense or Law Enforcement Activities

            No prohibition set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall

       apply to activities that are necessary for national defense or law

       enforcement. Whenever an activity necessary for national defense

       or law enforcement would violate a prohibition set forth in the

       Sanctuary regulations were it not necessary for national defense or

       law enforcement, the head of the agency taking the action shall

       notify the Secretary of Commerce or designate of the proposed

       activity if there is sufficient time to permit consultation without

       jeopardizing national defense or law enforcement. Such notifica-

       tion shall be sufficiently in advance of undertaking the activity

       in order to permit consultations as to how the activity could be

       conducted to minimize any adverse impact on Sanctuary resources and

       qualities without compromising national defense or law enforcement.

       Activities that are not necessary for national defense or law

       enforcement, such as training exercises and routine vessel

       operations, are subject to all prohibitions contained in the

       Sanctuary regulations.


            Fishing Regulations, Licenses, and Permits

            Fishing in the Sanctuary, including fishing for shellfish and

       invertebrates and mariculture, shall not be regulated as part of

       the Sanctuary management regime authorized by the Act. However,

       fishing in the Sanctuary may be regulated other than under the Act

       by Federal and State authorities of competent jurisdiction, and

       designation of the Sanctuary shall have no effect on any

                                        117









         regulation, permit, or license issued thereunder, e.g., regulations

         promulgated under the California Fish and Game Code and regulations

         implementing Fishery Management Plans promulgated under the

         Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1801

         et sea. Notwithstanding the above, discharges and deposits from

         fishing vessels may be regulated pursuant to Article IV, section 1,

         paragraph (b) of the Designation Document; drilling through,

         dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary or

         constructing, placing or abandoning any structure or material on

         the seabed of the Sanctuary in connection with fishing and maricul-

         ture activities may be regulated pursuant to Article IV, section 1,

         paragraph (d); and taking of marine mammals and seabirds may be

         regulated pursuant to Article IV, section 1, paragraph (e).



         Effect on Other Regulations, Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights

              If any valid regulation issued by any Federal, State, or local

         authority of competent jurisdiction, regardless of when issued,

         conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation more

         protective of Sanctuary resources and qualities shall govern.

              The procedures and criteria for issuance of Sanctuary permits

         and notification and certification of other leases, permits,

         licenses, approvals, or other authorizations are described in

         detail, with examples, in the proposed Sanctuary regulations (see

         Appendix 1). A summary of the effect of Sanctuary regulations on

         other regulatory authorities follows:




                                          118









           (a) Issued Before Designation

          Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C.

      ï¿½ 1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other

      authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of

      competent jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or access,

      may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce or his or her

      designate as a result of this designation or as a result of any

      Sanctuary regulation if such lease, permit, license, approval,

      other authorization, or right of use or access was issued or in

      existence as of the effective date of this designation. The

      Secretary of Commerce or his or her designate, however, may

      regulate the exercise of such authorization or right consistent

      with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is designated.

           The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall

      not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license,

      approval, or other authorization issued as of the effective date of

      Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or local authority of

      competent jurisdiction, or to any right of subsistence use or

      access in existence as of the effective date of Sanctuary

      designation, provided that the owner or holder of such

      authorization or right notifies the Secretary or his or her

      designate of the existence of such authorization or right and

      requests certification in accordance with the Sanctuary

      regulations, if the exercise of such authorization or right would

      otherwise violate a prohibition set forth in the Sanctuary

      regulations, and complies with any terms and conditions on the


                                      119









         exercise of such authorization or right imposed by the Secretary or

         his or her designate as he or she deems necessary to achieve the

         purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. Pending the

         imposition of terms and conditions by the Secretary or his or her

         designate, such owner or holder may exercise any such

         authorization or right without being in violation of any

         prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations.

               (b) Issued After Designation

              The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall

         not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license,

         approval or other authorization issued after the effective date of

         Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or local authority of

         competent jurisdiction, if the Secretary or his or her designate

         was notified of the application for such authorization by the

         applicant in accordance with the Sanctuary regulations and the

         Secretary or his or her designate did not object to the issuance of

         such authorization, and such authorization contains, and the owner

         or holder complies with, such terms and conditions as the

         Secretary or his or her designate deems necessary to protect

         Sanctuary resources and qualities.

               (c) Issuance of Sanctuary Permits

              The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall

         not apply to any activity authorized by a permit issued by the

         Secretary or his or her designate in accordance with the Sanctuary

         regulations. Such permits shall only be issued if the Secretary or

         his or her designate finds that the activity for which the permit


                                          120









      is applied will: further research related to Sanctuary resources;

      further the educational, natural or historical resource value of

      the Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or near

      the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty;

      assist in managing the Sanctuary; have only negligible, short-term

      adverse effects on Sanctuary resources and qualities; or further

      salvage or recovery operations in connection with an abandoned

      shipwreck in the Sanctuary title to which is held by the State of

      California.

           In addition, the Secretary or his or her designate may issue

      special use permits in accordance with section 310 of the Act.

           Since the Sanctuary regulations prohibit oil, gas, or mineral

      exploration, development, or production, the Designation Document

      provides that the Secretary or his or her designate may in no event

      permit or otherwise approve such activities in the Sanctuary, and

      any leases, licenses, permits, approvals, or other authorizations

      issued after the effective date of Sanctuary designation

      authorizing the exploration, development, or production of oil, gas

      or minerals in the Sanctuary shall be invalid.

           Thus, the regulatory regime that the proposed regulations

      would establish provides for multiple uses of Monterey Bay while at

      the same time providing for the protection of Sanctuary resources

      and qualities.

           For example, if a city or town were discharging sewage

      effluents into the Bay pursuant to a valid National Pollution

      Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued prior to the


                                       121









         effective date of Sanctuary designation, the city or town could

         continue to discharge under the permit without being in violation

         of the discharge prohibition by requesting certification of the

         permit in accordance with the Sanctuary regulations. The Director

         would then impose on the exercise of the NPDES permit such terms

         and conditions as he or she deems necessary to achieve the purposes

         for which the Sanctuary was designated. Such discharges would

         remain subject to all prohibitions, restrictions and conditions

         imposed by any other authority of competent jurisdiction.

              For another example, if an entity is dumping dredge spoils in

         the Bay pursuant to a valid existing permit, the entity could

         continue to do so by requesting and obtaining certification in

         accordance with the Sanctuary regulations.

              Prior to conditioning existing or future leases, permits,

        .licenses, approvals, other authorizations, or rights NOAA intends

         to consult with relevant issuing agencies as well as owners,

         holders or applicants. NOAA's policy is to encourage best

         available management practices to minimize non-point source

         pollution entering the Sanctuary and to require at a minimum

         secondary treatment and sometimes tertiary treatment or more,

         depending on predicted effects on Sanctuary resources and Sanctuary

         qualities,.for point source pollution, such as municipal sewage

         discharge.








                                         122









       3. Contingency Plans for Major Emergencies

            The resources of the MBNMS are susceptible to natural and

       human-related changes. Many of these changes are gradual and can

       be detected only through long-term monitoring of environmental and

       biological indicators. However, certain sudden and catastrophic

       changes in conditions (due to an accidental oil spill or vessel

       grounding, for example) could seriously impact resources and

       present severe health and safety hazards.

            A number of Contingency Plans are presently in effect in the

       Monterey Bay area. Under the National Contingency Plan for the

       removal of oil and hazardous substances in coastal and marine areas

       of EPA's Region IX (California, Nevada and Arizona), remedial

       action to control or remove this type of material that could

       endanger the public health is the responsibility of U.S. Coast

       Guard (USCG) directed Regional Response Teams acting through an on-

       Scene Coordinator and a Regional Response Center. The USCG's

       hazardous materials mission under the Oil and Hazardous Substance

       Pollution Contingency Plan is to: (1) prevent spills, (2)

       investigate spills that may occur and (3) coordinate response

       between all responsible parties.

            The Eleventh Coast Guard District, based in San Francisco,

       will provide Regional Response Center facilities. The On-Scene

       Coordinator will receive scientific support from NOAA and

       assistance as necessary from the Regional Response Team and other

       appropriate Federal and state agencies.

            Assistance is also possible from private groups and industry.


                                        123









         All of the relevant public and private agencies that would assist

         in a clean-up have Oil Spill Contingency Plans on file in the USCG

         Monterey Bay Office which are required to undergo periodic updates

         and approval by the USCG (LTJG Ray Perry, Personal Communication,

         April 5, 1989).

              The Moss Landing Power Plant and Marine Terminal has an oil

         Spill Contingency Plan that was most recently updated in November,

         1988. Tankers that unload at the Moss Landing terminal carry an

         average of one hundred and fifty thousand (150,000) barrels of oil.

         A boat, contracted by PG&E, equipped with portable skimmers,

         containment booms and other spill cleanup equipment is with the

         tanker during unloading. Two more boats are stationed at the plant

         docks, similarly equipped, but without crews. However, some Moss

         Landing PG&E employees are trained to operate the boats and

         equipment and are available on an "on-call" basis. The USCG can

         respond within 15 minutes and provide the necessary additional

         personnel, boats and equipment from the Monterey Coast Guard

         Station, if necessary (Carl Walker personal communication after

         discussion with Dan Bishop, May 4, 1989).

              The U.S. Navy has a Contingency Planning Guide (Draft, 1987)

         that details the oil spill response equipment, operating personnel

         and spill responses specialists that are available from the

         Supervisor of Salvage of the Naval Sea Systems Command for major

         spill response efforts. The Navy oil spill plans outline

         responsibility for all Navy spills such as those emanating from

         damaged Navy Fleet oilers or from Military Sealift Command


                                          124












      chartered tankers.

           In addition a number of oil companies and organizations

      including, Exxon Company (April, 1980), Cities Service Oil and Gas

      Corporation (Draft April, 1986; revised, 1988), Atlantic Richfield

      Company (April, 1981) and the Western Oil and Gas Association

      (January, 1987), have Oil Spill Contingency Plans or Documents that

      are designed to provide information and logistical support to the

      responsible government agency, discharger and other interested

      agencies in the event of a spill.

           Finally, Clean Bay and Clean Seas are two industry-supported

      oil spill clean-up cooperatives operating in the San Francisco Bay

      and the Santa Barbara areas, respectively. The primary

      responsibility to develop oil spill pr evention control techniques

      rests with management of each member company. However, the

      services, equipment and personnel of each cooperative are available

      to member, non-member and government agencies in each area of

      interest. The dividing line between the two cooperative areas of

      operations is at Cape San Matin. Therefore the resources of Clean

      Bay would be most relevant for oil spills in the Monterey Bay area

      although mutual assistance is available from each other's region.

           Clean Bay consists of  17 members including 6 oil refineries.

      The cooperative would have  a 4 hour response time to Moss Landing,

      and 8 to 10 hours with the  vessels located in Richmond. Within 6

      to 7 hours Clean Bay could  mobilize a plan located in Oakland and

      spray dispersants on the spill from the air. This type of

      dispersant action needs approval from the Coast Guard (Rick


                                       125









          Willett, personal communication, May 18, 1989).

               A Marine Safety.Office Contingency Plan is currently under

          review at the Coast Guard station in Monterey Bay. It is designed

          to incorporate and coordinate the above plans, resources and

          equipment in the event of a spill in the Monterey Bay region.

          However, the Monterey Bay Aquarium staff, based on their recent

          involvement in the Exxon Valdez spill, have concluded that the

          current Monterey Bay contingency plan for oil spill removal and

          wildlife recovery is inadequate (Julie Packard, personal

          communication, May 1, 1989).

               To provide further protection to Monterey Bay resources, the

          Sanctuary staff will assess the state of preparedness of the

          relevant parts of the contingency plans as they relate to the

          Sanctuary. This action will entail exchanging information with

          government and industry response teams and seeking their support in

          assessing detection and clean-up capabilities that can be used to

          protect Bay resources and a possible trial simulation in Monterey
          Bay. In addition, and consistent with tfie National Marine

          Sanctuary Program Regulations (15 CFR Part 922), NOAA will provide

          the necessary resources and impetus to develop and implement a

          site-specific contingency and emergency-response plan designed to

          protect the Monterey Bay Sanctuary's resources. The plan shall

          contain alert procedures and actions to be taken in the event of an

          emergency such as a shipwreck or an oil spill.

               An MEMD-level contingency and emergency-response plan has been

          prepared for the channel Islands and Key Largo National marine


                                          126









       Sanctuaries. A similar plan for the proposed MBNMS will be created

       that will:

            Describe emergency-response procedures and coordination
            requirements for MEMD and Sanctuary staff;

       0    Provide a geographic information system depicting resources at
            risk;

            Outline procedures for emergency research; and

       0    Provide damage assessment guidelines.

            In conjunction with this plan, agreements may be formulated to

       improve spill detection programs and augment containment

       capabilities (i.e., with additional equipment, staff, and

       deployment plans). These efforts will be closely coordinated with

       similar efforts to protect the Elkhorn Slough NERR.



       4.   Encouraging Compatible Use of the Sanctuary

            Encouraging the private and public uses the Sanctuary in ways

       that are compatible with the protection of Sanctuary resources and

       qualities is an important aspect of the resource program. The MEMD

       will encourage compatible visitor use by undertaking the following:

       a    Monitoring commercial and recreational activities in the
            Sanctuary and encouraging other agencies to do so to detect
            areas of particular management concern;

       0    Collecting and publicizing information on commercial and
            recreational activities in the Sanctuary;

       0    Consulting with other agencies on policies and proposals for
            the management of activities which may affect protection of
            Sanctuary resources; and

       0    Developing educational materials aimed at enhancing public
            awareness of the Sanctuary's resources and their need for
            protection.

            Monitoring and information exchange programs are discussed

                                        127









         under research (Subsection C). The development of materials is

         discussed under education (Subsection D).



         5.   Surveillance and Enforcement

              A primary feature of the resource protection program is the

         surveillance of Sanctuary waters and enforcement of applicable

         regulations. Although a detailed enforcement plan has not been

         developed, NOAA, at present, envisions a State-Federal cooperative

         enforcement system involving the State of California Resources

         Agency, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

         the National Marine Fisheries Service and the National Park

         Service. Since the proposed Sanctuary would include both State and

         Federal waters, close coordination between State and Federal

         authorities would be required.

              The USCG has broad responsibility for enforcing all Federal

         laws in navigable waters under U.S. jurisdiction. Where these laws

         regulate fishing harvests, the USCG works closely with the NMFS and

         the CDF&G. The CDF&G enforces Federal as well as California

         fishing regulations in the exclusive economic zone (200 miles from

         the State's coastal baseline) and acts as the primary agency for

         the enforcement of fishery regulations applying to Monterey Bay.

              Sanctuary designation would have the effect of,broadening USCG

         enforcement responsibilities to include the enforcement of

         Sanctuary regulations. Neither NOAA nor the USCG has the resources

         to conduct systematic surveillance and enforcement operations to

         ensure compliance with Sanctuary regulations. However, both the


                                         128









       USCG and the State conduct operations in the area. The USCG would

       provide limited surveillance in conjunction with multi-mission,

       surface or aerial operations.

            NOAA plans to rely on such observers from other agencies and

       cooperating organizations, including excursion and service boat

       operators, to assist in providing the surveillance information

       needed for the'enforcement program. The enforcement program is

       expected to be sufficiently strong to deter widespread violation of

       Sanctuary regulations. However, in the event that analyses of use

       patterns after Sanctuary designation indicate that additional

       surveillance is required, NOAA will provide for more intensive

       enforcement to protect Sanctuary resources. The effectiveness of

       Sanctuary enforcement operations will be evaluated two years after

       Sanctuary designation and annually thereafter.

            Emphasis will also be placed on information development and

       dissemination as well as after-the-fact enforcement efforts. The

       interpretation and education program will therefore be important in

       engendering voluntary compliance with Sanctuary regulations.

       (a) Public Education and Information

            Because the most effective enforcement is prevention, the

       Sanctuary education program will make every effort to inform users

       of the need to use the Sanctuary environment wisely. Much of this

       effort will involvethe preparation of easily understood brochures

       and other written materials on regulations, and the reasons for

       them. These materials will be made available to all Sanctuary


       users.




                                        129









          (b) Planning and Coordination

              Information obtained from the research program and from

          surveillance- enforcement activities on Sanctuary visitor use

          patterns, frequently occurring violations, and potentially

          sensitive resources, will be reviewed in periodic meetings between

          the Sanctuary Manager, the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and

          enforcement agency personnel to determine the adequacy of

          surveillance levels.




          C.  Research

          1.  General Context in Management

              Specific sites within the study area have a long history of

          research and a considerable amount of baseline environmental


          information has been documented. These are historical research

          areas of national significance. Aho Nuevo Island and Afio Nuevo

          Point have been intensively studied as has the rocky intertidal

          area along the northern shoreline of the Monterey Peninsula

          (Hopkins Marine Life Refuge and Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish

          Refuge). The Monterey Canyon and the Bay environment have been the

          focus of research as well.

              Six major marine research institutions are found in the

          proposed Sanctuary. These are the University of California's

          Institute of Marine Sciences at Long Marine Laboratory at Santa

          Cruz; San Jose State University's Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

          at Moss Landing; Stanford University's, Hopkins Marine Station; the

          Center for Ocean Analysis and Prediction (NOAA) and the Naval


                                          130









       Postgraduate Marine Laboratory; Granite Canyon Marine Laboratory

       (California Fish and Game) and Monterey Bay Aquarium Research

       Institute (Incorporated May, 1987).

           The opportunities for undertaking marine research in the area

       are excellent. The diversity of habitat types and communities is

       outstanding and past studies provide important baseline

       information. The Monterey Canyon provides a unique opportunity to

       undertake deep water marine research without having to undertake

       long and expensive cruises offshore. Finally, the marine research

       institutions within the area provide an exceptional resource to

       draw upon in furthering our understanding and thus the management

       of the proposed Sanctuary's marine resources.

           Effective management of the MBNMS will require the

       inauguration of a research program that effectively coordinates the

       existing research programs and addresses management issues. The

       role of the Sanctuary can serve to provide a forum for discussion

       of research priorities and exchange of information among local

       research institutions. The Sanctuary can also provide limited but

       long term logistical and financial support for research studies

       consistent with the goals of the Sanctuary program.

           specific priority research needs for the Sanctuary will be

       identified and approved by MEMD with advice from the Sanctuary

       Advisory Committee. This process is described in the following

       Sections.

            scientific investigations into the Monterey Bay ecosystem

       structure and function is essential so that managers can develop


                                       131









          effective solutions to management problems. Research funded by the

          MEMD will be directed to improving our knowledge of the Sanctuary's

          environment and resources. This research will not only expand our

          understanding of basic coastal and marine processes but will be the

          basis for evaluating activities that may affect the Sanctuary's

          resources. The general direction of the research program and the

          process for preparing an annual Sanctuary Research Plan is

          discussed below.


          2.  Framework for Research

              The research program consists of three major project

          categories:

              Baseline studies to determine the features and processes of
              the natural environment; to determine the abundance,
              distribution, and interaction of the living resources;
              distribution and status of cultural resources and to describe
              the pattern of human activity in the Sanctuary from
              prehistoric times to the future;

              Monitoring to document changes in environmental quality, in
              ecology, and in human activity; and

          0   Predictive studies to assess the causes and effects of
              environmental and ecological changes.

              Each of these categories is described in more detail below:

          (a) Baseline Studies

              Baseline studies will be designed to obtain a better

          understanding of the physical oceanography and ecology of the

          Sanctuary. Because Monterey Bay is located in an area subject to

          hydrocarbon spills and discharge effluents, Sanctuary managers need

          sound information on water circulation. This information would be

          used to improve understanding of the dispersion pattern of possible

          oil spills and current land-source and ocean-source discharges into

                                          132








       the Sanctuary as part of the Sanctuary's contingency planning

       efforts. A basic understanding of the physical oceanographic

       processes of the Monterey Bay area at a mesocosm scale is essential

       before one can undertake predictive studies of human activities on

       the marine environment.

            Studies into the transport of discharges and materials from

       sources to sinks throughout the water column is necessary before

       one can conclusively establish cause and effects of these

       anthropogenic inputs. It is hoped that ultimately this research

       will establish a firm scientific basis from which to apply

       management and possible regulatory measures that will reduce the

       impacts and costs of these human activities on the environment and

       society.

            Basic physical oceanographic studies should focus on

       interchange of water masses between Bay and open ocean, upwelling

       and gyre dynamics. Process oriented studies can use resident,

       indicator species to identify local water mass movement and

       elucidate key productivity areas or areas of high diversity.

       Results could then be incorporated into an understanding of food

       chain relationships and predator-prey foraging dynamics.

            Such studies could then be expanded upon to determine whether

       effects on the resources of the Monterey Bay area are caused by

       biological impacts, i.e., inter- or intraspecific competition or

       predation such as between salmon, seabirds, shorebirds and marine

       mammals, or from abiotic effect such as sea temperature rise from

       El Nino events or from human activities such as degradation of


                                       133









        water quality via pollutants. For example, a fishery stock

        assessment could be instituted to determine the species composition

        and abundance of the fish population on Monterey Bay. The data

        collected in this study would serve to document the Bay's value as

        a fishery habitat and provide the basis for estimating the effects,

        if any, of increased fishing intensity, climatic change, ,

        fluctuations in predator and prey abundance, or pollutants on the

        fishery.

             Comprehensive knowledge of the distribution of organisms and

        their dependence on environmental factors is needed for

        interpretation as well as for resource protection. The environment

        at representative depths and locations should be characterized by

        the collection of additional baseline data on water temperature and

        salinity, light penetration, upwelling circulation and nutrient-

        load. This information should be correlated with data on.the

        abundance and distribution, by depth zone and location of species

        populations living within and transiting the Monterey Bay area.

        Data of this type have been collected by the numerous research

        institutions surrounding Monterey Bay (Section II), but there are

        still many gaps in our knowledge of Monterey Bay ecology,

        specifically land-sea interactions.

             The interaction of physical oceanography with biological

        studies will assist in developing an understanding of the ecology

        of the region and the general health and productivity of the Bay

        area. The research and education programs-in general will

        emphasize a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, integrative


                                         134









        approach that will engender a regional and cooperative attitude to

        basic and applied scientific issues. The geographic location of

        the proposed Sanctuary provides an excellent opportunity to

        integrate research that investigates the effects of man's land

        activities on the resources and human uses,of the marine


        environment. The data collected from these studies would serve to

        document the Bay's value as a productive ecosystem and focus for

        public recreation and provide the basis for estimating the effects,

        if any, of present and future land-use practices on the Bay Is


        resources.


            Additionally, an historical context study, including a general

        literature search, will be conducted to identify probable

        historical, archeological and paleontological sites within the

        Sanctuary. This research will be followed by a field

        reconnaisance-type remote sensing survey and archeological

        assessment to locate and evaluate to the existing historical and

        cultural resource base in the Sanctuary. These baseline cultural

        and historical resource studies will provide the fundamental

        information necessary for developing a cultural and historical

        resource management strategy and education/interpretation program

        for the Sanctuary.



        (b) Monitoring

             Effective management requires a data base more comprehensive

        than simply the number of plants, animals, and non-living elements

        within the Sanctuary. It requires an understanding of long-term


                                        135









         changes to the status of the resources. Monitoring provides such

         understanding. Monitoring data indicative of the relative health

         of resources can be used to detect ecological changes and trends.

         This program should include pollution monitoring studies and

         studies to monitor the population dynamics of species inhabiting

         the benthos and water column of Monterey Bay's intertidal zone,

         canyons and continental shelf. Changes in the relative

         distribution of these species could indicate the existence of

         natural or man-caused threats to Bay resources. A three-phase

         monitoring program has been initiated at the neighboring Elkhorn

         Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve.. This program can be

         coordinated and developed in concert with a program suitable for

         the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary.

              The resources of Monterey Bay are exposed to many different

         types of threats. Research and monitoring needs could be ranked

         according to the perceived magnitude of the threat. Among the

         threats to the Bay resources are: oil and gas activities as well as

         discharges from the land and ocean including point source (sewage

         treatment plants, combined sewer overflows, etc.) and non-point

         source (agriculture, marinas, urban runoff, etc.) pollutants.

         Pollutant loading into the Sanctuary can occur indirectly via land

         runoff from rivers or the atmosphere and directly from man's

         activities such as ocean dumping, outfall pipes or vessel

         discharges.

             Many activities and phenomena in the Bay warrant long-term

         investigation and monitoring. For example studies could be


                                         136









        implemented to monitor the effects of (1) commercial vessel traffic

        in the area; (2) recreational activities, such as the use of jet-

        skis, hovercraft, and small power boats (thrill craft); (3) changes

        in the abundance and proportions of adult to juvenile invertebrates

        and fish larvae; (4) fluctuations in the abundance of whale,

        pinniped and seabird species in the Sanctuary; (5) the intensity

        and relative importance of sport fishing, commercial fishing and

        nature observation activity; (6) biological input of organics and

        fecal coliforms from pinnipeds at Afio Nuevo; (7) effects of natural

        versus man-induced (i.e., sand mining) erosion and sedimentation;

        (8) fate of enteric pathogenic bacteria in Monterey Bay and West

        Coast waters in general; and (9) fishery/mammal interactions such

        as the by-catch of sea otters and birds in gill nets and the

        competition between sport divers and otters for abalone.

            .In general the monitoring data needs to be collected and

        analyzed in a manner so that it is widely applicable and provides

        timely and pertinent information for academic and management

        purposes. Status and trends of contaminants in Monterey Bay is

        presently underway with the Mussel Watch Program. However, there

        is a need for before, during and post-hydrocarbon activity

        monitoring and toxicological assessments. These studies should be

        directed at all trophic levels of concern including plankton,

        algae, fisheries, invertebrates, mammals, and birds. Recently a

        monitoring program has been initiated by Minerals Management

        Service (MMS) for hydrocarbon activities in Southern California

        (MMS, 1988). A similar study should be considered if Lease Sale


                                         137









         119 in central California is to-proceed as scheduled.

              Overall the monitoring program will assist in our

         understanding of the general health of the Bay. It could help

         discover sources of pollutants and assist in the establishment of

         cause and effects relationships as part of long-term toxicological

         evaluations. It could also elucidate the changing patterns, and

         magnitudes of input of contaminants. Finally the monitoring

         program will carefully address the issue of what to do with the

         data and how to apply the findings for basic science as well as

         applied management purposes.



         (c) Predictive Studies

              In addition to baseline research and monitoring, the Sanctuary

         research program will include studies, as needed, to analyze the

         causes and consequences of changes in the ecosystem and to predict

         the effects on it of new or more intense human activity in the

         area. Unlike the monitoring program these predictive studies are

         envisioned to be more short-term and directly targeted to an

         immediate management issue. Studies could be made to determine the

         effects on marine mammals of possible increases in boating activity

         if heightened interest in whale watching and fishing excursions

         results from Sanctuary establishment. A knowledge of these effects

         would enable management to provide information to Sanctuary users

         to avoid disturbing these animals unnecessarily.

              other studies of whales, pinnipeds and seabirds in the

         Sanctuary could be initiated to determine their range, where they


                                         138









       come from, and how dependent they are on the food resources of the

       Bay. These studies should be closely tied into similar studies

       conducted in the GFNMS and Afio Nuevo research programs. One such

       study, for example, might be an investigation to determine (1)

       whether the decrease in Steller sea lions in the Farallon and

       Channel Islands can be attributed to a decline in prey availability

       and compare the results to a similar study on the relatively stable

       Stellar sea lion population on Afio Nuevo and; (2) the importance of

       the Monterey Bay fish stocks in sustaining the Steller sea lion

       population.



       3.   Selection and Management of Research Projects

            To ensure that projects considered for,funding by the MEMD are

       directed to the resolution of Sanctuary management issues and

       concerns, the Sanctuary Manager, the SAC and the MEMD, will follow

       procedures developed by the MEMD, to ensure that the Sanctuary's

       research program is consistent with overall Program policies and

       directions. These procedures include: (1) preparing an annual

       Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP) and (2) monitoring the progress of

       research in the Sanctuary. To some degree, the research program

       for the MBNMS will be coordinated with the research and monitoring

       program at the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve.

       (a) Preparing an Annual Plan

            Each year a Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP) will be prepared for

       the MBNMS. The SRP will then be incorporated into a national plan

       which includes annual plans for each Sanctuary. Steps involved in


                                        139









         the annual planning process include:

              Identifying management concerns for the Sanctuary with
              supporting evidence or rationales.

              Based on the identification of management concerns, research
              priorities shall be established. Research priorities are
              established by the Sanctuary Manager in cooperation with the
              SAC and MEMD. The most important factors to be considered in
              establishing annual research priorities will be the following:

              (1)  Immediate or evolving management issues that may be
                   resolved through directed research projects;

              (2)  The prospects of research already in progress; and

              (3)  The availability of funds, equipment and instruments for
                   research support.

              Research workshops are held on an occasional basis to
              facilitate the identification of research problems. After the
              management issues and research priorities are developed, a
              draft SRP is prepared.

         0    The draft SRP is circulated by the MEMD for peer review.

         0    A final SRP is prepared. This SRP includes documentation of
              how each project meets the national selection criteria. The
              final SRP is then incorporated by MEMD into a National
              Sanctuary Research Plan. The highest ranking research
              projects are selected from the national plan and a procurement
              schedule is prepared.

              A research announcement and request for proposals (RFP) is
              prepared. The announcement discusses management concerns and
              summarizes past and on-going research. Its purpose is to
              solicit proposals from the scientific community for specific
              research to carry out the SRP.


              If research proposals include activities that are prohibited

         by Sanctuary regulations a permit may be issued by NOAA upon

         application by researchers or, it may be determined that all or

         part of the research should be conducted outside of the Sanctuary.

         Research on specially protected or endangered species, such as the

         brown pelican and certain marine mammals, may require additional


                                         140









       research permits from other agencies.



       (b) Monitoring Progress

            The Sanctuary Manager will monitor the performance of research

       projects and keep records of all research underway, equipment being

       used on site, frequency of researchers' visits, and progress to

       date. Progress reports and final reports to the MEMD and Sanctuary

       Manager will be required to ensure conformance to schedules

       outlined under the terms of the contract. Final reports may be

       reviewed by recognized scientists and resource managers before

       approval by the MEMD. Outstanding project reports will be

       published by the MEMD in its Technical Report Series.



       4. Information Exchange

          To complement directly funded research, the MEMD will encourage

       research funded from other sources particularly where it supports

       Sanctuary management objectives. In this regard, the MEMD will

       make available to other agencies and private institutions current

       Sanctuary resource data obtained from past and ongoing research

       projects.



       D.   Education

       1.   General Context in Management

            Sanctuary designation could provide local governments,

       businesses, citizen groups, farmers and existing institutions,

       information and techniques to protect the natural environment of


                                       141








        Monterey Bay. Increased public understanding and appreciation of

        the value of Monterey Bay resources is essential for their

        protection. The interpretive program for the MBNMS will be focused

        on improving public awareness of the Sanctuary and providing

        information on Bay resources and Sanctuary regulations designed to

        protect them.

        2.   Educational Opportunities

             opportunities for interpreting the MBNMS fall into two broad

        categories: education for local visitors and potential users of the

        Sanctuary, including; school groups and teachers, fishermen,

        boaters, divers, etc., as well as education for visitors at local

        information Centers and at the Sanctuary headquarters. Interested

        groups not visiting either location may also benefit from learning

        about the Sanctuary's resources.

          . The diversity of habitats and communities, the unique Monterey

        Canyon, and the overlap of human uses of the resources such as

        fisheries present unique opportunities for education. There are

        many potential vehicles for education including the highway

        pulloffs, existing State park, beach, refuge and reserve programs,

        university extension programs, and boat tours. The large numbers

        of visitors to the area (for example, 1 - 2 million yearly on the

        Big Sur coastal'highway) is a potential "market" for educational

        information in addition to local residents and agencies.

             The Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, the Aho Nuevo

        facilities, and the Elkhorn Slough NERR, as well as other State and

        private educational facilities such as Point Lobos, Point Lobos


                                         142









       Natural History Association, Big Sur, and university programs add

       an exciting, existing dimension to interpretation of the proposed

       Sanctuary area, and present a great opportunity for presentation of

       information on the proposed Sanctuary program.

            As well as established facilities there are a number of

       locations throughout the Sanctuary's coastal area that present

       additional opportunities for educational and interpretive services

       for visitors to the area. For example the Pigeon Point Lighthouse,

       Davenport, Wilder Ranch, Pt. Santa Cruz and New Brighton/Seacliff

       Pier already provide education opportunities on a variety of

       cultural, historical and fishing subject areas. Waddell Creek,

       Moss Landing State Beaches, Carmel/Stillwater and the Pt. Sur

       Lighthouse are all excellent recreational sites for windsurfing,

       sportdiving, whalewatching, surfing and sportfishing. Big Basin,

       Natural Bridges State Park, Salinas River National Refuge, Asilomar

       and the area between Lover's Point to Pebble Beach are areas of

       easy public access for nature viewing and intertidal and estuarine

       ecology education. Finally, Santa Cruz Pier and Harbor, Capitola

       Wharf, Manrisa/Sunset Beach, Moss Landing Harbor, Marina, Monterey

       Harbor and Piers, Coast Guard Breakwater and Carmel Beach are all

       excellent locations to establish signs and displays. These

       educational displays would provide visitorst residents and users of

       the Sanctuary with a brief description of the Sanctuary's resources

       and uses. The signs could also outline the objectives and goals of

       the National Marine Sanctuary Program and specifically educate the

       public regarding the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary


                                        143









         regulations.



         3.   Educational Programs

              Education for the MBNMS will consist of three distinct sub-


         programs:

         o    Site visitor programs and information for regular users such
              as fishing and whale watching excursions, other recreational
              visitors to Sanctuary waters and local public and school
              groups;
              Information center programs for those visiting the facilities
              at the MBNMS headquarters and other nearby information
              centers; and

              Outreach programs for interested groups not visiting the
              Sanctuary.

              It should be noted again, however, that many of these programs

         will be carried out in coordination with programs already sponsored

         by existing interpretative programs.



         (a) Site Visitor Programs

              Whale watching and other nature viewing at Monterey Bay is

         generally incidental to sport fishing from excursion boats, but

         there is a potential for excursions solely for the purpose of

         nature viewing. Nature enthusiasts visiting Monterey Bay have the

         opportunity to enjoy watching sea lions, porpoises and Grey whales

         as well as the large flocks of seabirds that feed in Bay waters.

         Brochures and educational materials will be made available to

         fishermen and nature viewers to make them aware of Sanctuary

         regulations, particularly with regard to waste disposal, and to

         inform them about the seabirds and marine mammals that may be seen


                                         144









       in the Sanctuary and the rich ecological communities lying beneath

       its waters.

           On-site education provided by the MBNMS manager will consist

       largely of written material describing the Sanctuary and explaining

       its regulations. This information will be available to the wide

       variety of recreationists and tourists who visit the area. The

       program will actively coordinate with existing educational

       programs. If there is sufficient public interest and if funding

       and staff resources are available for expanding this program, the

       Sanctuary Manager will consider co-sponsoring special excursions to

       Monterey Bay waters, organized by non-profit organizations, and

       providing on-board interpreters.



       (b) Information Center Programs

           The establishment of a Sanctuary headquarters in the area and

       the existence of other visitor and information centers along the

       coast provide an opportunity to inform visitors to these sites

       about the Monterey Bay environment. Many of these visitors would

       not normally visit Monterey Bay; yet, given the opportunity to see

       educational exhibits and brochures about the Sanctuary at these

       centers, their appreciation for the special qualities of the Bay

       environment should be enhanced. The feasibility of establishing

       additional distribution points for brochures and information and

       space for posters and displays will be investigated.-

           There are geographically distributed educational/interpretive

       programs that present a range of opportunities for users to gain an


                                       145









         appreciation of the marine environment. To a large extent these

         programs are not coordinated.

         Aho Nuevo State Reserve: The University of California, Santa Cruz,

         has a visiting schools program, and is involved in the Afio Nuevo

         docent program which train guides. There is a guided walk program

         at Aho Nuevo dealing with all aspects of the natural history of the

         reserve. Emphasis is on the growth of the elephant seal

         population, and pinniped ecology. A visitor center is being

         planned and the area attracts approximately 140,000 visitors/year.

         Long Marine Laboratories Aauarium: Presents program and docent led

         tours of research facilities.

         Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge: Primarily used for

         recreation, especially diving.

         Hopkins Marine Life Refuge: This area is primarily used by

         researchers.

         Point Lobos State Reserve: A small educational program is

         conducted and some guided walks are available. School groups are

         encouraged to visit Asilomar State Beach rather than Point Lobos.

         Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve: This area is used by researchers,

         sport-fishermen and sport divers.

         California Sea Otter Game Refuge: At present the Refuge does not

         have an educational program dedicated to the California Sea Otter.

         Natural History Museum,in Santa Cruz and Pacific Grove Natural

         History Museum: Provides visitors with information on the marine

         environment.





                                         146









       Moss Landing marine Laboratory: Holds an open house each year to

       present ongoing research. In addition, programs are offered to

       school groups.

       Monterey Bay Aguarium: Presents programs dealing with all facets

       of the proposed Sanctuary environment. The goal of the aquarium is

       to "promote public knowledge and appreciation of the marine

       environment through an exhibit program based in Monterey Bay".

       Based on the theme of habitats of Monterey Bay, the Aquarium

       exhibit program offers visitors a first-hand look into the world of

       these diverse undersea communities. On-site school and outreach

       programs provide information to approximately 100,000 school

       children per year.

       California State Pagk and Beach System: The parks and beaches

       offer public access to the shoreline throughout most of the study

       area. Access is only difficult along the Big Sur shoreline. There

       are only a limited number of educational programs considering the

       rich marine resources.




       (c) Outreach Programs

            Finally, the MBNMS educational program will try to reach

       groups in the coastal region of California and elsewhere who have

       an interest in Monterey Bay and related areas, but are not apt to

       visit the area. This project entails identifying these groups and

       making educational materials available to them.

            These programs will be carried out in conjunction with similar

       local programs to provide off-site education. Where possible, they


                                        147









         will involve close cooperation with environmental study groups such

         as the Sierra Club, Center for Marine Conservation, Audubon

         Society, Friends of the Sea Otter, and the Whale Center; research

         and education organizations, such as the California Academy of

         Sciences, the University of California and the Pescadero Marsh

         Natural Reserve; local officials in Monterey, Santa Cruz and San

         Mateo counties; the State Sea Grant Program and the Association of

         Monterey Bay Governments (AMBAG) and representatives of the tourism

         and recreational and commercial fishing industries. These groups

         will be provided with educational materials on the Sanctuary and

         will be encouraged to inform others of the availability of these

         materials. If interest is strong enough, a slide presentation or

         mobile exhibit may be developed for the use of schools and private

         groups.

































                                         148













      Section IV. Administration

      A.   Administrative Framework

           This section of the management plan describes the roles of the

      agencies that will be involved in Sanctuary management, proposes

      strategies to coordinate their activities, and provides for

      periodic evaluation of the effectiveness of the management plan.

      Sanctuary management consists of three functions: resource

      protection, research, and education. Administration oversees all

      other functions and establishes who is responsible for implementing

      specific programs. The administrative framework ensures that all

      management activities are coordinated.

           The MEMD is responsible for the overall management of the

      proposed MBNMS. The MEMD will coordinate its on-site activities

      through cooperative agreements with the State, regional, local and

      other Federal agencies. The general administrative role of each

      agency is as follows.

      1.   Marine and Estuarine Management Division

           The National Marine Sanctuary Program is managed by the MEMD.

      A site-specific management plan is prepared for each Sanctuary to

      ensure that on-site activities in resource protection, research,

      and education are coordinated and consistent with Sanctuary goals

      and objectives.

           The MEMD develops a general budget, setting out expenditures

      for program development, operating costs, and staffing. Funding

      priorities will be reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect


                                       149









          evolving conditions in the proposed MBNMS and National Marine

          Sanctuary Program priorities and requirements. The MEMD also

          establishes policies and procedures in response to specific issues

          in each Sanctuary. Detailed MEMD responsibilities are listed under

          the resource protection, research, education, and general

          administration sections which follow.

               The Sanctuary Manager for the MBNMS reports directly to the

          MEMD. In this capacity, the Manager represents the MEMD and is the

          primary spokesperson for the MBNMS. The Sanctuary's headquarters

          will be located in the Monterey Bay region. The Manager will serve

          on the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve Advisory

          committee, assuming the role formerly filled by the Gulf of the

          Farallones NMS Manager.

          2., Sanctuary Advisory Committee

               The National Marine Sanctuary Program is different from other

          special area management programs because Sanctuaries are to be

          managed for research and education as well as for resource

          protection. In addition, several agencies and interest groups are

          involved with the Sanctuary's management. Accordingly, a mechanism

          to assist the interested groups in participating in Sanctuary

          management will be developed. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee

          (SAC) will be established to provide this management function.

               The Marine and Estuarine Management Division will determine

          the structure, composition and functions of the SAC. All

          interested groups and agencies will be consulted to ensure that the

          SAC takes all interests into account and that the committee is



                                          150








      representative of a broad based constituency to ensure that the

      Manager has a broad information base upon which to make any

      management decisions.   The experience and expertise of the SAC

      will be available to the Manager on an ad hoc basis as well as

      during regularly scheduled meetings. In order to function

      efficiently in an advisory capacity it may be beneficial to

      subdivide the SAC into subcommittees that correspond to the

      resource protection, research, education and general administration

      issues. Detailed SAC responsibilities are listed under the

      resource protection, research, education and general administration

      sections which follow.

      3.   Federal Agencies

           The USCG is responsible for enforcing Federal laws in waters

      under U.S. jurisdiction. This mission includes the enforcement of

      Sanctuary regulations promulgated for the MBNMS. The USCG also

      manages operations for the control or removal of oil and hazardous

      substances resulting from offshore spills. In addition to

      enforcing fishing and vessel discharge regulations, the USCG is

      also responsible for regulating vessel traffic, maintaining boater

      safety, and coordinating search and rescue operations.

           The United States Fish and Wildlife Service and National

      Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) also have existing management and

      enforcement capabilities in the proposed Sanctuary area with

      regards to fisheries, marine mammals and endangered species.

           The EPA has regulatory responsibilities with regard to sewage

      outfalls, and ocean dumping.   EPA has delegated discharge


                                       151









         permitting authority to the State government.

              The Corps of Engineers grant permits that are based on EPA

         guidelines for the discharge of dredged materials into State

         waters. The Corps has sole jurisdiction over marine construction,

         excavation or fill in any navigable waters of the United States.

              The United States Army and Navy both conduct military training

         activities in the proposed Sanctuary area.

         4.   State, regional and local agencies

              The Monterey Bay area already has an infrastructure for

         coastal resource management and numerous personnel with enforcement

         training as well as wide experience with the resources and user

         groups within the proposed Sanctuary area. In general NOAA will

         work closely within the existing administrative framework of State,

         regional and local resource management agencies such as the State

         of California's Resources Agency, which is responsible for the

         management and enforcement at the variety of State parks, beaches,

         refuges and reserves. Other California state agencies with

         existing primary jurisdiction in the area of Monterey Bay are: the

         Coastal Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the

         State Lands Commission, the Air Resources Board and the Historical

         Resources Commission.

              It is NOAA's intent to work closely with the State to ensure

         full Federal-State cooperation and to coordinate the Sanctuary

         program effectively with the existing State administrative

         framework. This cooperation will involve the formalization of

         cooperative Agreements, Memoranda of Understanding and deputization


                                          152









       of officials, if necessary, for enforcement purposes.

            NOAA will also cooperate with regional organizations such as

       the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG), local

       fishery organizations and Harbor Masters as well as with the Cities

       of Monterey and Santa Cruz and neighboring towns such as Moss

       Landing.

            To facilitate the administrative procedures regarding

       certification and notification of leases, licenses, permits,

       approvals, rights or other authorizations (as described above, Part

       II, Section III, B.2. Designation Document and Regulations), NOAA

       intends to work closely with the owners or holders of, or

       applicants for, leases, licenses, permits, approvals, rights or

       other authorizations as well as with the appropriate issuing

       agencies. The Sanctuary Manager will also work with AMBAG to

       receive notice of activities that may affect the proposed

       Sanctuary.


       B.   Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities

       1.   Marine and Estuarine Management Division

       (a)  Approves priorities for funding for resource protection;

       (b)  Monitors the effectiveness of interagency agreements for
            surveillance and enforcement and negotiates changes where
            required;

       (c)  Develops contingency and emergency-response plans and, based
            on these plans, negotiates applicable interagency agreements;

       (d)  Monitors the effectiveness of existing Sanctuary regulations
            and promulgates changes where necessary; and

       (e)  Coordinates efforts to protect and manage Sanctuary resources
            with other Federal, state, regional and local agencies and
            with public and private organizations as well.

                                       153










         2. . Sanctuary Manager

         (a)  Recommends to the MEMD priorities for allocating funds
              annually to resource protection, considering the advice of the
              SAC to ensure consistency with Sanctuary regulations and
              provide adequate resource protection;

         (b)  Assists in the coordination of surveillance and enforcement
              activities by providing liaison with the Federal, state,
              regional and local agencies;

         (c)  Reports regularly to the MEMD on surveillance and enforcement
              activities, violations, and emergencies;

         (d)  Provides information for use in training Sanctuary enforcement
              officials;

         (e)  Monitors and evaluates the adequacy of emergency-response
              plans and procedures in the Sanctuary;

         (f)  Maintains a record of emergency events (e.g., oil spills) in
              and around the Sanctuary; and

         (g)  Evaluates overall progress toward the resource protection
              objectives of the Sanctuary program and prepares semi-annual
              and bi-monthly progress reports highlighting activities for
              the MEMD.

         3.   Sanctuary Advisory Committee

         (a)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the effectiveness of
              interagency agreements for surveillance and enforcement and;

         (b)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the effectiveness of the
              Sanctuary regulations in providing adequate resource
             .protection.


         4.   Federal Agencies

         (a)' USCG holds broad responsibility for enforcing all Federal laws
              throughout the Sanctuary;

         (b)  USCG ensures enforcement of Sanctuary regulations;

         (c)  USCG provides on-scene coordination and Regional Response
              Center facilities under the National Contingency Plan for the
              removal of oil and hazardous substances in the event of a
              spill that threatens the Sanctuary;



                                         154









       (d)  NMFS works with the CDF&G, under the Magnuson Fishery
            conservation and Management Act (MFCMA), on approving and
            enforcing Fishery Management Plans (FMPs) prepared by regional
            fishery management councils to ensure protection of fishery
            resources;

       (e)  NMFS shares responsibility with the FWS for implementation of
            the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species
            Act to prevent taking of any endangered species;

       (f)  EPA has regulatory responsibilities with regard to sewage
            outfalls (under the Clean Water Act via National Pollutant
            Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits), and ocean
            dumping (under Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and
            Sanctuaries Act) to protect water quality;

       (g)  The Corps of Engineers (COE) grants permits that are based on
            EPA guidelines for the discharge of dredged materials into
            State waters. Pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act, a
            permit must be obtained from the COE prior to any marine
            construction, excavation or fill activities in any navigable
            waters of the United States (33 U.S.C. 403). The COE may
            refuse to issue permits on the basis of a threat to navigation
            or potential adverse effects on living marine resources.

       5.   State, regional and local agencies.

       (a)  California Department of Fish and Game (CDF&G) responsible for
            managing living resources and enforcement of state laws and
            regulations throughout the Sanctuary;

       (b)  CDF&G is deputized to enforce specific federal laws throughout
            the Sanctuary (e.g., the Endangered Species Act, MFMCA);

       (c)  CDF&G and California Department of Parks and Recreation
            (CDP&R) evaluate progress towards management objec 'tives f'or
            resource protection and adjust annual priorities accordingly;

       (d)  CDP&R has established an Underwater Parks Program which is
            managed in conjunction with CDF&G to protect special marine
            resources and water-based recreational values in ocean waters
            within state jurisdiction.

       (e)  CDP&R is responsible along with the National Park Service for
            the management of the Los Padres National Forest.

       (f)  CDF&G and CDP&R monitors the effectiveness of State
            regulations within the Sanctuary and considers
            recommended changes to the State regulations through the
            State Legislature and Governor of California's Office;



                                        155









          (g)  CDF&G monitoring and surveillance of fisheries resources
               (populations) through port sampling and marine
               contamination through mussel watch program;

          (h)  CDF&G provides on-scene coordination of State clean-up
               response in the event of an accidental spill of oil or
               hazardous materials which threaten the State's fish and
               wildlife resources;

          (i)  California Coastal Commission (CCC) under the California
               Coastal Act of 1976 establishes a comprehensive set of
               specific policies and issues permits for the protection of
               coastal resources and the management of orderly economic
               development throughout the coastal zone;

          (j)  The State Lands Commission (SLC) has jurisdiction over all
               state owned lands and submerged lands. SLC has adopted
               regulations for the protection and use of public trust lands
               in the coastal zone;

          (k)  State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine
               regional water quality control boards (RWQCB) have primary
               authority for regulating water quality in California. The
               authority to administer the NPDES permits has been delegated
               by EPA to the SWRCB and by the State to the Regional boards;

          (1)  The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is charged with the
               maintenance and enhancement of the ambient air quality of the
               State. The ARB has set air quality standards designed to meet
               National Ambient Air Quality Standards and delegated their
               implementation to local Air Pollution Control Districts
               (APCDs); and

          (m)  California Historical Resources Commission is the State agency
               responsible for the preservation of representative and unique
               archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites in the
               land and water areas of the state.


          C.   Research: Roles and Responsibilities

          1.   Marine and Estuarine Management Division

          (a)  Prepares annual Sanctuary Research Plan's (SRP's)-for each
               Sanctuary;

          (b)  Prepares an annual National Research Plan (NRP) and budget,
               based on the SRP's of individual Sanctuaries and in accordance
               with priorities determined at the National level;

          (c)  Sets dates for procurement based on the NRP;

          (d)  Administers interagency agreements and contracts for research;

                                          156









       (e)  Reviews all interim and final research reports submitted by
            the Sanctuary Manager; and

       (f)  Issues permits, through OCRM, for research activities,
            considering the recommendations of the Sanctuary Manager, to
            ensure consistency with Sanctuary regulations and provide
            additional technical review where necessary.

       2.   Sanctuary Manager

       (a)  Recommends generic areas of research to resolve management
            issues; *

       (b)  Develops the Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP);

       (c)  Reviews research documents and progress reports submitted by
            contractors;

       (d)  Prepares assessments of research needs and priorities based on
            management requirements and research continuity;

       (e)  Implements the SRP's;

       (f)  Coordinates research and monitoring activities in the
            Sanctuary in cooperation with the MEMD, the SAC and other
            interested agencies or parties;

       (g)  Coordinates an on-site process for reviewing and evaluating
            research proposals and permit requests, considering the views
            of the MEMD, Sanctuary Advisory Committee, concerned
            individuals and interest groups;

       (h)  Submits recommendations to MEMD on the issuance of Sanctuary
            research permits, considering the recommendations of the SAC;
            and

       (i)  Oversees permitted research activities.


       3.   Sanctuary Advisory Committee

       (a)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on review of research proposals,
            interim, and final reports;

       (b)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on approval of proposals for
            research in the Sanctuary;

       (c)  Advises the Research Coordinator and the Sanctuary Manager on
            priority research needs; and

       (d)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the issuance of research
            permits.

                                       157












          D.   Education: Roles and Responsibilities

          1.   Marine and Estuarine Management Division

          (a)  Reviews and approves the list of annualpriorities for
               education and the annual education budget prepared by the
               Sanctuary Manager;

          (b)  Reviews and approves design proposals for all educational
               facilities;

          (c)  Reviews all educational materials prepared'for the Sanctuary;

          (d)  Evaluates progress toward accomplishing objectives for
               education and adjusts long-term priorities accordingly; and

          (e)  Issues Sanctuary education permits, through OCRM, considering
               the recommendations of the Sanctuary Manager, to ensure
               compliance with Sanctuary regulations and provide additional
               technical review where necessary.

          2.   Sanctuary Manager

          (a)  Recommends annually to the MEMD a list of priorities and an
               annual budget for education;

          (b)  Prepares and circulates as required Requests For Proposals
               (RFP) for educational projects;

          (c)  Supervises the design and production of educational materials
               and facilities for the Sanctuary;

          (d)  Provides training for State staff assigned to the Sanctuary;

          (e) -Encourages local and regional organizations to participate in
               Sanctuary education;
          (f)  Disseminates information about the National Marine Sanctuary
               Program and the Sanctuary;

          (g)  oversees the development of any facilities 'constructed for the
               Sanctuary, reviews site analyses and design specifications,
               makes recommendations as to construction and maintenance
               contracts, and performs similar tasks;

          (h)  Submits recommendations to MEMD on the issuance of Sanctuary
               education permits, considering the recommendations of the SAC;
               and

          (i) Oversees permitted education activities.


                                          158









        3.   Sanctuary Advisory Committee

        (a)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager, in raising public awareness of
             the Sanctuary and advises on the development of a local
             constituency by means of brochures, presentations, structured
             events articles for publication, and other activities
             consistent with the management plan;

        (b)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on how to establish and operate
             combined MBNMS-Elkhorn Slough NERR information and education
             facilities to increase public awareness and appreciation of
             the resources of the Sanctuary; and

        (c) Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the issuance of education
             permits.


        E. General Administration: Roles and ResRonsibilities

        1.   Marine and Estuarine Management Division

        (a)  Ensures that the Sanctuary is operated in a manner consistent
             with established National program policies and with applicable
             National and international laws and provides guidance to the
             Sanctuary Manager;

        (b)  Identifies, analyzes, and resolves Sanctuary management
             problems and issues;

        (c)  Formulates comprehensive, long-term management plans for the
             Sanctuary and revises the management plan as necessary;

        (d)  Directs and assists the Sanctuary Manager in the
             implementation of the management plan;

        (e)  Coordinates Sanctuary management with other Federal and State
             agencies and private organizations;

        (f)  Evaluates the effectiveness of Sanctuary management and
             regulatory measures;

        (g)  Prepares a program budget for the Sanctuary;

        (h)  Provides funding for overall Sanctuary management and
             administration;

        (i)  Makes recommendations to the Director of the Office of Ocean
             and Coastal Resource Management as to  the issuance of National
             Marine Sanctuary permits containing terms and conditions
             deemed appropriate (including research and education permits,
             see above), considering.'the recommendations of the.Sanctuary
             Manager, to conduct an activity otherwise prohibited by the

                                         159









              Sanctuary regulations if the activity will: further the
              educational, natural or historical resource value of the
              Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or near
              the Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine
              casualty; assist in managing the Sanctuary; have only
              negligible, short-term adverse effects on Sanctuary resources
              or Sanctuary qualities; or further salvage or recovery
              operations in connection with an abandoned shipwreck in the
              Sanctuary title to which is held by the State of California;

         (j)  Issues certifications, through OCRM, with terms and conditions
              deemed necessary to achieve the purposes for which the
              Sanctuary was designated, of pre-existing leases, licenses,
              permits, approvals, or other authorizations, considering the
              recommendations of the Sanctuary Manager, to conduct a
              prohibited activity; and

         (k)  Issues terms and conditions, through OCRM, deemed necessary to
              protect the Sanctuary resources and qualities on applications
              for leases, licenses, permits, approvals, or other
              authorizations (or objects to issuance of such
              authorizations), considering the recommendations of the
              Sanctuary Manager, to conduct a prohibited activity.

         2.   Sanctuary Manager

         (a)  Coordinates on-site efforts of all parties involved in
              Sanctuary activities, including State, Federal, local and
              regional agencies, Elkhorn Slough NERR and the public;

         (b)  Reviews the management plan periodically and recommends
              changes to the MEMD as needed;

         (c)  Assists the MEMD in preparing the annual budget for the
              Sanctuary;

         (d)  oversees day-to-day operation of the Sanctuary, including
              administrative functions such as bookkeeping, purchasing and
              keeping records of visitor activities;

         (e)  Supervises Sanctuary staff and other personnel, including
              enforcement and interpretive employees assigned to the
              Sanctuary;

         (f)  Represents the Sanctuary viewpoint on local issues and at
              public forums;

         (g)  Submits recommendations to MEMD on criteria and terms and
              conditions for National Marine Sanctuary permits,
              certifications and applications for leases, licenses, permits,
              approvals, other authorizations, or rights to conduct a
              prohibited activity.

                                         160










       3.   Federal, State, Local and Regional Agencies

       (a)  Assist in the preparation and implementation of a
            comprehensive, long-term management plan for the proposed
            Sanctuary;

       (b)  Assist in the periodic review of the management plan; and

       (c)  Appropriate issuing agency assists in the development of
            criteria and terms and conditions for certifications and
            applications for leases, licenses, permits, approvals, other
            authorizations, or rights to conduct a prohibited activity.

       4.   Sanctuary Advisory Committee

       (a)  Advises on the specific plans for Sanctuary developments;

       (b)  Advises on all proposals for activities within the Sanctuary;

       (c)  Advises the appropriate Federal, State or local government on
            proposed actions, plans and projects in areas adjacent to or
            affecting the Sanctuary;

       (d)  Enhances communication and cooperation among all interests
            involved in the Sanctuary;

       (e)  Advises on rules and conditions for all forms of public
            recreation;

       (f)  Advises on an overall plan for the use, development and
            maintenance of Sanctuary lands and building; and

       (g)  Advises the Sanctuary Manager on recommendations to MEMD on
            criteria and terms and conditions for National Marine
            Sanctuary permits, certifications and applications of leases,
            licenses, permits, approvals, other authorizations, or rights
            to conduct a prohibited activity.

       F.   Staffing Levels

            Depending on the budget and personnel assigned to the Monterey

       Bay National Marine Sanctuary upon designation, staffing would

       include a NOAA manager, an assistant manager, administrative

       assistant, research coordinator, education coordinator and a joint

       position of an interpreter/enforcement official. The Sanctuary

       staff will work closely with the USCG, NMFS and other State and

                                        161









         Federal agencies in providing enforcement and surveillance in the

         area of the proposed Sanctuary. 'The need for additional staff will.

         be determined during the first two years of operation.


         G.   Headquarters and Visitor Center Facilities

              Sanctuary headquarters and administrative offices will be

         established at a suitable location within the Monterey Bay region.

         Areas being considered include the Cities of Monterey, Moss Landing

         and Santa Cruz.

















































                                          162











                        Alternatives, Including the Preferred Alternative















































                                       163











         PART III: ALTERNATIVES, INCLUDING THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE

              In evaluating the proposal to designate a Monterey Bay

         National Marine Sanctuary (MBNMS), the National Oceanic and

         Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has analyzed institutional,

         boundary, management, and regulatory alternatives in terms of

         achieving optimum protection of the ecosystem, improving scientific

         knowledge of the area, and promoting public understanding of the

         value of Monterey Bay area resources and qualities. This section

         describes the alternatives considered in the evaluation process.

         Part IV describes the environmental consequences of the

         alternatives described below.


              The fundamental choice of alternatives is between the two

         institutional alternatives: (1) no action or continuing the status

         quo, and (2) the preferred alternative, Sanctuary designation as a

         complementary measure to existing programs. Boundary, management,

         and.regulatory alternatives are considered in the context of the

         preferred institutional alternative.



















                                         164










       Section I: Status Ouo Alternative

       A.   Resource Protection Regime

            Reliance solely on State and Federal authorities now

       exercising authority over resources and activities in the study

       area without any marine sanctuary designation represents the status

       quo alternative. The extent of these controls is summarized in

       Table 12 (see Appendix 2 for a detailed description of relevant

       State and Federal agency authorities and statutory provisions that

       manage human activities and help protect Sanctuary resources and

       qualities).

            This section provides a brief overview of the existing

       resource protection regime and an analysis of the long-term

       effectiveness of this regime to adequately protect Sanctuary

       resources and qualities (i.e., status quo reliance).

            A variety of State and Federal governmental agencies and

       departments are responsible for regulating the proposed Sanctuary

       uses and managing individual resources situated therein. To date,

       acceptable levels of environmental quality appear to have been

       maintained in the offshore environs. On their own, however, they

       do not appear to provide the area with sufficient long-term

       protection reflective of the exceptional diversity of natural

       resources found in the Monterey Bay coastal and offshore region.

       Faced by prospects of more intense human activity threats, their

       capacity to perform effectively may deteriorate due to limited

       staffing, equipment, and enforcement funds. In addition, because

       the complex web of existing authorities is characterized by quite


                                        165









      Table 12. Existing State and Federal managment authorities as they relate to resources and activities.

      Managed,Resources
      and Activites                 MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES
                                       STATE AUTHORITIES                                                      FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
                                    AQCA ''ASBS CCA- SR            FGC HCRPA       OCS   UP   WQCA       GAA CWA ESA       FCPA MBTA MMPA NHPP.         OCSA-'@- OP@ FWSA

      RESOURCE PROTECTION
                                                                                                                   I IMFS               FWS
      1.   Marine Mammals                                   FG    JDFG                                               FWS                NMFS
      2.   Marine Birds                            I        FG   I DFG                                               FWS         FWS
      3.   Fish/Shellfish                                   FG    DFGJ                                                    NMFS
                                                                  ?FMC                                                  IPFMC
      4.   Research                        WRCB                                                                                        !MrS
      5.   Recreation                      DPR      CCC          DPR                                                                                                us cc

      6.   Historic/Cultural                                DFG          HPC                                                                    HCRS
                                                                                                                                               NPS


      ACTIVITY MANAGEMENT

      1. oil and Gas
           Development
           -- Explo   'ration &
               Development                          CCC                           SLC..               EPA., COE                                       @Mms'
                                                                                                                EPA
            Plbrtform Placem"eni                    CCC                           SLC                                                                 MMS

                                                                                                                                                      COE
            Pipelines                               CCC                                                                                               MMS
                                                                                                                                                      I'C@ 0 E

            Water Discharges               WRCB                   DFG                         WRCB.             EPA
            Air Discbrages          ARB                           DF                                  EPA
                                                                      G

      2. Fishing                                    DFG           PFMC                                                    NMFS
                                                                  DFG                                                     PFMC










        Table 11. Existing state and Federal managment authorities as they relate to resources and activities.
              (continued)
        Managed,Resources
        and Activites           MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES
                                  STATE AUTHORITIES                                       FEDERAL AUTHORITIES
                                AQCA   ASBS CCA_   SR    FGC HCRPA OCS   -UP WQCA     GAA  CWA ESA FCIMA MBTA MMPA NHPA OCSAL OPA FWSA MPRSA
         3. Shipping           ARB                DFG                       WRCB    EPA    EPA                                 TSCG USCG

         4.  Recreation               DPR_ DFG DFG      DPR                                US03-
                                                                                          EPA

          5. Research                             DFG DFG                                         FWS   NMFS
                                                                                                        F '7S



         6. Ocean Dumping                                                                                                                 EPA
                                                                                                                                          COE
                                                                                         jFEDERAL
                                                                                           CW_@'
                                                                                             _ ESA
                                                                                AT    :
                                                                                    RPA    EPA










          Table 12. Abbreviations of State and Federal authorities and
                     agencies.

          State


          AQCA -     Air Quality Control Act; California Health and Safety
                     Code ï¿½ï¿½39000-42708
          ASBS -     Areas of Special Biological Significance; California
                     Water Code ï¿½13260
          CCA    -   California Coastal Act; California Public Resources Code
                     ï¿½27000
          SR     -   State Reserves, Refuges etc; California Fish and Game
                     Code ï¿½1580 and ï¿½10500
          FGC    -   Fish and Game Code; California Fish and Game Code,
                     California Administrative Code, Title 14
          HCRPA  -   Historical and Cultural Resources Protection Act;
                     California Public Resources Code ï¿½5000
          OGS    -   Oil and Gas Sanctuaries; California Public Resources Code
                     ï¿½6370
          UP     -   Underwater Parks; California Department of Parks and
                     Recreation
          WQCA   -   Water Quality Control Act; California Water Code ï¿½13000

          Federal


          CAA    -   Clean Air Act; 42 USC ï¿½ï¿½7401-7642
          CWA    -   Clean Water Act; 33 USC ï¿½ï¿½1251-1376
          ESA    -   Endangered Species Act; 16 USC ï¿½ï¿½1531-1543
          FCMA   -   Fishery Conservation and Management Act; 16 USC ï¿½ï¿½1801-
                     1882
          MBTA   -   Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 16 USC ï¿½ï¿½703-711
          MMPA   -   Marine Mammal Protection Act; 16 USC ï¿½ï¿½1361-1407
          MPRSA  -   Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuary Act; 33 USC
                     ï¿½ï¿½1401-1444,
          NHPA   -   National Historic Preservation Act; 16 USC ï¿½ï¿½470-470n
          OCSI-A -   Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; 43 USC ï¿½ï¿½1331-1343
          OPA    -   Oil Pollution Act of 1961; 33 USC ï¿½ï¿½1001-1016
          PWSA   -   Ports and Waterways Safety Act; 33 USC ï¿½ï¿½1221-1227

          Abbreviation of Agencies


          State


          ARB    -   Air Resources Board
          CCC    -   California Coastal Commission
          DFG    -   Department of Fish and Game
          HRC    -   Historic Resources Commission
          PFMC   -   Pacific Fisheries Management Council; (Joint Federal-
                     State-Private Body)
          SLC    -   State Lands Commission
          WRCB   -   Water Resources Control Board









         Table 12. (Continued)

         Federal

         MMS   -    Minerals Management Service - Department of the Interior
         COE   -    Army Corps of Engineers - Department of Defense
         EPA   -    Environmental Protection Agency
         FWS   -    Fish and Wildlife Service - Department of the Interior
         HCRS  -    Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service - Department
                    of the Interior
         MMC   -    Marine Mammal Commission
         NMFS  -    National Marine Fisheries Service - Department of
                    Commerce
         PFMC  -    Pacific Fisheries Management Council; Joint Federal-State
         USCG  -    United States Coast Guard - Department of Transportation
         USGS  -    United States Geogical Survey    Department of the
                    Interior









         narrowly defined missions, severe interjurisdictional policy

         conflicts are possible in the future. Should use pressures mount,

         overall management effectiveness may suffer as a result. At

         present, there is no one institutional entity able to facilitate

         conflict resolution in the interests of marine resources protection

         and management. The absence of such an integrative mechanism

         appears undesirable given the presence of so many resources, which

         in turn support a variety of valuable human uses.

              The Federal agencies with existing primary responsibilities in

         the area of Monterey Bay are: the National Marine Fisheries Service

         (NMFS) of the Department of Commerce; the Environmental Protection

         Agency (EPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the

         Minerals Management Service (MMS) of the Department of the

         Interior; the Corps of Engineers (COE), the Department of the Army

         and the Department of the Navy of the Department of Defense; and

         the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) of the Department of Transportation.

             The California state agencies with existing primary

         jurisdiction in the area of Monterey Bay are: the Coastal

         Commission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State

         Lands Commission, the Department of Fish and Game, the Department

         of Parks and Recreation, the Air Resources Board and the Historical

         Resources Commission.

             This section will review briefly the responsibilities of these

         agencies in the Monterey Bay area. Additional information is

         provided in Appendix 2.




                                         170










       1.   Federal Authorities

            The NMFS works with the CDF&G, under the Magnuson Fishery

       Conservation and Management Act, on approving and enforcing Fishery

       Management Plans (FMPs) prepared by regional fishery management

       councils. Through a cooperative enforcement agreement, the CDF&G

       is also deputized to enforce FMPs beyond three miles from the

       State's coastal baseline.

            NMFS shares responsibility with the FWS for implementation of

       the Marine Mammal Protection Act and the Endangered Species Act.

       The protection of cetaceans and pinnipeds is the responsibility of

       NMFS. The FWS is responsible for protecting endangered bird

       species and some marine mammals (such as the southern sea otter).

       Three of these bird species: the California brown pelican, the

       American peregrine falcon, and the California least tern, are found

       in the vicinity of Monterey Bay as well as the majority of the

       entire population of southern sea otter. The short-tailed

       albatross is extremely rare in this area but was recently sighted

       off central California in the vicinity of the Cordell Bank National

       Marine Sanctuary.

            The U,SCG, in addition to its enforcement of fishing

       regulations, is responsible for enforcing regulations under the

       Clean Water Act (CWA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

       Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) to prevent pollution caused

       by discharges from vessels of oil, hazardous substances, or other

       pollutants. The USCG is also responsible for regulating vessel

       traffic, maintaining boater safety, and coordinating search and


                                       171









         rescue operations.

              The EPA has regulatory responsibilities with regard to sewage

         outfalls, and ocean dumping.   Sewage outfall regulation is

         governed under the Clean Water Act (CWA) via the National Pollutant

         Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), Administered by the EPA.

         Under the NPDES program, a permit is required for the discharge of

         any pollutant from a point source into the navigable waters of the

         United States, the waters of the contiguous zone, or ocean waters.

         Within California state waters, EPA has delegated NPDES permitting

         authority to the State government. Title I of the Marine

         Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act prohibits the

         transportation of any materials from the United States for the

         purpose of dumping them into the territorial,sea, the contiguous

         zone, and the ocean beyond without a permit from EPA.

              The COE grant permits that are based on EPA,guidelines for the

         discharge of dredged materials into State waters. The.COE has sole

         jurisdiction over marine construction, excavation or fill in any

         navigable waters of the United States.

              Pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act, a permit must be

         obtained from the COE prior to any marine construction, excavation

         or fill activities in any navigable waters of the United States (33

         U.S.C. ï¿½ 403). The COE may refuse to issue permits on the basis of

         a threat to navigation or potential adverse effects on living

         marine resources.

              The MMS is responsible for the overall management of offshore

         oil and gas exploration and development operations in accordance


                                         172









       with the provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act

       (OCSIA). These include enforcement of regulations pursuant to the

       OCSLA (30 C.F.R. Part 250) and the stipulations applicable to

       particular leases discussed above. This responsibility was

       formerly divided between the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S.

       Geological Survey.

            The United States Army maintains an offshore restricted area

       extending approximately 8,000 yards offshore from its Fort Ord

       Military Installation. The restricted area functions as a safety

       buffer to protect the seagoing public from stray firearm rounds

       escaping from small arms firing ranges at Ford Ord. The ranges are

       used intermittently throughout the year. In addition, a U.S. Navy

       operating area exists in the northeast section of the Bay. This

       ocean space is reserved for mine sweeping practice maneuvers during

       specified months of the year.

       2.   State Authorities

            The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the CCA) is the foundation

       of the California Coastal Management Program. The CCA establishes

       the State Coastal Commission and various regional commissions to

       implement the Act, granting it permit authority until such time as

       local governments.adopt local plans approved by the Commission. It

       establishes a comprehensive set of specific policies for the

       protection of coastal resources and the management of orderly

       economic development throughout the coastal zone. The CCA defines

       the coastal zone as the land and water area of the State, extending

       seaward to the outer limit of the State's jurisdiction, including


                                        173









        all offshore islands, and extending inland generally 1,000 yards

        from the mean tide line. In significant coastal, estuarine,

        habitat, and recreational areas, it extends inland to the first

        major ridge line or 5.0 nm (8.0 km) from the mean high tide,

        whichever is less.

             The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over all state

        owned lands and submerged lands extending 3.0 nm  (5.6 km) from the

        mean high tide line. Administration of State lands includes

        leasing of these lands for various legislatively authorized

        purposes; in particular, oil and gas exploration and development.

        In addition, as the State agency with sole responsibility for

        administering the trust, the SLC has adopted regulations for the

        protection and use of public trust lands in the coastal zone.

             The CDF&G is responsible for enforcing California as well as

        Federal fishing laws in the 200-mile wide exclusive economic zone

        as well as in State waters of the territorial sea. The CDF&G also

        works with other,Federal and State agencies with water quality

        projects and environmental reviews'.

             In order to protect special marine resources and water-based

        recreational values in ocean waters within state jurisdiction and

        to expand coastal park units beyond the water's edge, the

        California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDP&R) has

        established an Underwater Parks Program which is managed in

        conjunction with CDF&G. CDP&R also shares responsibility with the

        National Park Service for management of the Los Padres National

        Forest.



                                         174









            The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is designed to

       enhance and maintain water quality in State waters, including ocean

       waters, under the jurisdiction of the State. The State Water

       Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional water quality

       control boards (RWQCB) have primary authority for regulating water

       quality in California. The authority to administer the NPDES

       permits has been delegated by EPA to the SWRCB and by the State to

       the Regional boards.

            The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is charged with the

       maintenance and enhancement of the ambient air quality of the

       State. The ARB has set air quality standards designed to meet

       National Ambient Air Quality Standards and delegated their

       implementation to local Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs).

            State preservation of representative and unique

       archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites in the land

       and water areas of the state is the responsibility of the

       California Historical Resources Commission. The Commission


       evaluates and makes recommendations to the State Historic

       Preservation Officer on nominations to the National Register. The

       commission also recommends state registration of sites as landmarks

       and points of interest to the Public Resources Department which is

       responsible for maintenance of registered sites.

            Under the status quo alternative, existing activities and

       controls would continue as presently administered. No

       comprehensive management scheme for the Monterey Bay area would be

       implemented.


                                        175









         Section II: Designation as a National Marine Sanctuary

               This institutional alternative, NOAA's preferred alternative,

         proposes to designate Monterey Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary,

         in accordance with the provisions of Title III of the Marine

         Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 16

         U.S.C. H 1431 et sea.    This alternative is detailed in Part II of

         this document, the Sanctuary management plan. Through the

         management plan and the implementing regulations (Appendix 1), the

         preferred alternative ensures the protection of vital Sanctuary

         resources and Bay area habitat, offers research opportunities, and

         provides an education/interpretive program to enhance public

         awareness about the Monterey Bay area. This comprehensive program

         is not possible under any of the existing institutional structures

         alone.


              The preferred alternative will cost some $504,000 for FY 1990

         or $2,520,000 over five years. Approximately half of these funds

         will be allocated to research and resource protection and half to

         education and administration. The preferred boundary was selected

         because it correlates closely with the areal distribution of

         important Bay resources  the management alternatives were selected

         because they are more cost-effective than other alternatives and

         conform closely to the goals of the National Marine Sanctuary

         Program. The regulations were selected because they will improve

         protection of Monterey Bay area resources and qualities from the

         adverse impacts of human activities.




                                          176










       A.  Boundary Alternatives

           A number of boundary options were identified in the evaluation

       process. These options were narrowed to seven, which were then

       considered in terms of (1) the distribution of living resources!

       (2) geological and physical oceanographic parameters and, (3)

       management logistics. A brief geographical description of each

       boundary alternative follows. For the discussion of the

       environmental consequences of each boundary alternative see Part

       IV, Section II, C.

       1.  Boundary Alternative 1

           This alternative represents the smallest area that would be

       considered for Sanctuary status encompassing approximately 460

       square nautical miles. The boundary extends from the mean high

       tide level at Pigeon Point on a south west heading of 240* to the

       50 fathom isobath; then generally following this isobath south to

       the point where it intersects the 3 mile geographic limit drawn

       from the baseline across Monterey Bay; then south along the 3 mile

       limit to a point where it intersects the 100 fathom isobath on the

       Sur platform; then proceeding generally southeast along the 100

       fathom isobath to the head of Partington Canyon, until it rejoins

       the 3 mile limit and then south along the three mile limit until it

       reaches a point three miles off Partington Point on a heading of

       240* and then proceeding shoreward to the mean high tide level

       (Figure 17). The land-side boundary follows along the mean high

       tide level but Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and Monterey Harbors are

       all excluded from this alternative's boundaries.



                                       177


















                       1230                   40'                     20'                   1220                     40'                     20'
                                                 'San Gre    lorio       Pescadero Creek
                                                             I
                                                   It        I    Pescadero Point

                                                    Pigeon P i
                                                       Pt. A   Nuevo
                                                                                                      Soquel Creek
                                                 100                                  Santa
                  370                                               D v4n ort          Cruz                                                     370
                                                  500                                              19.               Pajaro
                                                                                                   0                 River
                                                                                                    CD               Elkhom
                                                     1,000                                           CD
                                                                                                                     Slough
                                                                                                                Moss
                                                                          1100                                  Landing


                   40'                                            @000                                                                          40'

                                                                                                   Monterey
                                                                                                    Carmel


                                                                                                   Point
                                                                                                   Lobos
                                                                                                                   Carmel
                                                                                                                   River



                   20' - -                                                                                 Litt e Sur River                -20'
                                                                                          P 0 iI S-ur
                                                                                                             Big Sur River


                                        Proposed Boundary                                          artingto      in       Big
                                                                                                                        Cree
                                        State Waters         `100         @000                                       \00
                                                                                                           "o-J, 1
                                                                                                                Lopez    int
                  360 -                                                                                                                         360

                              0      5
                              61!6M Nautical Miles
                              0    5                                                                              Cape San       rtin
                              6199 Statute miles

                                Depths in Fathoms
                                                                        00
                                                             d(ary

                                                                                                                                   in



                                                                                                                              Ra  g
                                                                                                                                 ggec@Point
                      1230                    40'                     20'                   1220                     40'                     20'

                      Figure 17. Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #11.











       2. Boundary Alternative 2

            This boundary alternative, the preferred alternative,

       establishes a Sanctuary area of approximately 2,200 square nautical

       milest adjacent to Monterey Bay, off the central coast of

       California. The proposed Sanctuary boundary includes the coastal

       and ocean waters over, and the submerged lands under, the entire

       Monterey Canyon between the northern boundary of Pescadero Marsh,

       2.0 nmi north of Pescadero Point, and the southern boundary of

       Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park and Area of Special Biological

       Significance (ASBS), 2.5 nmi southeast from Partington Point, and

       extending from the mean high tide line from these sites seaward

       approximately 18 nmi on a southwesterly heading of 240*. These

       southern and northern boundaries are joined by an arc drawn from

       Moss Landing, with a radius of 46 nmi, over the entire Monterey

       Canyon complex out to the abyssal plain at 1500 fathoms (approx

       3000 m) (Figure 18). Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and Monterey Harbors

       are all excluded from the Sanctuary boundaries.

       3.   Boundary Alternative 3

            This boundary alternative would establish a Sanctuary area of

       approximately 2,900 square nautical miles. This alternative is a

       variation of Alternative 2 with a boundary extension to the south.

       Specifically the boundary extends south from the southern boundary

       of the preferred alternative (#2, described above), along the 500

       fathom isobath (1000 m) to a point due east of Cambria and then

       generally proceeding shoreward to the mean high tide level at

       Cambria (Figure 19).


                                       179















                       1230                     40'                      20'                  1220                      40'                      20'
                                                    San Greg,brio          Pescadero Creek

                                                                    Pescadero Point
                                                        geon   1. oint
                                                        Pt. Ano Quevo
                                                                                                        Soquel Creek


                                                                                         Santa
                   37"                                                Dave\np rt                                                                   370

                                                   500
                                                                                                                        Pajaro
                                                                                                       0                River
                                                                                        So@            CD               Elkhorn
                                                       1,000                                                            Slough
                                                                                                                  Moss
                                                                                                                  Landing


                    40'                                            1.000

                                                                                                       Monterey
                                                                                                       Carmel


                                                                                                       Point
                                                                   A?                                  Lobos         Carmel
                                                                                                                      River



                    20'                                                                                      Little Sur River                      20'
                                                                                             PoASur
                                                                                                  %             Big Sur River

                                                                                                       7
                                        Proposed Boundary'                                      -@,Partingt       o"I       Big
                                                                           10-                                             Creek
                              - - - -   State Waters          1100                                                      00

                                                                                                                 L  pez    Dint
                  360                                                                                                                              360


                              0      5                                                                                           %
                              62!61!@  Nautical Miles
                              0     5                                                                               Cape Sa@@artin
                              62SN     Statute Miles

                                                                         0
                                Depths in Fathoms                        "-,:,
                                                I                        I V \                                      ) I         RaggedP\oint
                      1230                     40                      20'                    1220                      40'                    20'
                                                                                                                                    L


                      Figure 18. Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #2.










                                             124'                         40'                          2o, 381                                  123'            40'                         20'

                                                                                                                                00
                                     124*                                                                       Poi I Rtye
                                                                                                00

                                                                                                                                                key
                                                                                                                                                11                                                             122'
                                                                                                                             D
                                                                                                                                                3u,,@I in
                                                                                                                                uxl             @o_ t
                                      20'                                                                                    Gulf of the
                                                                                                                             Farallones
                                                                                                                      Nationa Marine
                                                                                                                             sl.ncttmarine P    t B111a
                                                                                                                                uray            'gi
                                                                                                                                                PointLo os
                                                                                                                                                r"'
                                                                                                                                                San Ffancisco       Oakland
                                                                                                                                                                                                               38'

                                                                                                                             Point San Pildro


                                      37'                                                                           %        Pillar Point


                                                                                                                             SIan Gregtio                                                                      40'
                                                                                                                    escadero.Peint

                                                                                                                   Pigeon Point                 Pescad ro
                                                                                                                                                Creek
                                      40'
                                                                                                                   Pt. Ano Nu   -evo


                                                                                                                             Daven@ort                                                                         20'
                                                                                                                                                San             Soquel Creek
                                                                                                                                                Cr
                                                                                                                                                S %


                                      20'


                                                                                                                                                                     Pajaro River
                                                                                                                                                                    Elkhorn Slough
                                                                                                                                                      Cb    Moss
                                                                                                                                                IF.   Z    Landing
                                                                                                                                                                                                               37'
                                                                                                                                                lvlc@nterey
                                     123*                                                                                                       Carmel
                                                                                                                                                Point
                                      36'                                                                                                       Lobo@                                                          121,*
                                                                                                                                                Carmel River
                                                                                                                  Point@ur                      Little Sur Rive,


                                                                                                                                                Big Sur River


                                                                                                                                                Partinglon Point    0     5
                                                                                                                                                                    6290%@ Nautical Mile
                                      40'                                                                                                                                     alute Miles
                                                                                                                                                                    wDespmths inSF'atho.s
                                                                                                                                                Big Creek


                                                                                                                                                Lopez Point


                                                                              8                                                                                                                                20'
                                                                              8                                                                 Plaskett Rock
                                      20'                                     )                                                                 Cape San Martin
                                                                 Prol:          ad    Boundary                                                  Salmon Creek
                                                                 State Waters                                                                   )
                                                                 Gulf of the Farallones                                                         Point Piedras Slancas                                          36*
                                                                 National Marine Sanctuary

                                                                                                                                                      San Sim n Creek
                                                                              f                                                                       Cambrieso
                                                                 122*                        40'                             20'                      121'                       40'

                                          Figure 19. Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Boundary
                                                                 Alternative U.










          4.  Boundary Alternative 4

              This boundary alternative would establish a Sanctuary area of

          approximately 3,100 square nmi (Figure 20).. This alternative is

          another variation of'Alternative 2, but with a boundary extension to

          the north.

              Specifically the boundary extends north from the northern

          boundary of the preferred alternative, along the 500 fathom isobath

          (1000 m) to the border of the Gulf of the Farallones National

          Marine Sanctuary. The northern border of this alternative is

          contiguous with the Gulf of the Farallones and proceeds generally

          south along the coast, across the Golden Gate from Point Bonita to

          Point Lobos, and along the coast but excludes Princeton Harbor in

          Half Moon Bay, until this alternative rejoins the boundary of the

          preferred alternative 2, at the northern boundary of Pescadero

          State Beach.


          5.  Boundary Alternative 5

              This boundary alternative would establish the largest

          Sanctuary area of approximately 3,800 square nautical miles (Figure

          21). This alternative is a combination of the preferred

          alternative in addition to both the southern and northern

          extensions described above. The boundary would therefore start at

          the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, move south

          along the 500 fathom isobath, then generally proceed in an arc

          around the Monterey Bay Canyon out to 1500 fathoms until the arc

          rejoins the 500 fathom isobath, then generally proceed south along

          the 500 fathom isobath to a point due east of Cambria then proceed


                                          182









                                             124'                       40'                       2c, 380                    123'                     40'                        20'
                                                                                                                             411"

                                      124"                                                                Point Rers
                                                                               8      %                                      Drak     s


                                                                                                                                                                                                  122"
                                                                                                                       Duxbury@oint

                                       20'                                                                         Gulf of the
                                                                                                                   Farallones
                                                                                                                National marine p
                                                                                                                   Sanctuary          in oh, ta
                                                                                                                                      ointLo os

                                                                                                                                      San Ffanclsco        Oakland
                                                                                                                                                                                                  38o


                                                                                                                   Point San Pddro

                                       37*                                                                     S      Pillar Nnt


                                                                                                                   San Gregorio
                                                                                                                             '0,                                                                  40'
                                                                                                            Pescadero Point
                                                                                                             Pigeon Ant               Pescadero
                                                                                                                                      Creek

                                       40'
                                                                                                             Pt. Ano Nuevo


                                                                                                                      Daven@ort       Santa            Soquel Creek                               20'
                                                                                                                                      Cruz



                                                                                                                   10
                                       20'

                                                                                                                                              Cb
                                                                                                                                                            Pajaro River
                                                                                                                                              00   Moss    Elkhorn Slough
                                                                                                                                                  Landing
                                                                                                                                                                                                  37o
                                                                                                                                      Monterey
                                                                                                                                      CarZe
                                      123'
                                                                                                                             Point\
                                       36'                                                                                   Lobos@                                    N                          121'
                                                                                                                                        Carmel River

                                                                                                            Point ur         Little Sur River
                                                                                                                             Big Sur River                                                        40'

                                                                                                                                      Partington Point     0     5
                                                                                                                                                           liiiilll@ Nautical Miles
                                                                                                                                                           0   5
                                       40'                                                                                                                 92%mEiiiii Statute miles
                                                                                                                                      Big Creek            Depths in Fathoms
                                                                                                                                      Lopez Point                                                 20'
                                                                                                                                      Plaskett Rock
                                       20'                                                                                            Cape San Martin
                                                              Proposed Boundary                                                       Salmon Creek
                                                             State Waters
                                                                                                                                      Point Piedras Blancas
                                                             Gulf of the Farallones                                                                                                               36*
                                                              National Marine Sanctuary                                               %"
                                                                                                                                      I       San Simeon Creek
                                                               )A            3                                                        1       Cambria
                                                               122*                       40'                       20'                       1211"                    40'

                                           Figure 20. Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Boundary
                                                               Alternative #4.









                                                      124*                      40'                         2o, 381                   123*                     40'                        20,



                                              124*                                                   00            Point R yes
                                                                                       8                                           Drak s


                                                                                                                                                                                                            122*


                                                                                                                               Duxbury Point
                                                20'                                                                        Gulf of the
                                                                                                                            Farallones
                                                                                                                         National Marine poi    B@nita
                                                                                                                             Sanctuary
                                                                                                                                            'i tLAos
                                                                                                                                            San Francisco           Oakland                                 380
                                                                                                                                            J.,
                                                                                                                            Point San Pedro

                                               37*                                                                      10     Pillar ll@nt


                                                                                                                            San Gregbrio
                                                                                                                     Pescadero Peint                                                                        40'
                                                                                                                      Pigeon Ptint          Pescadero
                                                                                                                             \ I            Creek
                                                40'                                                                              1
                                                                                                                      Pt. Ano Nuevo


                                                                                                                               Davd@ort        S nta            Soquel Creek                                20'
                                                                                                                                            bN    ruz


                                                                                                                '101
                                                                                                          1$00
                                                                                                                                                       rb
                                                                                                                                                                     Pajarct River
                                                                                                                                                           IT,-Elkhorn Slough
                                                                                                                                                            Mos
                                                                                                                                                           Landing
                                                                                                                                                                                                            37*
                                                                                                                               8            Mqnterey
                                             123'                                                                                           Carmel
                                                                                                                                      Point
                                               36'                                                                                    Lobo@@                                     N                          121*
                                                                                                                                                Carmel River
                                                                                                            10,      1\
                                                                                                                    Point Sur         Little Sur River

                                                                                                                                                                                                            40'
                                                                                                                                      Big Sur River


                                                                                                                                            Parlington Point        0     5
                                                                                                                                                                    9252!0 Nautical Miles
                                                                                                                                                                    0    5
                                                40'                                                                                                                 6ME29a Statute miles
                                                                                                                                                                    Depths in FathoMS
                                                                                                                                            Big Creek
                                                                                                                                            Lopez Point                                                     20,
                                                                                                                                            Plaskett Rock
                                               20'                                                                                          Cape San Martin
                                                                     Proposed Boundary                                                        Salmon Creek
                                                                     State Waters
                                                                                                                                              Point Pedras Blancas
                                                                     Gulf of the Farallones                                                                                                                 36*
                                                                     National Marine
                                                                     Sanctuary Boundary                                                                San Simeon Creek
                                                                                                                                                       Cambria

                                                                      122*                        40'                        20'                       121.                      40*
                                                   Figure 21. Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Boundary
                                                                       Alternative #5.









       shoreward to the mean high water. The coastal boundary is along

       the mean high water from the Gulf of the Farallones southern

       boundary then proceeding south to Cambria except that Princeton,

       Santa Cruz, Monterey, and Moss Landing Harbors are all excluded

       from the Sanctuary and the boundary crosses the Golden Gate from

       Point Bonita to Point Lobos.


       6.   Boundary Alternative 6

            This boundary alternative would establish a Sanctuary area of

       approximately 1,800 square nautical miles (Figure 22). Proposed

       boundary alternative #6 would begin at Pescadero Point and proceed

       on a southwesterly heading of 2400 out to the seaward limit of

       State waters, then proceed south along the boundary of State waters

       to a point 240* off Table Rock, then proceed on a southwesterly

       heading of 240* to 36* 501 latitude, then proceed due west along

       this latitude to a point 46 nmi from Moss Landing, then proceed

       southward along an arc drawn from Moss Landing, with a radius of 46

       nmi, to 360 101 latitude then proceed due east along this latitude

       to Partington Point.

       7.   Boundary Alternative 7

            This boundary alternative would establish a Sanctuary area of

       approximately 880 square nautical miles off Monterey Bay and

       extending over the Monterey Canyon (Figure 23).   This alternative

       is a variation of boundary alternative #1 (Figure 17) with a

       seaward extension over the Monterey Bay Canyon. Boundary
       alternative 7 intersects boundary alternative #1 at latitude 1220

       then turns seaward along the 500 fathom isobath on the northern


                                       185
















                        1230                    40'                     20'                  1220                       40'                    20'
                                                    San Greg  ;orio        Pescadero Creek
                                                                   Pescadero Point
                                                       110    r
                                                     Pigeon Nint
                                                            \ N
                                                        Pt. Ano Nuevo                                  Soquel Creek
                                                   100                                 Santa
                    37                                               Davenport          Cruz-                                                     370
                                                  Soo                              T    le
                                                                                                                        Pajaro
                                                                                                                        River
                                                                                       'To           CD                 Elkhorn
                                                                                    00                                  Slough
                                                      1,000
                                                                                                                 Moss
                                                                                                                 Landing



                    40'                                           @000                                                                           '01

                                                                                                    Monterey
                                                                                                     Carmel


                                                                                                    Point
                                                                                                    Lobos           Carmel
                                                                                                                     River



                    20,                                                                                     Little Sur River                     20'
                                                                                           PoinliSur
                                                                                                              Big Sur River


                                       Proposed Boundary                                                                   Big
                                                                          @O                          U(-                 Creek
                                       State Waters                                                                 \ 0.,

                                                                                                               Lopez oint
                  360   1                                                                                                                        360


                            0       5
                                      Nautical Miles
                            0      5                                                                              Cape San Martin
                                      Statute miles

                               Depths in Fathoms                        0
                                                                                                                 C,
                                                                                                                  ) I          RaggedP\oint
                      1230                     40'                    20'                   1220                      40'                    20'
                      Figure 22 Proposed         Monterey Bay National          Marine Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #6
                                                                                                                                   ,,i @n
                                                                                                                                   gt
                                                                                                                                     ed \,:@iint
















                   1230                    40'                        20'                   1220                      40'                      20'
                                              'San Greg@orio            Pescadero Creek

                                                   Jll          Pescadero Point


                                                 Pigeon oint
                                                    Pt. Ano N@jevo
                                                                                                     Soquel Creek

                 0                                                                   Santa
              37                                                  Dave\nport   \                                                                 370

                                               500
                                                                                                                      Pajaro
                                                                                                                      River
                                                                                     SO                               Elkhorn
                                          @,.Ooo                                                    CD
                                                                                                                      Slough
                                                                                                                Moss
                                                                         1100                                 Landing


               40' -                                            1,000                                                                            40,

                                                                                                   Monterey
                                                                                                   Carmel


                                                                                                   Point
                                                                                                   Lobos
                                                                                                                   Carmel
                                                                                                                   River



               20'                                                                                        Little Sur River                       20'
                                                                                         Poin   S, u r
                                                                                                             Big Sur River
                                   Preferred Boundary                                           P a rti n 3i-O-rl, @O I   Big
                                                                                                               I,/ \1   Creek
                                   State Waters           @,5,           OCIO
                                                            00
                                                                                                              Lopez oint\-@
             360 -                                                                                                                               360



                                   Nautical Miles
                         0      5  Statute Miles                                                                 Cape San NL'rtin

                                                                       o
                            Depths in Fathoms                          0                                                          c"
                                                                          "000
                                                                       V                                              I       Ragged oint
                  1230                     40'                       20*                   122'                       40'                   20'
                   L \,@







                                                                                                                                  g ed@@,:)J n t


                        Figure 23. Proposed Monterey Bay Sanctuary Boundary Alternative #7








         side of the Monterey Canyon; then due westward along latitude 360
         461 to longitude 1220 301; then due south along longitude 1220 301
         to latitude 360 301; then eastward to the intersection with the 100

         fathom isobath off Point Lobos; then southward to along the state

         boundary line off Partington Point, then inshore to Partington

         Point.




         B. Management Alternatives

              Two management alternatives were identified and considered in

         terms of (1) resource protection, research, and interpretation

         requirements and (2) cost-effectiveness.



         1.   Manaciement Alternative 1

              Under this alternative, NOAA would establish an independent

         management and administrative system for the Monterey Bay National

         Marine Sanctuary in a headquarters that is managed and operated

         directly by NOAA. The location of the Headquarters would be in the

         Monterey Bay region with the specific site.dependent on the size

         and location of the Sanctuary boundaries.

              This alternative would gradually phase in a variety of program

         activities and focus initially on research and education. Staffing

         would start with a NOAA manager and phase in an assistant manager,

         administrative assistant, research coordinator, education

         coordinator and a joint position of an interpreter/enforcement

         official.

              The office would coordinate directly and actively with other


                                          188









      state and local agencies in decision making and implementation of

      Sanctuary regulations. The Sanctuary Manager and the Advisory

      Committee would begin the process of informing the public as well

      as regional officials of the Sanctuary's mandate, regulations and

      research and education programs.

           This alternative is cost effective as it slowly phases in the

      necessary management structure in parallel to the growing presence

      of the Sanctuary and the demands of its users. However, the

      Sanctuary would initially have low visibility and reduce the

      effectiveness of the resource protection regime due to the limited

      staff. In addition, due to the long coastline boundary of the

      Sanctuary and the variety of shoreline habitats and user groups,

      one centralized information center may not provide optimal

      representation or access to widely separated visitor groups.



      2.   Management Alternative 2

           The preferred alternative is to set up the Sanctuary

      headquarters soon after designation (within six months) and

      immediately provide full-staffing in the positions described for

      alternative 1. In addition, the preferred option is to provide

      "satellite" information centers as well as the main headquarters

      facility so that other areas of the Sanctuary are represented.

           The preferred alternative would ensure that the Sanctuary

      program is implemented rapidly and cultivates the public support

      gained during the early, designation process. The wide variety of

      opportunities for interpretation as well as research requires the


                                       189










          full-time attention of individual research and education

          coordinators. The Sanctuary Manager will then be able to devote

          him/herself to the coordination of existing management authorities

          and resource protection. In the long run this alternative will not

          increase the budget of the Sanctuary as all of these personnel will

          be required for effective management in the future.



          C. Regulatory Alternatives

               Regulatory alternatives governing eight types of potential or

          current uses of the Sanctuary (oil, gas and mineral activities;

          discharges and deposits; possession, moving or injury of historical

          resources; alteration of or construction on the seabed; taking of

          marine mammals and seabirds; overflights; commercialvessel

          traffic; and operation of "thrill craft") were evaluated in terms

          of need and effectiveness for resource protection. Activities not

          included in these eight categories, such as fishing, would continue

          to be subject to existing regulations. In case of conflict with a

          Sanctuary regulation, the regulation that the Director of the

          Office of Coastal and Resource Management deems more protective of

          Sanctuary resources and qualities would govern.



          (1) Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities

          (a) No Regulation

               Under this alternative the resource protection regime would

          rely on the Department of the Interior's Outer Continental Shelf

          (OCS) Oil & Gas 5-Year Leasing Plan, the proposed Sanctuary


                                          190









      regulatory and management framework, and existing Fede ral statutes

      to provide protection to the Sanctuary's resources.

           Environmental review and the opportunity for the public

      comment take place prior to any hydrocarbon production under the

      provisions of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and the

      National Environmental Policy Act. The current OCS Oil & Gas 5-

      Year Leasing Plan includes Lease Sale 119 and is currently at the

      stage of gathering information for the preparation of a DEIS for

      the Lease Sale. The tracts considered for leasing are in the

      northern area of the proposed Sanctuary.

           If areas within the Sanctuary are leased for hydrocarbon

      activities in the future, NOAA has authority to condition or deny

      approval for, as necessary, permits or other authorizations granted

      to operators (lessees or contractors) by other authorities for

      activities which are otherwise prohibited under Sanctuary

      regulat,ions. Such conditions may include, but are not limited to,

      the establishment of a monitoring program and scientific research

      studies to measure the effects of hydrocarbon activities on

      Sanctuary resources and the restriction of discharges. Any

      conditions imposed by NOAA on other authorities' permits would be

      made in consultation with those agencies and the permitees.

           Finally, NOAA has the ability to enact emergency regulations

      to prohibit hydrocarbon activities, or any other activities, where

      necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction, of, loss of, or

      injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or minimize the imminent

      risk of such destruction, loss or injury, on a temporary basis.


                                       191










          (b) Regulate and/or Permit in certain Areas within the Sanctuary

               Under this alternative, a regulation could be promulgated

          prohibiting oil, gas and mineral activities within discrete areas

          in the Sanctuary. These areas could include, but are not limited

          to, geographical zones around Areas of Special Biological

          Significance, State Reserves, Beaches, Parks or other marine areas

          and habitats that are especially fragile and vulnerable to the

          effects of oil and gas activities. In addition, hydrocarbon

          activities maybe restricted and only permitted if executed with

          discharge and/or monitoring requirements. The monitoring

          requirement would be similar to the following:

               Within specified areas of the Sanctuary the operator (lessee)
               is required to submit a monitoring plan to assess the effects
               of oil and gas exploration, development and operations on the
               biotic communities of the Sanctuary. Monitoring
               investigations are to be conducted by qualified, independent
               scientific personnel, these personnel and all required
               equipment must be available at the time of operations. The
               monitoring team must submit its findings to the Minerals
               Management service Regional Manager (RM) (Pacific OCS Office)
               and the MEMD in accordance with a pre-established schedule.
               The findings must be submitted immediately in case of imminent
               danger to the biota of the Sanctuary resulting from drilling
               or other operations. If it is determined by the RM, in
               consultation with the MEMD, that surface disposal of drilling
               fluids presents no danger to the Sanctuary, no further
               monitoring of that particular well or platform is required.
               If, however, the monitoring program indicates that the biota
               of the Sanctuary are being harmed, or if there is any
               likelihood that a particular well or platform may cause harm
               to the biota of the Sanctuary, the RM and MEMD shall require
               implementation of mitigating measures such as: (1) the
               disposition of all drill cuttings and fluids by barging, or by
               shunting the material through a down pipe that terminates an
               appropriate distance, but no more that 10 meters, from the
               bottom, of (2) other appropriate operational restrictions.


          This regulation would also require that a formal interagency

          consultation process between the MEMD and MMS be established to

                                           192









       oversee the monitoring process with the Sanctuary.

       (c) Prohibit Throughout the Sanctuary

            This is the preferred alternative. The resources and

       qualities of the Monterey Bay area, particularly sea otters, sea

       birds, and pinnipeds that use the haul-out sites, kelp forests and

       rocks along the Monterey Bay coast, and the high water quality, are

       especially vulnerable to oil and gas activities in the area. A

       prohibition on oil and gas activities within the proposed Sanctuary

       boundaries will provide partial protection from oil and gas

       activities for the resources and qualities within the proposed

       boundaries. A prohibition on mineral activities within the

       proposed Sanctuary is necessary to be consistent with the

       prohibition on drilling through, dredging or otherwise altering the

       seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or abandoning any

       structure or material on the seabed of the Sanctuary as discussed

       below.




       (2) Discharges or Deposits

       (a) No Regulation

            Under this alternative, the provisions of the Clean Water Act

       (CWA), Title I of the MPRSA, the Comprehensive Environmental

       Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the National

       Contingency Plan would provide some protection from potentially

       harmful discharges and deposits from land and sea sources.

       Discharges of oil and chemical waste are regulated under provisions

       of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships of 1980, as amended in


                                       193









          1982 and 1987 (33 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1901 et seq.).  On October 27, 1988 the

          USCG announced a Notice of Proposed Rule Making that would

          implement the pollution prevention requirements of Annex V of the

          International Marine Pollution Convention, MARPOL 73/78 (53 FR

          43622). These proposed regulations are expected to reduce the

          incidence of discharges of plastics and other ship-generated

          garbage into the marine environment.

          (b) Prohibit Discharges

              The preferred alternative is to prohibit without NOAA approval

          depositing or discharging from any location within the boundaries

          of the Sanctuary materials or other substances except fish, fish

          parts, chumming materials or bait used in or resulting from normal

          fishing operations in the Sanctuary; biodegradable effluents

          incidental to vessel use generated by marine sanitation devices

          approved by the U.S. Coast Guard; water generated by routine vessel

          operations (e.g., cooling water and deck washdown) excluding bilge

          pumping; or engine exhaust.

              Depositing or discharging,  from beyond the boundaries of the

          Sanctuary, materials or other substances, would also be prohibited

          without NOAA approval, except for the exclusions discussed above,

          that subsequently enter the Sanctuary and injure a Sanctuary

          resource or quality. The intent of this prohibition is to protect

          the Sanctuary resources and qualities from the effects of

          pollutants deposited or discharged into the Sanctuary as well as

          land and sea-generated non-point and point source pollution.




                                          194









       (3) Moving. Injuring-or Possessing Historical Resources

       (a) No Regulation

           Under this alternative any historical resources (as defined by

       Sanctuary Program and Sanctuary regulations to include, inter alia,

       cultural resources) would remain subject only to the existing

       management regime, with permits provided by the State Lands

       Commission. Any historical resources known to be within the

       proposed Sanctuary, especially those that are on the National

       Register listing under the National Historic Preservation Act,

       would be carefully monitored by Sanctuary staff. In addition, any

       activity that could lead to the discovery of historical resources

       would be carefully monitored. The Sanctuary Manager would try to

       ensure that adequate information is available regarding the

       national significance of these resources and appropriate management

       measures are in place.

       (b) Prohibit Moving, Injuring or Possessing Historical Resources

            This is the preferred alternative. It is desirable to protect

       and manage any historical resources that may be in the Sanctuary.

       Under this alternative, moving, possessing, or injuring or

       attempting to move, possess, or injure a Sanctuary historical

       resource would be prohibited without NOAA approval. NOAA intends

       to work closely with the CA State Lands Commission regarding

       approval to move, injure or possess abandoned shipwrecks, title to

       which is held by the State of California.

            This regulation would apply throughout the Sanctuary. His-

       torical resources in the marine environment are fragile, finite and


                                       195









         non-renewable. This prohibition is designed to protect these

         resources so that they may be researched and information about

         their contents and type made available for the benefit of the

         public.   This prohibition does not apply to accidental moving,

         possession or injury during normal fishing operations.



         (4) Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed

         (a) No Regulation

              Under this alternative the benthic resources and the various

         substrates of the Sanctuary would continue to be protected only by

         the existing management regime. Existing State and Federal

         regulations governing activities on the seabed would still apply.

         There would be no special emphasis on the importance of the seabed

         as an environment that provides a variety of habitats that in turn

         supports the rich colonies of kelp and other algae as well as

         benthic invertebrates.

         (b) Prohibit Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed

              The preferred alternative is to prohibit without NOAA approval

         alteration of or construction on the seabed except as a result of:

         anchoring vessels; normal fishing operations; routine harbor

         maintenance; installation of navigation aids; maintenance of

         mariculture operations existing as of the effective date of these

         regulations; and the construction of docks and piers. The intent

         of this regulation is to protect the resources of the Sanctuary

         from the harmful effects of activities such as, but not limited to,

         excavations for archeological purposes, drilling into the seabed,


                                         196









       strip mining, ocean mineral extraction, and dumping of dredge

       spoils.



       (5) Taking Marine Mammals and Seabirds

       (a) No Regulation

            Under this alternative the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA)

       and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would provide some protection

       to the marine mammals and seabirds of the Sanctuary: both prohibit

       the taking of specific species protected under those Acts. These

       resources would continue to be protected on a species and case-by-

       case basis without consideration of their role in the ecosystem or

       under the special purview of the Sanctuary management regime.

       (b) Prohibit Taking marine mammals or Seabirds

            The preferred alternative is to prohibit taking marine mammals

       in the Sanctuary or seabirds in or above the Sanctuary unless

       approved by NOAA, except in accordance with and as permitted by

       regulations promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act

       (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The term "taking"

       includes all forms of harassment. The MMPA and the ESA both

       prohibit the taking of specific species protected under those Acts.

       Sanctuary enforcement officials may consider harassment cases

       pursuant to the MMPA and ESA. The proposed prohibition would

       overlap with the MMPA and ESA but also extend protection for

       Sanctuary resources on an environmentally holistic basis. It would

       include all marine mammals in the Sanctuary and seabirds in or

       above the Sanctuary.


                                        197











         (6) Overflights

         (a) No Regulation

              Aircraft overflights have been observed regularly to disturb

         bird and mammal communities in the neighboring Gulf of the

         Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Although the Federal

         Aviation Administration charts showing the California Sea Otter

         Refuge indicate the State of California requires overflights to

         maintain a minimum height of 1000 feet, other sensitive areas to

         the north of the Refuge at Carmel Bay are not protected.

         (b) Prohibition of Overflights

              The preferred alternative is to prohibit flying motorized

         aircraft at less than 1000 feet over the waters within three

         nautical miles of State of California designated parks, beaches,

         reserves or refuges, or the Los Padres National Forest. This

         regulation is intended to protect marine birds and'mammals from the

         disturbance and harassment of low-flying aircraft. Seabirds are

         often congregated near the shoreline and sea otters are distributed

         among the kelp beds within three nautical mile's of the coastline.

         Similar regulations are enforced as a result of Sanctuary

         designation in the Channel Islands and Gulf of the Farallones

         National Marine Sanctuaries.




         (7) Operation of Commercial Vessels

              No Regulation

              This is the preferred alternative. The term "Commercial


                                         198









       Vessel" includes any vessel engaged in the trade of carrying cargo,

       including but not limited to tankers and other bulk carriers and

       barges, vessels used in seismic surveys, and vessels engaged in the

       trade of servicing offshore installations. At present only a few,

       large commercial vessels visit the Monterey Bay region, mainly to

       dock at Moss Landing. Almost all of the current vessel traffic

       within the proposed Sanctuary passes through the western edge of

       the proposed boundary. The navigation aids on geographic coastal

       points and the deep offshore water assist to minimize the

       possibility of groundings. overall, the area has had a long

       history of safe vessel traffic but there may be a threat to the

       resources of the Monterey Bay area from possible collisions and

       possible spills of oil and hazardous materials.

            The probability and magnitude of a spill from all sources of

       vessel traffic remain uncertain. However, current U.S. Coast Guard

       studies are investigating the probabilities of a spill contacting

       the shores of the Monterey Bay area from different offshore

       locations, once a potential spill did occur. As part of the

       investigations consultations are underway to determine what

       potential impacts may exist to endangered species in the area such

       as the California Sea Otter. As these results become available,

       NOAA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard to ensure that all the

       resources and qualities of the proposed Sanctuary are accounted for

       in the investigation and that future plans for routing of vessel

       traffic off the coast of California take into account the purposes

       of the Sanctuary. In addition, NOAA will maintain close


                                        199










         communication with the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate the need for

         additional regulations and/or emergency response plans and

         equipment.

         (b) Regulation of Vessel Traffic

              Under this alternative, a regulation would be promulgated

         prohibiting or otherwise regulating operation of commercial

         vessels. The regulation would-be developed in consultation with

         the U.S. Coast Guard and the International Maritime Organization.

         Such regulation may include but is not limited to one or a

         combination of the following: (1) coast-wise vessel traffic be

         routed outside the boundaries of the Sanctuary, (2) all large

         vessels inbound to and outbound from Monterey Bay be restricted to

         port access route(s), (3) oil barge traffic be prohibited within

         the Sanctuary, and (4) special designs be required, such as double

         hulls, for petroleum and other hazardous substance transport

         vessels in the Sanctuary.



         (8) Operation of "Thrill Craft"

         (a) No Regulation of "Thrill Craft"

              This is the preferred option. "Thrill Craft" means any

         motorized vessel which is generally less than thirteen feet in

         length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of twenty

         miles per hour, and has the capacity to carry not more than the

         operator and one other person while in operation. The term

         includes but is not limited to jet skis,,wet bikes, surf jets,

         miniature speed boats, and hovercraft.


                                         200









            These craft can pose a serious threat to the resources of the

       Monterey Bay area. There is a potential for collisions with marine

       mammals and birds, injury to kelp beds, and disturbance, due to the

       noise and exhaust of the craft, to organisms near and on the

       surface at large distances from the craft. NOAA will monitor the

       activities of these "thrill craft" to determine, first, the extent

       of this activity and if indeed there is a threat to the resources

       and, second, if regulations should be promulgated prohibiting these

       activities in specified zones.

       (b) Prohibit Operation of "Thrill Craft"

            Under this alternative a regulation would be promulgated

       prohibiting the operation of "thrill craft" in specified areas

       including but not limited to Areas of Special Biological

       Significance, State Parks, Beaches, Reserves and Refuges. There is

       no current evidence that this activity poses a serious threat for

       Sanctuary resources.
























                                       201












                                 Environmental Conseguences Of Alternatives












































      I













                                          202











       PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES




             In selecting the appropriate institutional, boundary,

       management, and regulatory alternatives for the proposed Monterey

       Bay National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA evaluated the environmental

       consequences of their implementation. This section discusses these

       consequences including those resulting from the preferred

       alternative. The consequences of the proposed action are discussed

       in the. context of the expected impacts to the affected activities

       and existing jurisdictions, if any, for the affected activity and,

       the expected benefit to the resources and qualities of the proposed

       Sanctuary.


       Section I: Status Quo Alternative

            Maintaining the status quo and not designating a Marine

       Sanctuary in and around Monterey Bay will preserve the existing

       level of management and protection and forego the opportunity for

       positive management of this rich marine area. In the absence of a

       Sanctuary, there will be less ecosystem research,,no new education

       or public awareness programs directed at users, and no

       institutional mechanism for long-term planning and coordination of

       agency activities in this particularly valuable geographic area.

            Currently, no institution addresses the range of significant

       questions concerning the interaction of resources and uses in the

       area. While a variety of organizations conduct research, there is

       no systematic coordination to ensure that information needs are

       addressed in a timely and adequate manner. Even if information

                                        203









         becomes available through research projects, no institution is

         charged with applying that information to practical management

         issues, such as modification of regulations. Similarly, no agency

         attempts to monitor the health, stability and changing conditions

         of this valuable marine ecosystem. Resource assessment through

         gathering baseline data and continued monitoring of environmental

         conditions is essential in order to assess the adequacy of the

         protection afforded these important resources. The status quo

         alternative would leave the protection of this area to the chance

         coordination of the regulatory efforts of a number of agencies and

         would forego opportunities for affirmative management.

              Presently, numerous government agencies are vested with some

         regulatory authority over certain activities within the area (See

         Appendix 2). The regulatory activities are not performed in the

         context of a comprehensive management plan-, and no organizational

         structure exists to coordinate research and regulation. For

         example, other than the California Mussel Watch Program, there is

         no systematic environmental monitoring program nor is there a

         mechanism for applying research findings to the resolution of

         management issues. In addition, a major gap exists between the

         collection of data required under current NPDES permits and the use

         and application of these data to water quality issues.

              These existing authorities provide a considerable degree of

         protection for marine resources in general and the collection of

         State Parks, Beaches, Reserves and Refuges do so in particular., In

         general, however, the statutes described above and the agencies


                                          204









       administering them are each directed at a single purpose, region or

       activity. No entity looks to the welfare of all the living and

       non-living resources or the ecosystem of this entire marine area.

       Cumulative impacts on the resources, arising from various

       activities subject to the jurisdiction of separate agencies, may

       escape the attention of any single agency.

            Although certain uses of the area do not now seriously

       threaten area resources or qualities, they could have more

       significant impact if and when activity intensities increase. The

       various agencies, many of which have different objectives and

       jurisdictions, may not be able to respond to future activities on

       the basis of ecosystem issues. There in no existing mechanism to

       foster long-term planning, which could mitigate or eliminate

       harmful activities. Because these waters contain so many valuable

       resources, which in turn support so many beneficial uses, they

       require the special acknowledgment and study possible in a Marine

       Sanctuary to ensure that their particular resources and qualities

       are protected and managed.

            Some particular problems which may arise if the present

       institutional and regulatory structure continues to control

       activities in the absence of the proposed Sanctuary are discussed

       below. This Section describes the current environmental

       consequences of the leaving the resources and qualities of the

       Monterey Bay area to the existing regulatory regime and

       administration. This description provides a baseline to compare

       with the following section describing the preferred action of


                                        205









        Sanctuary designation and corresponding additional regulations,

        management, research and education programs.



        A.   Resource Protection Regime

             Several different forms of habitat and species protection--

        each of which was instituted for different purposes--exist in the

        proposed Sanctuary area. At the State level, for example, the

        California Department of Fish and Game has authority in territorial

        waters to protect exceptional marine habitats through the designate

        of ecological reserves, marine life refuges, and game refuges.

        Several protected areas have already been established (Table 9).

        These and other State programs, e.g., Areas of Special Biological

        Significance, provide geographically discrete protection for

        sensitive habitats and species along much of the mainland coast.

        In reality, of course, marine mammals, seabirds, and other marine

        flora and fauna depend on habitats and foraging areas far more

        extensive then those covered by existing protective regulations.



        1.   Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities

             There is presently no oil and gas development taking place in

        the study area. Lease Sale 119 is on hold and no additional Lease

        Sales are planned during the current 5-Year Plan. Part of the

        rationale for including boundary alternatives that would permit

        neighboring oil and gas activities is based on the assumption that

        the status quo regulatory and administrative offshore oil and gas

        regime is adequate in preventing significant adverse impacts of oil


                                         206








       and gas activities on the environment. oil and gas offshore

       operational technology has advanced considerably since the 1960's

       (Baker, 1985) and the experiences from past blowouts and spills

       have served as the catalyst for the present day relatively strong

       Federal OCS oil and gas regulatory regime. Department of the

       Interior, MMS, final rule for oil and gas and sulphur operations in

       the OCS, (30 CFR Parts 250 and 256) provides the regulatory regime

       for more performance standards and new and updated requirements for

       operational and environmental safety. The use of Best Available

       and Safest Technologies is required by the Director of MMS to help

       prevent significant effects on safety, health or the environment

       (30 CFR Part 250.22). Numerous regulations exist to help prevent

       blowouts during the different phases of oil and gas activities and

       which require adequately trained personnel during OCS operations.

            The nationally recognized, sensitive marine resources of the

       Monterey Bay area, however, warrant more comprehensive, long-term

       protection from adverse environmental effects of oil spills,

       discharges and, noise and visual disturbance. Future Lease Sale

       Plans in the central California Planning area, such as Lease Sale

       #119, and associated development will occur close to shore, near

       sensitive haul-out areas and in highly productive marine waters

       that are all part of the Monterey Bay ecosystem.

            For example, a group of Santa Cruz Basin tracts off San Mateo

       County, approximately 10 nmi due east of Aho Nuevo, are scheduled

       to be included in MMS's Lease Sale #119 and are kn own to be of high

       oil and gas resource potential (Figure 11). Due to  the unique


                                        207









         nature and environmental sensitivity of Afio Nuevo it seems

         additional safeguards to protect the proposed Sanctuary's resources

         may be necessary.   Presently, no administrative mechanism exists

         to set aside such an important area. For each sale, all tracts not

         already leased are reconsidered.

              Although there are stipulations on oil and gas leases imposed

         by MMS in environmentally sensitive areas, and MMS regulations at

         30 CFR Part 250 deal with many safety and environmental concerns,

         considering the known vulnerability of the marine flora and fauna

         to oil spillage and the difficulty of containing oil spills in the

         open ocean, a prohibition of oil and gas development appears to be

         necessary.

              The Sanctuary regime is especially desirable because for

         almost 3/4 of the year the known current patterns would cause any

         spilled oil and discharges to flow into Monterey Bay. (For a

         detailed discussion of the possible consequences of oil and gas

         activities that will be prevented with Sanctuary designation, see

         below).

              Thus, although the existing management system for oil and gas

         activities does include certain regulatory provisions for spill

         prevention, protection of particularly sensitive areas, and the

         preservation of the marine environment, National Marine Sanctuary

         designation appears more desirable to achieve formal

         acknowledgment, and more coordinated long-term stewardship, of the

         region's significant offshore resources.




                                          208










       2.   Discharges or deposits

            Existing water quality in the Monterey Bay area is classified

       as very good. However, a number of discrete areas along the coast

       of the Bay area are known to have high levels of specific

       contaminants. Local land point-source (eg. municipal dischargers

       and ocean dumping sites) and non-point source discharges (eg. urban

       runoff and agricultural practices) are believed to be the cause of

       many of the pollutants. Questions remain as to not only the exact

       nature of the source and corresponding appropriate management

       measures but also the exact nature of the environmental

       consequences of the discharges and any potential health threats to

       humans and the environment. It can also be assumed that increasing

       population demands on the Monterey Bay coast will further degrade

       water quality in the future.

            There is also an unknown amount of pollutants and garbage that

       enter the Monterey Bay area from the ocean. These discharges and

       deposits may have been transported far distances by ocean currents

       or may have come from passing vessels. It is possible that

       pollutants also enter the ocean surface of Monterey Bay from the

       air but magnitudes and effects of this source are completely

       unknown.

            The combination of above discharges and deposits serve to form

       the background or ambient water quality in the Monterey Bay area.

            Numerous laws and regulations apply to the disposal of waste

       in the marine environment.   However, most decisions are made on a

       case-by-case basis, which provides less certainty of protection


                                        209










         than would a designation of a no-discharge area. Certain gaps

         remain in the regulatory framework.

              All discharges within the territorial sea are subject to EPA

         requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA) (administered by the

         State) (or COE requirements under the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA)

         for discharges that might obstruct navigation.) The EPA

         requirements are designed to protect marine resources, but may not

         effectively prevent overboard disposal of trash from ships.

              Beyond the territorial sea, EPA approval is needed for ocean

         dumping and for any location of a new ocean outfall. EPA

         regulations take the ecological productivity and sensitivity of an

         area into consideration; nevertheless, such regulations do not

         guarantee that EPA will prohibit the disposal of waste in the area.

              ocean dumping, municipal outfalls, and dredged material

         disposal can smother benthic biota and introduce substances into

         the marine environment, which may affect fish, bird, and mammal

         resources. However, all ocean dumping must now meet the standards

         for implementing Title I of the MPRSA. In addition to reducing

         overall water quality and lessening the aesthetic appeal of the

         area, the discharge of litter may harm marine mammals that

         sometimes ingest or become entangled in such litter (Cava, 1989,

         personal communication.)

              Discharges from fishing vessels during normal fishing

         operations such as cooling waters from boat engines and fish wastes

         are unlikely to harm the resources of the study area; therefore no

         additional regulations appear necessary.


                                         210









            Regulations exist that cover the contamination of oceans

       waters by discharges from a variety of sources, including: 1)

       discharges from point sources (which require a National Pollutant

       Discharge Elimination System permit); 2) discharges from non-point

       sources; 3) discharges of oil and hazardous substances; and 4)

       ocean dumping.

            The CWA prohibits the discharge of oil and other hazardous

       substances "which may affect natural resources ..... under the

       exclusive management authority of the United States" (33 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½

       1251-1367). The CWA also provides for the establishment of the

       National Contingency Plan to contain, disperse, or remove oil and

       hazardous substances after a spill (see Part II, Section III). The

       CWA thus furnishes some protection to marine resources from the

       harmful effects of effluent discharges.

            The CWA, however, provides for a maximum penalty of only

       $10,000 for a single discharge incident without the initiation of a

       civil action. This does not provide a sufficient deterrent for

       protecting important Sanctuary resources; $50,000 is the maximum

       penalty allowed per day under the MPRSA. Moreover, under the

       status quo, there would probably be no specialized effort by the

       USCG to enforce the CWA in the Monterey Bay area as distinct from

       other offshore waters.

            The international agreement (Annex V, MARPOL) regulating

       garbage disposal from ships and other watercraft is now part of the

       amendments to the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS).

       Animals and birds may eat or become entangled in floating or


                                       211









         submerged wastes such as plastic packing materials or discarded

         fishing lines. An opportunity exists to help attain the goals of

         the APPS through the Sanctuary regulations prohibiting discharges

         and deposits.

              Several Bay communities now discharge waste (partially

         treated) directly into ocean waters, portions of which are

         designated as State Areas of Special Biological Significance

         (ASBS). The City of Watsonville has applied for a waiver of

         secondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act (Section

         301(h)) and, if provided a waiver, would discharge the only

         effluent into Monterey Bay not meeting secondary treatment

         standards. The City of Santa Cruz currently discharges sewage

         which has received advance primary treatment. Santa Cruz has

         entered into a consent decree with the California Water Quality

         Control Board stating that it will meet secondary treatment

         requirements by 1995.

              Such ocean outfalls, particularly those discharging partially

         treated matter into Monterey Bay, must be assessed to determine the

         magnitude of their threat to sensitive marine resources. Much of

         this research still needs to be done while an opportunity also

         exists to use already collected data and apply it to the management

         problems.   Existing state and Federal regulatory and management

         arrangements appear to be striving toward alleviating harmful waste

         outfall loads over the long term in the interests of marine

         environmental protection. To date, implementation obstacles have

         hindered the attainment of regional waste treatment facilities


                                         212










       sufficient to render ocean discharges environmentally safe. There

       is no single agency that reviews the discharges from an ecosystem

       or habitat perspective. The California Air Resources Board

       monitors ambient air quality as well as EPA and the Department of

       the Interior for Federal OCS activities.

           The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments acts as a

       clearing house in the Monterey Bay area for permits or licenses

       that require multi-agency review and comment. An opportunity

       exists to coordinate the necessary data analysis and research and

       consult within the existing regulatory framework to achieve water

       quality that is consonant with Sanctuary designation.



       3.  Historical Resources

           Many cultural and historical resources are known to exist in

       the area but few have been specifically examined and protected.

       Generally, the area's potential as a baseline indicator of regional

       environmental conditions of interests to marine scientists and

       archaeologists appears under utilized; such an integral mechanism

       for assessing the adequacy of resources protection efforts is being

       ignored.

           Existing regulatory authorities provide some protection for

       underwater historical or cultural resources. California can

       register sites as either "points of interest" or "land marks", and

       the latter designation provides some protection to sites in State

       waters. Salvage operations in State waters must also be permitted

       by the State Lands..Commission. Registration on the National


                                       213









          Register of Historic Sites provides protection only against Federal

          and not private activities.

              To date, surveys of the study area's submerged lands for

          historic resources have been limited. The Bureau of Land

          Management (BIM), now MMS, for example, conducted a 1979 survey of

          the shipwreck literature in central and northern California as part

          of its EIS for lease Sale #53. This agency is required by law to

          consider potential disturbance and damage mitigation actions for

          significant underwater historic resources if oil and gas activities

          are proposed nearby.



          4.  Alteration of or Construction on, the Seabed

              Dredging, dredge disposal, and related uses involving

          seabed alteration are not presently extensive in the study area

          (see Part II, Section 2). ocean disposal of dredge spoil from

          local harbors is an ongoing activity and in certain cases is

          deposited on shores for beach nourishment.' Certain activities,

          such as routine harbor and navigation maintenance are also vital

          for the local economy and safety of the users in the proposed

          Sanctuary. However, if the pace of activities or demand for uses

          such as sand mining, strip mining and ocean mineral mining

          accelerate substantially in the future there is a potential for

          severe environmental threats to the resources of the Monterey Bay

          area. These activities are known to increase the turbidity of the

          water column, disturb and alter benthic communities on the ocean*

          floor, and alter natural erosion and sedimentation rates.


                                          214









           Once again the regulatory regimes responsible for these uses

      may not take into account the ecosystem perspective or sensitivity

      of area resources and qualities.



      5.   Taking Marine Mammals or Seabirds

           The abundant and diverse marine mammals and seabirds that

      exist in the Monterey Bay area currently.use their habitats in

      close proximity to a number of human activities. So far there is

      no specific evidence that marine mammals or seabirds are threatened

      by any one activity. However, a number of conflicts potentially

      exist between human and marine mammal and seabird uses of the

      Monterey Bay area. Specifically, sportdivers compete with Sea

      Otters for abalone and commercial fishery nets may threaten diving

      seabirds and submerged marine mammals.

           The current regulatory regime under the U.S. Departments of

      the Interior and Commerce gives each Department the authority to

      designate and protect oceanic habitats if found to be "critical,"

      for species listed as "endangered" under the Endangered Species Act

      (ESA). The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the ESA

      prohibit the "taking" of marine mammals and threatened or

      endangered species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibits the

      hunting of seabirds. The term "taking" has been interpreted

      broadly by the administering agencies, so that the ESA and MMPA

      provide considerable protection. However, the potential threats to

      marine mammals and endangered species range from direct injuries to

      a specific animal or population to indirect or cumulative


                                      215









          degradation of their habitats. Neither the MMPA nor the ESA fully

          prevent such degradation of habitats.   Section 7(a) of the ESA

          does provide protection against actions which jeopardize endangered

          species or their critical habitats, but this section applies only

          to activities authorized, funded or carried out by Federal

          agenciesi not to private or state actions. There is no explicit

          provision for the designation or protection of marine mammal

          habitats under the MMPA. Thus, the MMPA and the ESA both provide

          some protection to the marine mammals and seabirds of the Sanctuary

          by prohibiting the taking of specific species protected under those

          acts. However, these acts only provide protection to these species

          on a case-by-case basis without consideration of their role in the

          ecosystem or from the special purview of the Sanctuary management

          regime.

               A portion of the habitat area used by marine mammals and

          seabirds foraging at Monterey Bay is already protected under the

          National Marine Sanctuary Program. The nearby GFNMS provides

          protection for marine habitats used by mammals and seabirds, but

          Monterey Bay, which is an important feeding ground for many of the

          same mammals and seabirds and which also supports a unique

          combination of benthic organisms, is not similarly protected under

          the present regime.

               With the exception of the Title III of the Marine Protection,

          Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), no Federal authority

          currently exists to identify and protect localized marine habitats

          of exceptional importance to non-endangered species. However,


                                          216









      Title III of the MPRSA has never been implemented in the Monterey

      Bay area. Also, while the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and

      the Migratory Bird Treaty Act proscribe the hunting and taking of

      marine mammals and seabirds, they do not protect their habitats

      from potentially adverse uses. Such program deficiencies have left

      certain valuable marine habitats largely unprotected. If current

      uses intensify to seriously threaten resources, the lack of

      suitable management authority to intervene could allow undesirable

      environmental impacts.



      6.   overflights

           There are a number of small, private airfields in the Monterey

      Bay area and often small planes can be observed flying along the

      coastline. NOAA's San Francisco Sectional Aeronautical Chart

      indicates on the chart a Notice to Pilots that prohibits flights

      below 1000 ft (305 m) Above Ground Level (AGL) over the Afio Nuevo

      and Point Lobos State Reserves and the California Sea Otter Game

      Refuge. This prohibition is intended to protect marine mammals and

      seabirds from being disturbed and startled by low-flying aircraft.

      There have been reports of low-flying aircraft (below 10001 AGL) in

      other areas of Monterey Bay which have startled bird populations

      and caused stampedes of marine mammals.

           The California Department of Fish and Game regulations that

      presently prohibit overflights less than 1000 ft above the Aho

      Nuevo Reserve, Point Lobos Reserve and the California Sea Otter

      Game Refuge appear to provide adequate protection to the resources


                                       217









         of these particular areas from visual and acoustical disturbances

         from aircraft.   However, other areas and resources may warrant the

         same type of protection from not only aircraft but also other

         vehicles such as jet-skis and thrill craft in general.

              .Although the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) charts

         showing the California Sea Otter Refuge indicate that the State of

         California requires overflights to maintain a minimum height of

         1000 feet (305 m), other sensitive habitat areas, such as Reserves

         and Refuges, are not noted on these charts and are not otherwise

         protected. Persistent low altitude overflights can severely

         disrupt various marine mammal and seabird behavior patterns,

         particularly those of breeding and nesting.



         7.   Vessel Operation

              There are a number of vessels that pass along the California

         coastline that may pose a threat to the resources of'the Monterey

         Bay area due to catastrophic accidents such as collisions and

         groundings. Although it is impossible to eliminate all probability

         of such accidents the U.S. Coast Guard is working on proposals to

         reduce vessel accidents by creating Vessel Traffic Separation

         Schemes and areas where no obstructions can be placed off the shore

         of California. Such schemes have to be approved by the

         International Maritime Organization before they take effect. Once

         in place adherence to the traffic lanesby vessels is entirely

         voluntary.

              Most intentional discharges of oil from vessels (and some


                                          218









      releases of air pollutants) generated during loading and off-

      loading are explicitly regulated by existing regulations. Other

      potential threats due to vessels, such as noise and visual

      disturbances, propeller hits, grounding, and accidental oil spills,

      are not (and in certain instances cannot be) controlled or

      prevented.

           The USCG voluntary vessel traffic lanes out of San Francisco

      currently receive a very high level of compliance. Under the

      existing regulatory system commercial vessels, including tankers

      and other bulk carriers may transit anywhere in the proposed

      Sanctuary, even near the very sensitive nearshore areas, where they

      could cause visual disturbances and create increased danger of

      pollution, both from operational discharges and from accidental

      groundings. Generally, based on good seamanship, large vessels are

      kept at a considerable distance from the shore. However, local

      vessel traffic will probably increase considerably with the

      development of the tracts to be leased in the Central California

      OCS any many of those vessels may be capable of navigating quite

      near to Afio Nuevo and other offshore areas. Given this and other

      expected increases in vessel traffic, the risks of vessels entering

      such nearshore waters and disturbing marine bird mammal populations

      seem likely to increase. Disturbance could result in flight or

      other changes in behavior. Repeated disturbances may cause mammals

      to temporarily or permanently abandon an area. Although the USCG

      can create mandatory vessel lanes, via the International Maritime

      organization, such action seems unlikely in this area, and in most


                                       219









         cases the USCG is more likely to act an the basis of vessel safety,

         rather than from the need for resource protection.

              Generally speaking, few large vessels transiting the study

         area's customary lanes and adjacent ocean waters have occasion to

         enter Monterey Bay. The only exception is oil tankers, originating

         primarily at San Francisco Bay refineries, which utilize the Bay

         for nearshore off-loading at the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E)

         power plant. This traffic represents a continuing environmental

         concern, especially in regard to certain Monterey Bay marine mammal

         and seabird communities, should oil spills occur either in

         nearshore transit (due to grounding or collisions) or while off-

         loading. Vessels presently follow routine and safe entry and exit

         procedures into and out of the Bay and unload one at a time. The

         USCGIs Monterey station keeps a close watch on these operations

         with regard to marine environmental protection. No major spills

         have ever occurred in the Bay although minor accidental discharges

         have been documented. A proposed expansion of Moss Landing's

         offshore terminal by PG&E has been withdrawn. Consequently, oil

         product delivery pattern--at least in term of tanker vessel size--

         will remain the same, i.e., 50,000 DWT maximum.



         8.   operation of Thrill Craft

              Thrill craft are a relatively new form of water sport and in

         the Monterey Bay area are currently only operated in small numbers

         and usually only during the summer.    However, the abundance and

         rapid growth of other uses of the area, including recreational


                                          220









      water-sports, and the high density of inshore flora and fauna

      warrants a long-term perspective on the management of uses and

      resources of the proposed Sanctuary.

           The State of Hawaii has already proposed regulations that

      would permit operation of thrill craft only in specified areas, in

      part to avoid injury to neighboring marine mammals. If the use of

      thrill craft were to increase, and/or other uses or resources of

      the Sanctuary were threatened by thrill craft, then the Sanctuary

      manager will investigate the issue in coordination with the

      affected parties and propose possible management and/or regulatory


      measures.





      9.   Military and Law Enforcement Activities

           The restricted area maintained by the U.S. Army in Monterey

      Bay appears to provide adequate protection to the sensitive marine

      resources from any currently conducted military training activities

      which might adversely affect them. The U.S. Navy's utilization of

      a nearby Bay portion for mine sweeping maneuvers from February

      through July each year appears to pose no serious threat to the

      resources and qualities of the area. On-going law enforcement

      programs involving overflights and use of vessels also appear to be

      infrequent and pose no threat to Sanctuary resources and qualities.



      10. Fishing Activities

           Fishing activities are great in the Monterey Bay area and the

      productive fish stocks support an economically very valuable


                                      221









         fishery. To ensure continued healthy stocks and minimization of

         adverse environmental impacts, commercial fisheries are already

         heavily regulated.

              The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA)

         provides for enforcement of Fishery Management Plans (FMP's)

         prepared by the Pacific Fishery Management Council and approved by

         the Secretary of Commerce after review by the National Marine

         Fisheries Service. Fishing in Monterey Bay waters is regulated by

         the groundfish and salmon FMP's. In the FMP's, the Council

         establishes catch limits for groundfish and specifies the duration

         of the fishing season and catch and size limits  for salmon.

         Commercial fishing-gear restrictions are specified for both the

         groundfish and salmon fisheries. In addition, the CDF&G enforces

         State regulations for fishing activities (See Appendix 2). It

         appears that the existing regime provides adequate protection to

         Monterey Bay from the effects of overfishing.

              In general fishing activity is extensively regulated to not

         only ensure continuous production of fish stocks for long-term

         harvest but also to reduce potential conflict with marine mammals

         and seabirds.

              The gill net fishery has been regulated since 1984 by the

         State and Federal governments because of the mortality of seabirds

         and sea otters that became entangled in the nets. Approximately 6

         to 15 boats participate in this fishery off Monterey Bay (pers.

         comm., Marine Resources Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March

         1990). This method of fishing is now restricted to waters deeper


                                          222










       than 20 fathoms. In April 1989 the halibut gill net fishing was

       closed inside 40 fathoms due to the incidental capture of over 40

       harbor porpoises (Edward Melvin, pers. comm., 1989). Future

       regulations on this fishery are pending (due January 1, 1991) which

       would prevent gill-netters from fishing within 30 fathoms (pers.

       comm., Marine Resources Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March

       1990). This would effectively move the current gill-net inshore

       fishery beyond the zone of distribution of shore birds and coastal

       marine mammals.


            The 1988 Amendments to the Marine Mammal Protection Act

       established an exemption for commercial fishermen to take marine

       mammals incidental totheir fishing activities. The amendments

       require the National Marine Fisheries Service, with NOAA, to

       establish an exemption, observer, and reporting system to document

       incidental captures of marine mammals by fishermen that are

       expected to take marine mammals. Based on reports of the

       fishermen, the NMFS is to submit to Congress its recommendations to

       manage commercial fishing activities in a way that reduces adverse

       impacts to marine mammals.

            The NMFS has registered fishermen in fisheries known to

       capture marine mammals, including the following fisheries operating

       in the vicinity of the proposed Monterey Bay NMS:

            Gillnet fisheries for thresher shark, angel shark, swordfish,
            halibut, white sea bass, yellow tail, soupfin shark, white
            croaker, and bonito/flying fish, and

            Purse seine fisheries for herring, anchovy, mackerel, tuna,
            sardines, and squid.

            Fishermen began reporting incidental captures to NMFS under

                                       223










         these amendments on July 1, 1989.

              The trawler fishery has also been extensively regulated and no

         trawlers are currently allowed within 3 miles of the coast (pers.

         comm., Marine Resources Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March

         1990). Approximately 8 boats participate in this fishery using a

         mixture of otter trawls and roller trawls. No data exists on


         amount of incidental take of birds and marine mammals due to the

         trawler fishery beyond three miles. It is unlikely that trawling

         will cause incidental take of marine mammals and seabirds as the

         gear is only deployed over short periods of time and covers small

         areas of the ocean floor. Also, this type of activity occurs

         outside of three miles which is beyond the range of most of the

         nearshore diving birds and sea otters. In addition, during an

         experimental period of 5 years, two trawlers were permitted to fish

         within three miles and during this experimental period there was no

         incidental take of marine mammals or seabirds (pers. comm., Marine

         Resources Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March 1990).

              There is almost no data regarding the effects of roller

         trawling near and on the bottom to benthic organisms and habitats

         (Edward Melvin, pers. comm., March, 1990). However, preliminary

         estimates from the few boats that roller trawl would indicate very

         minimal impact (pers. comm., Marine Resources Division, Monterey

         Bay area, CDF&G, March 1990).









                                          224











       11. Enforcement

            A reliable and effective enforcement capability is also

       necessary to ensure that regulations are observed. The CDFG has

       approximately 8 skiffs, two 65 ft. patrol boats (in Monterey and

       San Francisco), one 30 ft. patrol boat in San Francisco. CDFG

       staffs a 30 ft. vessel owned by NOAA for patrolling the Gulf of the

       Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. No boats patrol all ocean

       waters 'from Bodega Bay to Monterey. The 65 ft. vessel in Monterey

       occasionally patrols the area south of Monterey. (Capt. Phil

       Helms, CDF&G, Personal Communication; 1989). The two larger patrol

       boats in the 65 ft. (20 m) class traverse the proposed Sanctuary

       area out of San Francisco, and Moss Landing from Bodega Bay to

       Morro Bay. Finally CDF&G has two 100 ft. patrol boats: one

       originates from the south in Long Beach and patrolling Santa

       Barbara and Ventura counties, but does not conduct surveillance

       runs on any regular basis into the proposed Sanctuary's

       southernmost segment. The other 100 ft. boat, based to the north

       in Eureka, occasionally heads south through the proposed Sanctuary.

            CDFG wardens sometimes patrol the Aho Nuevo Reserve mainland,

       the Point Lobos Ecological Reserve, and California Sea Otter Game

       Refuge by foot or vehicle; however, no wardens are permanently

       located at any of these areas. Moreover, patrols by boat or on

       land are responsible for enforcing not only specific regulations

       applicable to individual reserves and refuges, but also the entire

       California Fish and Game Code. Thus, arrangements appear somewhat

       strained regarding enforcement and monitoring.


                                        225









              Certain enforcement functions in the proposed Monterey Bay

         Sanctuary area are also carried out by the California Department of

         Parks and Recreation (CDP&R). For example, although the Aho Nuevo

         State Reserve and the Point Lobos Ecological Reserve were

         originally designated under CDF&G authority, CDP&R assumed on-site

         management responsibility. Pursuant to this mandate, CDP&R staff

         are permanently located at both areas and conduct regular land-

         based patrols. They do not, however, have general authority,to

         prohibit diving, fishing, collecting, or other human activities

         which may adversely affect, e.g., through intrusion, sensitive

         marine resources. Also, the CDP&R is entirely dependent on the

         CDF&G for the prosecution of violations occurring beyond the

         intertidal zone. As a result, actual CDP&R enforcement levels in

         the study area tend to reflect CDF&G capabilities. The CDF&G

         occasionally conducts patrols of Aho Nuevo and Point Lobos

         Reserves, but, due to personnel shortages, the CDP&R has assumed

         primary management responsibility here as well.

              The NMFS recently entered into a cooperative agreement with

         the State CDF&G whereby both parties agreed to enforce each other's

         regulations. However, due to practical constraints of budget and

         staffing NMFS enforcement activity has remained largely confined to

         its own statutory responsibilities.

              In view of available State and Federal enforcement staff and

         the large marine area of approximately 2,200 square nmi (6860

         square Km) to be covered, the current enforcement capability

         appears inadequate.


                                         226










       B.  Research and Education

           The existing management system contains no mechanism for

       maximizing the area's research value, e.g., by means of a

       comprehensive or extended program framework. A variety of

       organizations conduct significant research in the ocean waters of

       the Monterey Bay area on an individual basis. The establishment of

       a Monterey Bay Marine Geological Consortium has been proposed. The

       consortium, consisting of the Institute of Marine Sciences-

       University of California at Santa Cruz, the Moss Landing Marine

       Laboratories, and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute,

       would improve marine geological and geophysical studies of the

       Monterey Bay and offshore regions. To date, however, no

       coordinating entity exists to identify regional research

       informatiop needs or to design strategies for filling them. Thus,

       scientific research is pursued in a rather fragmented fashion which

       often fails to incorporate other relevant environmental quality

       parameters.

            Although literature and other educational information on

       Monterey Bay and its habitat values is available to the general

       public, these efforts are largely uncoordinated and the collected

       research is rarely applied to management problems. Tourists,

       recreational fishermen and, nature enthusiasts who visit the Bay

       thus have little or no knowledge of its geology or of the complex

       communities of biota that inhabit the canyon and surrounding

       waters. Nor do they realize the value of Bay waters to the mammals

       and birds that feed there or pass through in transit.


                                       227










          C.  Management

              Presently, some 11 Federal, seven State, and various other

          regional and local government agencies are vested-with so-me

          regulatory authority over specific resources and human activities

          (Table 14). However, no single entity has management jurisdiction

          to govern marine resource use and conservation comprehensively,

          i.e., for the entire Monterey Bay region. Generally, each has a

          narrow geographic or functional jurisdiction. Present

          arrangements, therefore, fail to integrate a breath of scope

          sufficient for sustained regional resource protection in the

          offshore environment. Although the importance of individual

          resources, 'e.g., endangered species, is on occasion well

          acknowledged in law and regulatory implementation is often fairly

          effectivel the system under-emphasizes the national significance

          and preservation priorities warranted by this unique marine

          environment. The formal designation of a Monterey Bay region

          marine sanctuary, providing a concerted management focus on

          coordination of existing regulatory arrangements, will ensure long-

          term protection of the exceptional diversity of marine resources in

          the region.














                                         228











       Section II: Sanctuary Designation -- The Preferred Alternative

            The preferred alternative would permit the implementation of a

       coordinated and comprehensive management scheme resulting in the

       most cost-effective protection of Monterey Bay area resources.

       This alternative would promote resource protection in four ways:

       (1) It would bolster the existing regulatory resource protection

       regime. (2) It would establish a coordinated research program to

       expand knowledge of the Monterey Bay area environment and resources

       and thus provide the basis for sound management. (3) It would

       include a broad-based education\interpretive program to improve

       public understanding of the Monterey Bay area's importance as the

       habitat for a unique community of marine organisms. (4) It would

       provide a comprehensive management framework to protect this

       habitat.

            This unique, biologically diverse and relatively undeveloped

       natural setting is extraordinary, considering its proximity to the

       Monterey and San Francisco metropolitan regions. Besides providing

       an ecologically diverse haven for so many significant

       concentrations of living resources, the waters also support a

       number of socially beneficial human activities. These-range from

       fishing to commercial shipping, nature observation, education,

       scientific research, national defense and law enforcement, and

       recreation. To date, such activities have been pursued at low

       intensity levels. However, these and other potential human

       activities, e.g., oil and gas development, are clearly capable of


                                        229









         generating conflicts which could harm the resources of this marine

         area. of particular concern are potential damage to species and

         habitat degradation or destruction which could irreparably damage

         resource quality over the long term.

              The proposed boundaries will integrate many important

         nearshore and oceanic marine resource zones into one management

         regime. These zones include: the entire Monterey Canyon complex,

         the adjacent continental shelf, the Bay itself and certain highly

         productive shoreline and intertidal areas, such as the marine

         communities within Pescadero Marsh, Aho Nuevo, Elkhorn Sough,

         Carmel Bay, the Big Sur Platform and coastline, Julia Pfeiffer

         Burns State Park, and the California Sea Otter Refuge.

              Also, five'Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS)

         established by the State of California would be included in this

         alternative. One of the United States' largest marine bird

         rookeries is incorporated, as well as lesser (but in some cases,

         recolonizing) pinniped breeding populations. Many species of

         migratory waterfowl visit seasonally by virtue of the area's

         position on the Pacific Flyway. Also, gray whales regularly pass

         through these waters on their southward and northward migrations.

         In addition, the Sanctuary boundaries include the ocean waters

         north and west of the Monterey Bay, which are rich foraging and

         fishing areas. In addition to unifying the rich habitat areas

         listed above in one management and planning unit, the proposed

         Sanctuary, through regulations, would create a buffer area between

         potentially harmful activities outside the proposed Sanctuary and


                                         230









       especially sensitive habitat areas. In short, the marine

       ecosystem's diverse resources endowment and rich productivity make

       it an area of regional and National significance. The area

       deserves long-term protection and enhancement to complement the

       protection already provided for some of its resources onshore and

       for sections of the extreme nearshore zone.

            Marine Sanctuary designation would allow NOAA to: (1) support

       research on and monitoring of the resources, (2) enhance public

       awareness of the value of this area, (3) aid in coordinating

       actions by existing authorities, (4) formulate long-range plans and

       respond to currently unforeseen threats which might arise, and (5)

       regulate activities which either pose a current risk of causing

       significant damage or may have greater impacts as use of the area

       increases. Formal acknowledgment of the species and habitat value

       of these waters should in itself focus additional attention on the

       resources of this area and thus encourage direct special attention

       to any future development plans.



       A.   Resource Protection Regime

            The proposed designation will improve resource protection by

       instituting new regulatory measures and by supplementing present

       surveillance and enforcement actions. The overall effect of these

       regulations, narrowly focused on specific activities, will be

       beneficial. NOAA when promulgating these regulations must work

       within the constraints of Title III of the MPRSA. Specifically,

       section 304(c) provides that NOAA cannot terminate valid leases,


                                        231









         permits, licenses or rights of subsistence use or of access

         existing as of the date of Sanctuary designation but can regulate

         the exercise of such authorizations and rights consistent with the

         purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. The impacts of

         each proposed regulation are discussed below.



         (1)  Hydrocarbon Activities

              Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas or minerals
              is prohibited in the Sanctuary;

              This proposed regulation prohibits oil, gas or mineral

         exploration, production and development activities throughout the

         entire Sanctuary. The prohibition on mineral activities within the

         proposed boundaries is consistent with the prohibition on

         alteration of, or construction on, etc., the seabed as discussed

         below. The proposed regulations will prohibit activities in the

         Sanctuary which might otherwise result in chronic discharges,

         catastrophic oil spills, and various other activities associated

         with petroleum development which may harm wildlife (including many

         endangered species) within some of the primary foraging waters

         surrounding the major bird and pinniped rookeries and resting

         places in the area. The proposed prohibition of hydrocarbon

         activities will ensure continued absence of leasing in the

         currently deferred Federal OCS areas off Monterey and Big Sur and

         deferred state waters and add an additional layer of protection to

         environmentally sensitive areas such as off Afio Nuevo.

              While it is clear that the natural resources and qualities of

         Monterey Bay are of National significance and value, scientific

                                         232









       evidence and public opinion are still divided regarding the effects

       of oil and gas activities on these natural resources and qualities.

       Due to the mandate of the MPRSA to protect these Nationally

       significant natural resources and qualities and the identified

       risks to these resources, NOAA is proposing to eliminate concern

       for any adverse environmental impacts that may occur in the

       Sanctuary from oil and gas activities by prohibiting these

       activities within the proposed Sanctuary boundary (approximately

       2,200 square nmi).

            A recent NAS study (NAS, The Adequacy of Environmental

       Information for Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida

       and California, 1989) as well as past EPA (1983) and NAS (1985)

       studies have all examined whether there is adequate information

       available to determine the effects of oil and gas activities on the

       marine environment.   Many uncertainties still exist.

            It is possible that adverse environmental impacts may occur

       within the Sanctuary as a result of oil spills, synergistic effects

       of various discharges from oil and gas activities associated with

       nearness to a drilling site, or sublethal effects from low-level

       exposure to these wastes discharged from oil and gas activities.

            Offshore hydrocarbon exploration, development and production

       activities, including the transshipment of oil to the mainland, may

       cause unforseen and potentially substantial discharges of oil

       (chronic and catastrophic discharges) into the marine environment

       in a number of ways. The regulations are intended to protect

       sensitive marine resources more effectively against the risks and


                                        233









         adverse impacts of:   (1) well blowouts caused by equipment failure

         or damage and geologic hazards, (2) oil spills and pipeline leaks,

         (3) noise and visual disturbances caused by drilling, the presence

         of drill rigs or platform, work crews, supply boats, and

         helicopters, (4) pollution associated with aquatic discharges, and

         (5) short-term pipeline construction upheaval.

                Normal hydrocarbon operations result in chronic, small oil

         spillage. Since the Monterey Bay area has had no history of

         hydrocarbon production there is no direct evidence of the effects

         of exploration and production spills in these waters. Most of the

         evidence that is discussed in this section is extrapolated from the

         experiences in other California marine areas especially the

         neighboring Gulf of the Farallones, now designated as a National

         Marine Sanctuary, and from MMS data from the 5-Year Plan and

         discussions on past and future leases off the central California

         coast.


              Although most of the proposed Monterey Bay Sanctuary is

         excluded from the MMS 5-year plan for outer continental shelf (OCS)

         leasing (MMS, 1987), if hydrocarbon exploration and development

         were permitted.at a later date, such operations would threaten Bay

         resources. Table 13 summarizes the known threats to marine

         organisms which result from offshore oil development and Table 14

         describes how NOAA's proposed Sanctuary provisions will help

         mitigate these impacts. This section analyzes the potential

         adverse impacts identified above, the extent to which NOAA's




                                         234









         Table 13. Summary of Threats to marine mammals, seabirds, and
                    marine organisms resulting from offshore oil resources
                    development and production (modified from University of
                    California, Santa Cruz, 1976.)

         Activity/Facility      Chronic Hazard   Episodic/Catastrophic Events

         Exploration
            seismic             Noise,                Sub-surface noise,
              Profiling          "startle effect"      Concussion
            Drilling                                  Siltation,
                                                       Turbidity increase
            Boat Traffic        Sub-surface noise and
                                propeller hits

         operation
          Offshore facilities
            Platforms           Intrusion
            Well head           Leakage/seepage       Blow-out
          Support
            Supply boats        Sub-surface noise and
                                propeller hits
            Aircraft            Noise in the air


         Transport
            Pipelines           Leakage               Rupture
            Pumping buoys       Leakage
            Barges/Tankers      Bilge oil intrusion   Collision or grounding

         Clean-up
          Oil on water          Intrusion
            skimmers
            Burn-off                                  Pollution--air
            Chemicals           Toxicity of Chemical  Pollution--water

          Grounded oil                                Pollution--sediments
              Booms             Dispersants           Disturbance to sensitive
                                                      bird and mammal
                                                      populations on beaches by
                                                      human intrusion and
                                                      aircraft activity
              Straw
              Chemicals
              Presence of crew                        Habitat destruction
               and equipment









           Table 14.    Potential oil and gas development impacts mitigated by
                        NOAA's preferred Sanctuary alternative.

           REGULATION                             PROTECTION PROVIDED


           1. No future hydrocarbon       --Creates a broader buffer area
           exploration or exploitation      against potential oil spill
           within the designated            threats and provides increased
           Sanctuary.                       response time for cleanup
                                            efforts in case spills occur.

                                          --Increases distances between
                                            potential spill/pollutant
                                            discharge point (i.e. rigs,
                                            platforms and pipelines) sensitive
                                            and resources which allows natural
                                            weathering and dilution of
                                            contaminents bereaching important
                                            marine life concentration areas


                                          --Excludes noise and visual dis-
                                            turbances of routine operations from
                                            the vicinity of important marine
                                            life habitats.

                                          --Reduces potential visual intru-
                                            sion on aesthetic values of the
                                            31 Units of State Park, Beach,
                                            Reserves and Refuges and the
                                            proposed Sanctuary itself.

                                          --Reduces potential air pollution.









       proposed Sanctuary provisions serve to mitigate them, and the

       anticipated socioeconomic consequences of these regulations.

            By excluding hydrocarbon activities from the Sanctuary, the

       proposed regulation establishes a "time and space" buffer area

       between oil and gas activities and particularly sensitive island

       and nearshore habitat areas. The MMS OCS 5-Year Plan (Mid 1987 to

       Mid 1992) (the "Plan") includes oil and gas leasing from some of

       the area under consideration in Lease Sale 119. The Plan and Lease

       Sale 119 defer, among other areas, a large area offshore Monterey

       Bay and Big Sur (53 FR 46421). The area withdrawn by the Plan

       comprises a significant portion of the proposed Sanctuary (Figure

       11) .

            However, the protection afforded by this prohibition is

       contingent upon the continued absence of oil and gas development in

       State waters. Although the State Lands Commission does not now

       foresee any action to lease tracts for hydrocarbon activities in

       the area in question, leasing is possible and could affect the

       status of Federal OCS tracts. Moreover, the Plan does not cover

       the water due west of Aho Nuevo and north of Monterey Bay (Figure

       11).

            As discussed in Part II Section II, there are currently no oil

       and gas activities or leased tracts within the Sanctuary preferred

       boundaries. Lease Sale #119 is currently on hold in the early

       phase of the pre-sale process. Thus far, only "Call for

       Information" has been completed by MMS for the proposed sale and no

       further activities are being carried out.


                                        237









              A number of Lease Sale 119 tracts lie within the Bodega and

         Afto Nuevo Geological Basins. These have been divided by MMS for

         planning purposes into the San Francisco and Santa Cruz Subareas.

         Based on Maps that were presented during the scoping process for

         Lease Sale #119 it can be estimated that approximately fifty tracts

         at the southern end of the Lease Sale area would be included within

         the Sanctuary's preferred boundary. However, the lease sale

         process has not concluded the area identification step and it is

         uncertain exactly how many tracts will be included within the

         preferred boundary.



         (a) Oil Spills

              The proposed prohibition on oil, gas and mineral activities in

         the Sanctuary establishes this area as a buffer between possible

         oil spills occurring outside the Sanctuary as a result of Lease

         Sale #119 or future sales, and the highly sensitive Aho Nuevo

         island and mainland coastal and intertidal habitats. These

         habitats range from protected marsh areas to unprotected coastal

         rocks, and are vital to the rich bird, fish, marine mammal, and

         intertidal populations in the area (see Part II, Section 2). The

         existence of a buffer zone ensures that in the event of an oil

         spill, the oil would have to undergo a minimum amount of weathering

         before reaching more sensitive nearshore and intertidal areas. The

         weathering process would allow the more toxic fractions of the

         petroleum to evaporate and would permit some natural dispersion to

         occur. Also, San Francisco Bay-based contingency crews would have


                                         238









       more time to reach the spill site and deploy containment and/or

       diversion equipment either at sea or around entrances to highly

       vulnerable Bays and sloughs.

            The proposed regulation will increase the likelihood of

       employing at-sea containment rather than onshore cleanup. Although

       more difficult to achieve, at-sea containment is generally

       preferable to nearshore or onshore cleanup or containment efforts

       because it is likely that cleanup crew, equipment, and associated

       disturbances will compound the adverse impact caused by the spill

       itself (U. S. Bureau of Land Management, 1979). For instance,

       Lindstet-Siva (1976) states that attempts to boom rookery beaches

       may be counter-productive since most species of pinnipeds will

       abandon rookeries if repeatedly disturbed. Because suitable areas

       for pinniped rookeries are quite limited, abandonment of a rookery

       in this area could have severe consequences. Even if disturbed

       only once, several days may be required before activity patterns

       return to normal on a disturbed beach. Rookeries and haulout areas

       that are just being established (see Part II, Section 2) may be

       even more sensitive to disturbance than beaches of long-standing

       use. Because of these factors, Lindstet-Siva (1976) noted that the

       best action (where feasible) is to mechanically contain the oil at

       the spill site. If oil reaches rookeries, it is probably best not

       to attempt cleanup since almost any 'method would be disturbing to

       these animals.

            A protective buffer is particularly important in relatively

       rough seas like those of the study area to allow for the limited


                                        239









         success of current oil containment techniques under severe climatic

         conditions. Organizations in the region capable of oil spill

         contingency responses (See Part II, Section III) would also gain

         additional mobilization and cleanup time should a catastrophic

         spill occur.

              The Monterey Bay offshore region is known for rough water

         conditions, strong currents, and frequent storm swells. Thus,

         other than wi thin enclosed bays and estuaries, equipment

         deployment, access, or approach for spill control appears quite

         dangerous. It seems that the available control technology, e-g-,,

         booms vs. chemicals, most suitable for possible oil spills-in or

         near the Sanctuary is inadequate (J. Packard, 1989, personal

         communication). It is possible that spills originating from Lease

         Sale 119 will, due to adverse oceanic conditions, have to be

         combatted more with chemical agents than with mechanical recovery

         or diversion boom techniques.

              Lindstet-Siva also recommended that human activity be kept to

         a minimum in nearshore waters and on beaches used by pinnipeds and

         that the use of chemical dispersants in the open sea be considered

         to mitigate the effects of the spill. Dispersants act to

         facilitate the incorporation of the oil into the water column and

         can be used when conditions prevent the deployment of containment

         and collection equipment. The application of dispersants is

         contingent on permission given by the Environmental Protection

         Agency. This permission is granted on a case-by-case basis

         depending on specific spill site condition and is planned to result


                                         240










      in the least overall environmental damage.

           However, an insufficient amount of research, especially for

      newly developed dispersant chemicals, has been conducted to assess

      adequately their effects on the marine environment although some

      studies suggest that the impacts of using dispersants at times

      exceeded that of the oil alone (MMS, 1987).

           The extent of the likely environmental benefits from the

      proposed regulation and the buffer it would establish are qualified

      by a number of factors. First, the proposed regulations cannot

      offer full protection from the impacts of spills, since spills

      resulting from activities outside the boundaries, for instance in

      the Bodega Basin to the north could reach the proposed Sanctuary.

      Second, the spills and subsequent impacts completely eliminated are

      only those which could be expected to occur on leases within the

      boundary. There has been no separate calculation of the

      statistical likelihood of spills, if all or portions of the

      attached tracts were developed, nor can NOAA presently predict the

      probability that all those tracts would be leased in the absence of

      a Sanctuary restriction. Therefore, the benefit in terms of

      expected reduction of spills cannot be quantified.

           Finally, although the buffer zone will allow a greater time

      margin in which to commence containment action, open ocean spill

      containment is not yet predictably successful,in seas as dynamic as

      those of the study area. The buffer would also allow time to

      employ dispersants if that technique is proven to be advisable.

      The success or failure of at-sea containment and recovery


                                       241









         operations in the event of a spill depend heavily on the prevailing

         marine conditions, the amount of time before the oil will reach

         critical resources, and the speed of response. Theoretically,

         under calm sea conditions, containment and recovery equipment can

         function effectively. However, the effectiveness of containment

         booms and skimmers falls off dramatically as wave height or wind

         velocity increase; in fact, booms will not function well if water

         currents exceed one to two knots (California Office of Planning and

         Research, 1978). Wave period and the amount of water turbulence

         also affect performance. Skimming devices are likewise dependent

         on sea conditions. Effective skimming is unlikely when ocean

         conditions are not at least moderately calm (California office of

         Planning and Research, 1978).

              The following discussion identifies some of the major

         environmental risks caused by different sources of oil spills to

         the water and sediments and relates these risks specifically to

         significant marine resources found within the preferred Sanctuary

         alternative.




              (i) Sources of Oil Spills

              Accidents, natural disasters, and human error can lead to

         situations which result in the inadvertent release of oil into the

         marine environment. Spills can be caused by well blowouts, barge

         and tanker accidents, pipeline breaks and leaks and equipment

         failures. In addition to accidents, natural disasters, and human

         error, natural oil and gas seeps also may release oil into the


                                         242









       marine environment. This is particularly true in off-shore

       southern California.

           Over the next 30 years, the MMS estimates there is a 98%

       probability that approximately four spills of 1000 barrels or

       greater will occur in the vicinity of the Sanctuary. Of the spills

       referred to above, it is estimated that there is a 50% probability

       that 0.69 spills of 1000 barrels or greater will occur that would

       be directly attributable to central California OCS oil and gas

       activities ie. from platform, pipeline and tanker spills. It is

       projected by MMS (1987) that one platform would develop Lease Sale

       119 and that all oil produced would be shipped by tanker and thus

       no pipeline spills are projected.

            The remaining sources of oil spills are from: (1) oil tankers

       transporting imported oil, (2) oil tankers transporting domestic

       oil produced from other OCS Leases under the current 5-Year Lease

       Sale Plan, and (3) oil tankers transporting domestic oil produced

       from sources other than under the current 5-Year Lease Sale Plan,

       ie., mainly tankering of TransAlaskan Pipeline Oil (MMS, 1987).

















                                       243









              According to MMS (1987) the estimated mean number (Est. Mean

            and probability (Prob.) of each source of spill, using a Poisson

         distribution, is as follows:

         -Spills from OCS Sources
              in Central California            Est. Mean              Prob.


                    Platforms                     0.30
                    Pipelines                     0.00
                    Tankers                       0.39


                    SUBTOTAL                      0.69                0.5

         -Spills From Other   sources in central  California

                    Current 5-Year Plan           0.36                0.3
                    OCS Transport
                    Other Domestic                1.51                0.78
                    Transport
                    Imported Transport            1.42                0.76

                    TOTAL SPILLS: ALL SOURCES     3.98                0.98



              If during exploration, oil companies     discover major

         hydrocarbon resources, then an unknown amount of additional sales

         with associated development could occur with a corresponding

         increase in the probability of an oil spill. Likewise, the reverse

         may be true if less hydrocarbon resources are discovered than

         estimated.

              The risk from oil exploration, development and production,

         including platform, tanker and pipeline spills is discussed below:




              Offshore Platforms and Well Blowouts:

              During the period 1964 - 1988, thirty eight percent of the oil

         spilled in association with drilling and production in the OCS was

         caused by blowouts. During these 24 years, a total of 161,688


                                            244









      barrels were discharged into marine waters as a result of blowouts

      at offshore wells in the Gulf of Mexico. An additional quarter of

      a million barrels was spilled as a result of non-blowout associated

      incidents (MMS 1988).

           Massive spills caused by well blowouts have been highly

      publicized, but such spills are rare. According to LaBelle in the

      Final EIS for OCS development in the Gulf of Mexico (1984) the OCS

      spill-rate for platform spills greater than 1,000 barrels (bbl) was

      I per billion barrels produced, 1.6 for pipeline spills, and 1.3

      for spills involving tankers. More recent figures by Anderson and

      LaBelle (1988) indicate that when oil and gas production for the

      years 1981 to 1987 are included, and the first 2.5 billion barrels

      of production are not considered (when 73% of all platform spills

      occurred), the rates decrease. The rates are now considered to be

      0.60 for platforms and 0.67 for pipelines. It is possible that the

      primary reason for the reduction in rates is due to the decreased

      amount of incidents since 1980 which may be a result of increased

      technology and safety, and the gains in experience of the industry

      (Anderson and LaBelle, 1988). Most blowouts have been relatively

      minor, especially in recent years. From 1964 to 1981, 99.5% of the

      spill volume caused by blowouts in the Gulf of Mexico was spilled

      in the years 1964 through 1971. After 1971 the volume of blowout-

      produced spills was negligible, yet there was no reduction in the

      number of blowout spills (The Futures Grou p, 1982). It should be

      noted that since 1971 there have been no blowouts that exceeded

      1,000 bbl of oil spilled. The OCS spill-rate for small platform or


                                       245









         pipeline spills is 379 spills per billion barrels produced or

         transported. Ninety-nine percent of these spills are less than 50

         barrels and 89% are less than one barrel (MMS, 1986).

              Although the offshore oil industry has been successful in

         reducing the volume of oil spills, the record indicates that, if

         oil development were to take place in the area of Monterey Bay,

         spills from blowouts and platform accidents are likely to occur.

              The large majority of spills involve relatively small amounts

         of oil, usually less than 500 gallons (10 barrels) (MMS, 1990).

              Severe, long-term, impacts on marine environments would result

         from large, acute oil spills greater than 1,000 barrels. Between

         the years of 1964 and 1988 there were 22 spills of this magnitude

         at offshore facilities on federal leases. Of these incidents, four

         were well blowouts and seven were vessel-related damage to

         submerged pipelines. Combined they accounted for 89% of the total

         oil spilled in major events.

              Any large oil spill would be particularly hazardous to the

         sensitive fish, invertebrates, seabirds and marine mammals that

         inhabit the diverse habitats of the Bay because of its potential

         for depositing high concentrations of toxic substances in the water

         column and intertidal areas. This process was demonstrated by the

         IXTOC well blowout, which occurred in June, 1979, in Mexican waters

         off the Gulf of Mexico. The IXTOC blowout released some 10,000

         barrels (one barrel is equivalent to 42 gallons) of oil per day

         into the ocean for nine months, thus providing scientists with

         their first major opportunity to study the transport of oil from a


                                          246









      subsurface spill (MMS, 1986).

           It should be noted that the IXTOC incident was the largest OCS

      blowout in the world and took place in foreign waters. This

      operation was not subject to the same federal controls that would

      apply to a U.S. regulated facility. In another example of a

      blowout, the Santa Barbara Platform A in waters off of southern

      California, spilled 77,000 barrels of oil over a period of ten days

      in 1969. The Santa Barbara spill occurred at a time prior to the

      promulgation of 30 CFR regulations (Oil and Gas and Sulphur

      Operations in the OCS) and the development of more advanced

      technology to prevent blowouts from occurring.

           However, over the lifetime of central California oil and gas

      activities, and taking into account the cumulative impacts of oil

      spills, it has been shown above that there is a 50% probability of

      an oil spill from OCS activities in central California and that the

      estimated mean number of oil spills from platforms is 0.30.



           Pipelines:

           Ninety-seven of all OCS production has been transported by

      pipeline, with no less than 95% in any single year (Anderson and

      LaBelle 1990). Offshore and onshore oil and gas pipelines are

      considered impact-producing factors of special concern in the

      marine and coastal environments on the basis of potential

      accidental oil spills. Since 1970, the number of pipeline segments

      added in the federal OCS per year ranged from 200-275 (U.S.

      Department of Interior, 1983). Installations since 1970 have added


                                       247









          between 400-800 (averaging 600) miles per year to the existing

          network in federal waters (AL,1990).

               offshore pipelines are exposed to numerous hazards including

          corrosion, geologic hazards, hydrodynamic forces, and accidental

          damage caused by anchors or by other objects. Pipeline corrosion

          can be internal or external and may result in leaks and breaks.

          Geologic hazards capable of causing pipeline failure are sediment

          instability and seismic activity. To minimize the potential for

          pipeline failure resulting from such hazards, preconstruction route

          surveys are analyzed to determine the safest and most stable route

          for pipeline placement.

               Hydrodynamic forces may remove sediments from around a

          pipeline and cause stresses from sagging or vibration from currents

          where velocities are sufficiently high. Anchors, fishing nets,

          trawl doors, cables, or any other objects that may be dragged or

          dropped on a pipeline can cause damage and possible leakage.

               Pipelines are termed seafloor sources of oil as opposed to sea

          level sources such as tankers and platforms. Oil spilled from

          seafloor sources (pipelines, wellheads) may be entrained and

          transported for great distances by subsurface currents (U.S.

          Department of Interior, 1983). This was the case with a seafloor

          source, IXTOC-1, where oil released at the seafloor circulated in

          the Gulf of Mexico for months until reaching the Texas coast

          hundreds of miles to the north (DOI, 1983).

               Data on oil spills from pipelines on the U.S. OCS, 1964-1987

          (Anderson and LaBelle 1990:27) indicate that for eight pipeline


                                          248










      accidents oil spill amounts ranged from 3,500 to 160,638 barrels.

      Further nearly 40% of all oil spilled in 1988 was from non-vessel

      sources such as pipelines (U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Pollution

      Retrieval System, 1989).

           As stated above there are no plans to use pipelines to

      transport oil from central California OCS development during this

      5-Year Plan and thus there is no estimated mean number of spills

      from this source. However, in the future with additional Lease

      Sale Plans pipelines maybe reconsidered as a method of

      transportation of oil from the OCS to the shore.




           Tankers:

           This discussion relates directly to the probability of a spill

      resulting from the tankering of oil from an OCS facility located in

      the Central California Planning Area. As stated above, it is

      estimated that there is a probability of 0.39 spills of greater

      than 1,000 barrels (MMS, 1987). Further discussion on the

      environmental consequences of tankering activities from sources

      other than central California OCS facilities is contained in the

      Environmental Consequences of Vessel Traffic section below.




      (ii) Transport, Fates and Effects of Oil in the Marine Environment
           Regardless of Source

           Although most spilled crude oil initially floats,

      approximately 1% - 5% of the volume of a surface slick will occur

      in the water column as a result of dissolution, dispersion,


                                       249









         sinking, or sedimentation in the vicinity of the spill. Studies

         show that a sub-surface plume of stratified materials is formed

         beneath an oil slick. The heavier molecules sink first while the

         lighter ones are carried further in the current. Because the oil

         in such a plume remains below the surface it may have a different

         chemistry than the surface slick and maybe more toxic to marine

         organisms.

              In the case of the IXTOC blowout, it was found that a

         subsurface.plume of oil droplets, extending from the wellhead and

         generally aligned with the surface slick, contained high

         concentrations of low molecular weight aromatics, alkyl benzene and

         naphthalene compounds which are acutely toxic to marine organisms

         (MMS, 1986).

              Subsurface currents would generally serve to sweep entrained

         oil, especially from seafloor sources such as pipelines and

         wellheads) along or near the seafloor until reduced current

         velocity allowed settling and deposition (Fiest and Boehm, 1980).

         As the specific gravity of much of the oil is near that of seawater

         it can be expected that the oil will remain in suspension until

         deposited at or near shorelines or bars. Additionally resuspension

         and redeposition of the oil due to storm waves or currents is to be

         expected.

              In Monterey Bay, it is difficult to predict the fine-scale

         transport of pollutants and exact path of source to sink of an oil

         spill due to the highly complex current and eddy patterns in the

         vicinity of the proposed Sanctuary. A spill occurring in the


                                         250










       vicinity of the proposed Sanctuary could be driven directly to the

       bay by the California Current, the Davidson Current, or the eddies

       associated with these coastal currents and cause considerable

       damage to sanctuary resources. The proposed development of the OCS

       to the north of Monterey Bay poses concern due to the south flowing

       California current for 2/3 of year and the close juxtaposition of

       the breeding and resting habitat at Aho Nuevo.

            Estimates of the trajectory of spilled oil in the region are

       based on a report prepared for the U.S. Coast Guard by Ecological

       Consulting, Inc., February, 1990. This report analyzes the

       seasonal probability of an oil spill coming into contact with the

       sea otter range (Point Aho Nuevo to the mouth of the Santa Maria

       River) if it were to occur off the coast of California. The study

       shows that a spill occurring in the area being considered for oil

       and gas exploration has a significant chance of contacting the

       Monterey Bay area. If a spill were to occur at a point roughly 10

       nmi southwest of Point Aho Nuevo, it would have a 41.8% chance of

       coming into contact with the sea otter range within 30 days.

            In addition to the acute effects of large oil spills on marine

       ecosystems, such spills may have long-term effects on surviving

       marine organisms. Sublethal and long-term hydrocarbon impacts on

       ecosystems are associated with low oil concentrations in marine

       environments which may result from the evaporation, degradation,

       and dispersion of hydrocarbons following a large spill or from

       chronic, small spills (less than 1,000 barrels). of the two,

       chronic small-spills may pose a greater hazard to marine ecosystems


                                       251










         than isolated large spills. Both the EPA and the NAS have reviewed

         the literature and past studies on the long term effects of

         chronic, small oil spills to the ecosystem but,the data remains

         inconclusive due in part to the lack of adequate numbers of long-

         term studies.

              Due to the patchiness of the marine environment in terms of

         distribution and abundance of marine organisms it is possible for a

         small spill to cause more environmental damage than a large spill

         if the small spill occurs during a special time (ie. breeding or

         feeding seasons) and at a particular location (nesting or breeding

         habitats). For example, this is evident off central California

         from a comparison of the magnitude and effects of oil spills from

         the Apex Houston and the Puerto Rican (discussed below under

         Environmental Consequences of Vessel Traffic), where even such

         small spills, in the short term, could kill a large number of

         individual birds or other marine organisms depending on the area

         where the spill impacts.

              Certain species of marine mammals and birds are seasonally

         present around the Monterey Bay area in numbers representing an

         ecologically significant percentage of their entire population (as

         discussed in Part II Section 2). Potential harm to pinniped and

         marine populations would be magnified if an oil spill were to occur

         during a period of high density or during a breeding season. For

         another example, this seasonal susceptibility has been highlighted

         by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (1979a) in regard to the

         marine resources surrounding the Northern Channel Islands.


                                         252










           Thus, regardless of source and magnitude, oil spills in the

       marine environment in the Monterey Bay area demonstrate a number of


       concerns:


           The size of the spill does not necessarily correlate with the
           resulting damage to the environment;

       0   In most cases of oil spilled in the central California region,
           the existing capability to contain and clean up the spill has
           not been equal to the task at hand.    The areas affected are
           coastal marine waters and to be effective, clean-up equipment
           requires less turbulent waters; and

       0   Mitigating measures alone may not be sufficient to ensure
           adequate protection of Sanctuary resources.

            The greatest damage to the marine environment occurs under

       any of the following circumstances:

       o   The oil is spilled into or reaches a confined, shallow body of
           water, such as a small bay. Thus, the volume of oil spilled
           is large with respect to the body of water being affected.

           The oil is refined oil, such as home heating oil or diesel
           oil.

           Storms or heavy surf cause the oil to be churned into the
           bottom sediments.

           In many instances, it does appear that the marine ecosystem

       can recover from the damage occasioned by oil spills although the

       rate and completeness of recovery remain subject to dispute. oil

       can directly affect living marine organisms biochemically,

       behaviorally or physically (see, for instance, Boesch et 'al, 1973;

       National Academy of Sciences, 1983; EPA, 1985; MMS, 1987; Michael,

       1977). Petroleum hydrocarbons can also have sublethal or

       indirectly lethal effects on marine organisms through the

       destruction or alteration of food supply, chemical interference

       with reproductive success, synergistic effects which may reduce


                                       253










          resistance to disease, and other stresses which alter behavioral

          patterns such as feeding.   The physical damage resulting from the

          coating of marine organisms, the feathers of marine birds, the fur

          of marine mammals, and the respiratory apparatus of fish with oil

          is well documented (see, for instance, U.S. Bureau of Land

          Management, (1979a).

               Below is a summary of the impacts of oil spills on the

          biological resources, habitats and uses of the Monterey Bay area.



          Effects on Marine Mammals


               Pinnipeds and Sea Otters

               Floating oil adversely affects pinnipeds and sea otters in

          four ways: fouling the fur, ingestion, inhalation, and the

          irritation of eyes and membranes (U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

          1980, Geraci and Smith, 1977). Oil contamination of fur can cause

          two very important physical changes--loss of buoyancy and

          impairment of normal thermal regulation. Of the two, impairment of

          the body's insulation properties is probably more damaging,

          particularly for fur seals and sea otters which depend primarily on

          their fur for insulation (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1980).

               Although northern fur seals depend only partially on their fur

          for thermal protection, oiling could depress their thermoregulatory

          abilities, which could lead to hypothermia and death (Kooyman, et

          al., 1977). Studies by Kooyman, et al., (1977) indicate that among

          sea mammals, the most profound effects of oiling may be on the sea

          otter pup; its thermal conductance increased by 2.1 times after


                                          254










      oiling, indicating a significant loss of insulation capacity. The

      results of Kooyman's later studies confirm that even a light oiling

      could have marked detrimental effects on the thermoregulatory

      abilities of otters (Kooyman and Costa, 1979.)

           Northern fur seals have been sighted in the vicinity of the

      Farallon Islands and Monterey Bay in increasing numbers in recent

      years; in addition, there have been sightings of sea otters along

      the Marin County coast. These species may be in the process of

      establishing breeding colonies here, a trend that could be sharply

      diminished by oil pollution.

           Pinnipeds and sea otters exposed to oil spills may be

      adversely affected by hydrocarbons contacting their fur or skin or

      being ingested or inhaled. In general, oil is more likely to be

      ingested while the animals are feeding or cleaning their coats than

      by absorption through the skin. The long-term effects of high

      concentrations of petroleum products has not yet been determined.

      oil contamination of their fur can cause loss of buoyancy and

      thermal insulation, as fouling of the feathers does with birds.

      Loss of insulation is probably more serious for pinnipeds and sea

      otters than loss of buoyancy. Oil contamination of their fur is

      therefore especially harmful to fur seals and sea otters which

      depend on their fur for insulation. Phocid seals rely on blubber

      and vascular,mechanisms for thermal regulation and are thus more

      resistant to thermal loss caused by contact with oil (Geraci and

      St. Aubin, 1980). Of the pinnipeds in the Monterey Bay area, the

      northern fur seals and the California and Steller sea lions are fur



                                       255









         seals; the northern elephant seals and harbor seals are phocids.

              As stated earlier, the ingestion of oil by pinnipeds is most

         likely to occur during feeding or as the animals clean their coats.

         The impact of such ingestion would probably depend upon the amount

         ingested, its toxicity, and the physical condition of the

         pinnipeds. The long-term effects on pinnipeds of various levels of

         hydrocarbon bioaccumulation are unknown.

              Cetaceans


              The adverse effects of oil spills on cetaceans are the result

         of oil contact with the skin or eyes, fouling of baleens and

         ingestion or inhalation. Because the skin of cetaceans is smooth

         and furless, oil is unlikely to adhere to it, although it may

         adhere to the callosities that occur on right and humpback whales.

         In a study of bottlenose dolphins to determine the effects of

         direct skin contact with spilled oil, it was found that exposure to

         crude oil for periods of up to 45 minutes produced short-term,

         morphological and biochemical changes to the skin, but recovery

         appeared to be rapid (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1982).

              It has been assumed that cetaceans may suffer eye irritation

         as the result of contact with oil, but this assumption has not been

         scientifically confirmed. Baleen whales such as'the humpback, blue

         and gray whales (all observed in Monterey Bay area wdters)'are

         subject to baleen fouling as a result of exposure to spilled oil.

         This may impair their ability to feed, however, humpback whales

         have been observed feeding in oil-slicks without apparent immediate

         ill effects (NOAA, 1979).


                                          256









            The bioaccumulation of oil in both baleen and toothed

       cetaceans is most apt to occur as the result of eating contaminated

       food supplies. There is little likelihood that oil would be

       inhaled through the blow-hole although it is possible that toxic

       fumes might be inhaled in small quantities (Geraci and St. Aubin,

       1980). Although the effects of hydrocarbon accumulation in

       cetaceans are unknown, it can be assumed that the longer an animal

       is exposed to spilled oil, the more likely it is to suffer adverse

       effects. Prolonged exposure is most apt to occur when

       contamination occurs in a feeding ground, such as within or

       adjacent to Monterey Bay.

            In general, little is known about the ability of cetaceans to

       avoid oil spills. As noted above, humpback whales have been

       observed feeding in an oil slick. Bottlenose dolphins, however,

       can detect and will avoid thick oil accumulations but do not avoid

       thin oil sheens (Geraci and St. Aubin, 1982, 1983).

            Although the effects of oil on cetaceans have not been

       carefully investigated, scientists hypothesize that oil could cause

       short- and long-term harm. Because baleen whales are filter

       feeders, for example, they are susceptible to direct ingestion of

       oil or oil-tainted substances. Oil has been found to destroy fish

       eggs. A decrease in fish egg populations caused by a serious oil

       spill could upset the delicate balance of the food web and thereby

       diminish an important local food source. In addition, oil effects

       may reduce mammals' ability to find food, to flee from predators

       and to care adequately for their young. There is no data available


                                        257








         at present showing the bioaccumulation of oil through the food

         chain resulting in a biomagnification effect on cetaceans.

              It is not known whether whales will avoid an oil slick;

         however, humpback whales have been seen feeding.in an oil slick in

         the northern Atlantic ocean without apparent immediate ill effects

         (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1979). Although

         knowledge about the cumulative effects of oil on whales is scant,

         it is likely that oil would, at least, irritate-their eyes and

         might even affect their breathing apparatus given-prolonged

         exposure. The likelihood of prolonged exposure is diminished if

         the whales avoid the slicks, or if the whales simply move through

         the spill area at normal speed. On feeding ground, prolonged

         exposure may be more likely. Because whales depend on blubber

         rather than fur for thermal regulation, oil would not affect their

         ability to thermoregulate. Whale reactions to an oil spill,could

         depend on many variables including the species of whale, time of

         year, and severity of the oil spill.

              Several endangered species of whales, including the highly

         endangered blue whale, occasionally appear in the study area (see

         Part II, Section 2). The gray whale, also an endangered species,

         annually migrates through the area. The southern migration

         includes pregnant females, and the return migration to arctic

         waters includes young calves. Both these groups may be more

         susceptible to oil pollution than male adults. A substantial

         proportion of the gray whale population could be affected by an oil

         spill in this area since thousands of animals pass through the


                                         258








       proposed Sanctuary area twice annually.



       Effects on Marine Birds

           oil spills in Monterey Bay area waters could have a major

       impact on foraging seabirds. Floating oil affects marine birds by

       fouling feathers and through ingestion, inhalation, and irritation

       of eyes and membranes. The major cause of immediate mortality

       among seabirds contaminated by oil is fouling of the feathers,

       which reduces flying and swimming ability and results in a loss of

       buoyancy and of thermal insulation. Feather contamination is the

       primary cause of immediate mortality because of the resulting

       inability to fly, avoid predators, forage underwater, and the

       lowering of body temperature due to loss of insulation.

            The ingestion of toxic hydrocarbons, sometimes by preening

       contaminated feathers, can produce physiological stress which may

       eventually result in death. If non-fatal contamination occurs

       during the breeding season it may lead.to reproductive failure.

       Birds that have ingested toxic elements may produce inviable eggs,

       and birds whose feathers are contaminated may transfer oil to eggs

       or chicks, thus reducing hatching or fledgling success (NOAA,

       1979).

            A number of factors influence the vulnerability of different

       species of birds to contact with spilled oil. Species which have a

       tendency to form large, dense flocks on the water, or to spend

       considerable time swimming on the water, to dive when alarmed, and

       species which exist in small, isolated populations are extremely


                                       259









         vulnerable (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1980.) To some extent,

         all marine birds which breed in large colonies are vulnerable to

         contact with floating oil during the nesting season since they

         concentrate together for all or most of that period.

              The study area is characterized by a number of marine bird

         breeding colonies, including some of the largest marine bird

         rookeries in the continental United States (see Part II, Section 2

         and Figure 7, above). In addition, many migrating species

         congregate in the offshore regions throughout the year. Impacts

         due to oil spills and associated cleanup operations would be

         greatest when marine bird densities were at their peak. Such

         densities vary throughout the spring and summer for different

         species.

              Under the criteria set forth above, the marine birds in the

         proposed Sanctuary generally believed to be the most susceptible to

         oil contamination include murres, guillemots, auklets, murrelets,

         puffins, loons, grebes, and scoters (U.S. Bureau of Land

         Management, 1980). Cormorant and alcid populations are also

         susceptible to exposure largely because of their sizable breeding

         colonies within the study area. Brown pelicans, observed in

         somewhat smaller annual populations here, are equally vulnerable

         due to their more restricted areal distribution, seasonally large

         breeding assemblages and frequent diving (U.S. Bureau of Land

         Management, 1979). Shearwaters, albatrosses, petrels, gulls,

         terns , shorebirds, and some ducks and geese are all vulnerable to

         oil contaminants, but in som e cases less so than the diving species


                                          260








        (Bureau of Land Management, 1980). All of these birds have been

        identified foraging in Monterey Bay area waters.

            Marine birds are highly susceptible to the effects of oil, and

        catastrophic oil spills generally result in extremely high marine

        bird mortality e.g., the 1971 Golden Gate spill impacts. Other

        major oil spills occurring elsewhere, such as England's Torrey

        Canyon incident in 1967, have affected far larger numbers of birds

        than did the Golden Gate spill and have resulted in very high bird

        mortality (Holmes and Cranshaw, 1977.) Attempts to clean oiled

        birds often prove unsuccessful and may occasionally cause even more

        stress than light oiling.

            An oil spill in the area under consideration would be almost

        certain to affect large numbers of birds, particularly if it

        occurred between March and August. For certain species such as the

        ashy storm-petrel and the california least tern, nearly the entire

        population can be found in the study area during nesting or

        migration periods. of the approximately 94 species of seabirds

        that are known to occur in the region,, one third of all species

        rely on the areas habitats during breeding and migration seasons

        (Briggs and Chu, 1987) (see Part II, Section II). Clearly, an oil

        spill reaching, or in the vicinity of the Monterey Bay area, could

        present a serious threat to such species. Past spill incidents

        both near San Francisco and elsewhere around the United States and

        the world have induced large scale bird fatalities (see above for

        discussion of events).

             As indicated earlier, oil pollution may pose threats to bird


                                        261








         populations beyond immediate mortality from ingestion of oil or

         fouling of feathers. Because of the direct dependence of marine

         birds on nearshore food sources, long-term contamination of

         foraging grounds could cause major alterations in marine

         reproductive capabilities. As with marine mammals, birds may be

         adversely affected by the ingestion of oiled invertebrates. The

         potential long-term, cumulative impacts of nearby oil and gas

         development on marine bird habitat areas and feeding grounds in the

         Gulf of the Farallones and Island area remain unknown to a major

         degree.   oil spill treatment and cleanup operations (including the

         adverse effects of human intrusion) can also have important impacts

         on marine birds and mammals. often the emulsifiers used and the

         associated human activity during cleanup procedures have been more

         harmful than the oil (MMS, 1987). Because many new generation

         dispersants which are supposed to be no more toxic than oil have

         not yet been totally evaluated, their environmental effects remain

         largely unknown (MMS, 1987). Mechanical cleanup and containment

         devices, such as booms, pose no toxic threat to marine birds;

         however, the extensive human activity associated with deployment

         can cause social disturbances within the marine bird and mammal

         populations. In addition, the effectiveness of mechanical devices

         is limited by sea and weather conditions. As with oil spills

         themselves, the impacts of cleanup operations would be particularly

         severe at times when marine birds and mammals were highly

         concentrated, e.g., during breeding or feeding activities.

              Most incidents involve oil-soaked birds, although occasional


                                           262









        mammal oiling, e.g., of elephant seals, also occurs. Generally,

        oil slicks on nearshore waters or oil covered rocks on the

        neighboring Farallon Islands are rare (Kellogg, gt al., 1978). Few

        open water slicks in the vicinity have ever reached these Islands

        with sufficient strength to cause widespread ecological damage.

        However, among the more recent spill incidents, the 1971 Golden

        Gate tanker collision appears to have caused the greatest marine

        bird mortality near the Islands. The estimated mortality counts in

        this incident probably reflect only a portion of the birds affected

        by oil pollution, as it is likely that many contaminated bird

        carcasses were not found.




        Effects on Fish, Planktonic and Benthic Biota

            The impact of an oil spill an Monterey Bay area fish stocks

        and benthic fauna would depend largely upon the type of oil

        involved and on the timing of the spill with respect to

        reproduction and larval development. The lethal toxicity of oil

        ranges from .1 to 100 parts per million of soluble aromatics for

        adult marine organisms. Larvae are usually 10 to 100 times more

        sensitive than adults. Sublethal effects have been demonstrated

        with aromatic compounds in concentrations as low as 10 to 1,000

        parts per billion (Johnston, 1979). The impact of a spill is thus

        apt to depend on the magnitude of egg and larval mortality.

        Because the early life stages are often pelagic, they are more

        susceptible to the effects of a surface slick.

             Heavier hydrocarbon elements are characterized by aromatics of


                                        263









         higher molecular weight and lower water solubility. These elements

         may be avoided by adult finfish, but benthic organisms such as

         those populating Monterey Bay are highly susceptible to their

         lethal effects. The sublethal effects of hydrocarbons on marine

         organisms include the disruption of normal feeding behavior,

         breeding, and locomotion; interference with thermo-regulation;

         reduced resistance to stress; and diseases caused by the intake of

         carcinogenic or potentially metagenic chemicals (MMS, 1986). Some

         organisms, however, may have the ability to compensate for minor

         toxic stress and may thus be able to tolerate low concentrations of

         toxic hydrocarbons.

             A large oil spill in, or close to, valuable fishing areas

         would also pose a serious threat to sport and commercial fisheries,

         including mariculture. The precise type of impact depends largely

         on timing with respect to spawning season, migration patterns, on

         the oil type (solubility, toxicity, etc.), and on prevailing

         weather conditions.

              For example, a spill resulting in a surface slick could affect

         upper water biota such as the squid, northern anchovy, jack

         mackerel and the pelagic portion of the planktonic base of the food

         chain. Heavier oils that sink, on the other hand, could affect

         shellfish (abalone, lobster, crabs) and finfish such as the

         flounders and soles.

              Both lethal and sublethal effects of petrochemical pollution

         have been noted in fish (Hawkes, 1977; Patten, 1977; Sinderman,

         1978, 1982). Observed sublethal effects range from visible


                                         264









       physical abnormalities to subcellular defects. Some fish exhibit

       severe anatomical deformities such as curvature of the spine. At

       the tissue level, lesions may develop on the skin, gills, or

       intestine (Hawkes, 1977; Sinderman, 1982). In addition to possible

       health hazards from the consumption of contaminated fish by humans,

       these sublethal effects are aesthetically displeasing and increase

       the difficulty of marketing fish for human consumption.

       Furthermore, Patten (1977) and Sinderman (1978) have found changes

       in behavior, metabolism, locomotor and activity patterns, growth,

       feeding and reproduction. Laboratory research, for example, has

       demonstrated deleterious effects on the survival and growth of eggs

       and larvae during spawning conditions due to short, low-level

       hydrocarbon exposures (Whipple et al., 1978). These laboratory

       results do not necessarily predict the effects of open ocean

       exposure to hydrocarbon discharges, where levels of contaminants

       may differ.

            There are three main ways oil spills or chronic exposure can

       affect fisheries: loss of fishing time or gear; tainting of the

       fish; and direct destruction of the fishery (Michael, 1977). In

       the aftermath of a spill, the risk of fouling gear or of catching

       tainted fish is apt to reduce overall fishing effort. This

       reduction of effort has a substantial but probably only short-term

       economic impact. The most serious long-term effect is lingering

       tainting of stocks (Michael, 1977). Although direct toxic effects

       on an entire fishery of finfish whose populations cover large areas

       are not probable, smaller fishery segments can be seriously harmed.


                                       265








         Generally, fisheries are most vulnerable during the reproductive

         and juvenile stages. Many species concentrate in  small geographic

         areas at these times and thus contaminant concentrations could have

         serious ecological consequences (Michael, 1977).

              While studies have documented deleterious effects of

         hydrocarbons on fish, oil and gas development and production is

         continuing in several marine areas without apparent widespread

         damage to the fishery. The Gulf of Mexico is an example of the

         general compatibility of oil and gas development and an on-going

         fishery.
              Although offshore'production in general may be compatible with

         healthy fisheries, studies following past oil-tanker spills

         demonstrate some long-term damage from crude oil in the near shore

         area. Studies of two species of flatfish (plaice and flounder),

         centered on breeding grounds and estuarine habitat, show 18 months

         after the spill a significant reduction in recruitment into these

         two fisheries (Amoco Cadiz, 1980). Similarly, studies of the

         species show a significant amount of fin rot and internal organ

         lesions,,spread across various year classes in the area.

         Scientists cannot predict what effect the spill will have on

         breeding or survivability of the fish in the impacted area (Amoco

         Cadiz,'1980), and often hatcheries and aquaculture facilities in

         the area have to shut down operations temporarily. Two issues are

         involved: the health risk from shellfish contaminated by

         hydrocarbons, taken from the areas affected by the spill, and the

         risk that any new organisms (i.e., spat) grown or hatched near the


                                         266










       sites could not survive.

           The effects of oil and gas activities on kelp, particularly in

       terms of kelp's role as a habitat for fish, are also important. It

       is generally believed that the susceptibility of kelp and other

       plants to oil pollution varies with their life stage, and that the

       adult kelp generation has an outer mucilage covering which appears

       to protect it against oil toxicity (U.S. Bureau of Land Management,

       1979a). While there appears to be little evidence to indicate that

       kelp is harmed by oil, it is an important habitat for sea otters,

       fish and other fauna which may ingest or come into contact with oil

       trapped in its fronds.

           Drilling and production platforms do form an artificial reef

       environment which has short-term benefits for the fishery. The

       fishery habitat exists only for the life of the field and

       disappears once the platform is removed. This limited enhancement

       of the fin and shellfish habitat must be balanced against threats

       posed by oil and gas production. In addition, health concerns are

       raised over the quality of fish that are exposed to the operational

       discharges of drill platforms and are then subsequently caught and

       consumed by the public.



       Effects on Estuaries, Wetlands and other Critical Coastal Habitats

            The intertidal area is an important breeding, spawning and

       feeding ground for many marine organisms; the area also provides

       substrate and suitable habitat for many other species. Oil in the

       intertidal zone can affect the benthic biota by smothering,


                                       267








         fouling, or directly poisoning organisms (Michael, 1979). As a

         result of the 1971 Golden Gate Bridge oil tanker collision, for

         example, a significant amount of oil was washed up on the mussel

         beds and high rocks at Duxbury Reef. Although comparison of pre-

         oil and post-oil transects-showed a significant short-term decrease

         in marine life after the oil spill the visible signs of the

         pollution passed rather quickly, and there is no documented long-

         term damage (Chan, 1977.) However, oil films pervaded the upper

         tidepool waters almost a year later and selective evidence of

         marginal organisms recruitment, e.g., acorn barnacles, was observed

         (Chan, 1973). Generally, the more mobile forms of marine life

         (crabs, snails, etc.) suffered greater losses than the sessile

         organisms, e.g., acorn barnacles and limpets (Chan, 1973).

              Wetlands and estuaries are critical coastal habitats for a

         number of the species discussed in Part II, Section 2. These areas

         are highly productive areas that are important in sustaining

         offshore oceanic biota with nutrient resources as well as habitat

         for part of their life-cycles.

              Once in the sediments of an estuary oil can remain for years

         and destroy the entire ecosystem (MMS, 1987). If the substrate is

         heavily oiled, erosion can be increased 24 times (MMS, 1987) and

         thereby permanently alter the morphology and physical fluid

         dynamics of the estuary.   Finally, according to MMS (1987) it is

         extremely difficult to protect estuary mouths by sealing them off

         if they are larger than 100 m. Pescadero Marsh, Pajarro

         River/Watsonville Slough and Elkhorn Slough all have openings of


                                          268








       100 m or greater and are especially vulnerable to oil spills. This

       is of special concern due to the limited number of such habitats in

       the entire central California region.














I















































                                        269








         (b) Discharges

             In addition to oil spills, the proposed prohibition on oil,

        gas and mineral activities in the Sanctuary also establishes this

        area as a buffer between discharges occurring outside the Sanctuary

        as a result of Lease Sale #119 or future sales, and the highly

        sensitive Aho Nuevo island and mainland coastal and intertidal


        habitats.

             A wide variety of pollutant discharges are normally associated

        with OCS oil and gas development: drill cutting and muds, sewage

        and trash, formation waters, marine corrosion products, and air

        pollutants (e.g. petroleum aerosol and exhausts). While

        prohibiting hydrocarbon activities to reduce the risks from spills

        and acoustical and visual disturbance, the proposed regulations

        @rill at the same time prohibit these discharges.

             The proposed regulation's prohibition of hydrocarbon

        activities throughout the Sanctuary will prevent certain discharges

        of contaminants due to routine rig and platform operations, which

        would occur if the tracts were leased and developed.

             An estimated 302,000 barrels of muds and cuttings and 225

        million barrels of formation waters would be discharged during the

        lifetime of potential OCS development off central California (MMS,

        1987). The exclusion of oil and gas activities will eliminate

        concern for any adverse environmental impacts that may occur within

        the Sanctuary as a result of synergistic effects of various.

        discharges, nearness to a drilling site, or sublethal effects.from

        low-level exposure to these wastes discharged. While discharges


                                         270









        outside the boundary may reach the proposed Sanctuary, their

        impacts will be buffered by dispersion and dilution. Further,

        discharges or deposits from beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary

        that subsequently enter the Sanctuary and injure a Sanctuary

        resource or quality are prohibited if it may reasonably be expected

        at the time of such discharge or deposit that the materials or

        other substances discharged or deposited will enter the Sanctuary

        and injure a Sanctuary resource or quality (See below (2) under

        Discharges).

            Hazards to living resources from oil development operations

        can result from the on-site discharge of drill cuttings and

        drilling muds which may adversely affect benthic biota as well as

        fishery resources, seabirds and marine mammals. Drilling muds

        consist of naturally occurring minerals such as barite, simple

        chemicals such as sodium hydroxide and potassium chloride, and

        complex organic compounds such as lignosulfonates and

        formaldehydes. Department of the Interior OCS Order Number 7

        forbids the discharge of drilling muds containing toxic substances

        into ocean waters.

             In 1983, the Marine Board of the National Research Council

        conducted a study of drilling discharges. The study found that

        these discharges present minimal risk to the marine environment.

        The Marine Board did note, however, that drilling discharges do

        have an impact on the immediate benthic environment (National

        Research Council - Marine Board, 1983). However, more recent

        research (EPA, 1985) has shown significant benthic impacts from


                                        271








         platform discharges up to two miles from drilling sites.

               Fluids and the lighter elements in drilling discharges are

         rap idly dispersed in the water column. The heavier elements, over

         90 percent of the discharged material, settle to the bottom,

         usually in a plume extending in the direction of prevailing bottom

         currents. The potential impacts on marine organisms resulting from

         the discharge of drilling muds and cuttings are: 1) decreased

         primary production caused by increased turbidity which reduces

         light levels; 2) interference with filter feeding caused by high

         particulate loads; 3) burial of benthic communities; and 4) injury

         resulting from the acute or chronic toxic effects of drilling mud

         constituents.

              Air pollution discharges normally associated with hydrocarbon

         activities disperse rapidly into the atmosphere or ocean waters,

         and thus pose relatively minor threats to Sanctuary resources.

         Prohibition of hydrocarbon activities will enhance the offshore

         area's aesthetic wilderness qualities as well as those of the

         adjacent mainland coastal region. Examples of this enhancement are

         the indirect benefits accruing to the Point Reyes National Seashore

         (a Class I area under the Clean Air Act) and the Golden Gate

         National Recreation Area.




         (c) Acoustic and Visual Disturbance

              oil and gas platforms, rig, and related activities produce

         both a visual intrusion on the scenic qualities of the area's

         seascape and disturbances due to construction activities and to the


                                         272










      sound and movement of boats and helicopters (U. S. Bureau of Land

      Management, 1979). The continuous human activity associated with

      oil and gas development and the steady stream of crew and supply

      boats produce visual impacts and noise which may disturb marine

      birds and marine mammals, particularly during sensitive nesting,

      pupping and migration seasons.    If these disturbances occur very

      close to shore stampeding by pinnipeds or sudden flights by nesting

      birds can occur (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1979).

           During critical breeding periods such reactions could result

      in increased mortality rates in young marine birds and marine

      mammals (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1979). A higher general

      level of human intrusion feasibly could discourage pinnipeds such

      as the Stellar Sealions from ever fully recovering at their

      breeding areas on Afio Nuevo, although the likelihood of this

      occurring has not been scientifically substantiated. (See Part II,

      Section 2 for a discussion of marine mammal and bird populations

      with rookeries, or in the process of establishing rookeries, on Aho

      Nuevo Island and the coastline which might be adversely affected by

      an increase in human activity).

           NOAA's proposed prohibition of future oil and gas exploration

      and development within the Sanctuary boundaries would lessen the

      noise and human activity in nearshore waters. It would also

      decrease the need for additional supply boats to enter the

      nearshore waters or incidentally approach nesting or resting marine

      mammals or marine birds.

           In addition, the prohibition of oil and gas activities within


                                       273










         the Sanctuary pursuant,to future leases would reduce the

         potentially adverse aesthetic impacts from oil and gas platforms,

         rigs, pipeline construction, and other activities, and serve to

         preserve the wilderness character of the Island waters. While the

         significance of undisturbed views and wilderness is difficult to

         quantify in monetary terms, their protection is nonetheless

         important, particularly in proximity to heavily populated urban

         areas such as the San Francisco Bay metropolitan region and given

         the international fame of the Route 1 scenic drive along the

         Monterey Bay and Big Sur coastline. The area has never been

         exposed to offshore oil and gas development and no platforms have

         ever been visible from the shore.




         (d) Socioeconomic Effects

              Given the wealth of sensitive renewable, natural resources

         within the proposed Sanctuary, the high tourism and commercial

         fishery value of the area, and the present indications of low

         National oil and gas resource potential, it is NOAA's judgment that

         the net economic effect resulting from a restriction on hydrocarbon

         operations is likely to be positive.

              The net economic effect of the proposed regulation depends

         largely on: the amount of hydrocarbon reserves foregone, dollar

         value of the oil, the estimated value of the renewable resources,

         and the economic value of the tourist industry.

              It is.thought that the proposed regulation will have positive

         economic effects in the long-run by contributing to the


                                         274










       preservation and health of renewable sources of income, such as

       fishing and recreation, due to the long-term protection to such

       activities from potential oil spills, discharges and visual and

       acoustical disturbance. In addition, the Sanctuary research and

       education programs will have long-term benefits by enabling natural

       resource managers to make better informed decisions regarding the

       preservation, enhancement and possible additional economic benefits

       of the area's natural resources and uses.

            Lease Sale 119 is currently on hold in the early phase of the

       pre-lease sale process. Thus far, only the "Call for Information"

       has been completed by MMS for the proposed sale and no further

       activities are being carried out. Current industry interest in

       these specific tracts is unknown. MMS estimates that the high case

       conditional mean estimate of the undiscovered, economically

       recoverable oil resources for the entire Central California

       Planning area is 530 million barrels (Personal Communication, MMS,

       March, 1990). The FEIS for the proposed 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas

       Leasing Program Mid-1987 to Mid-1992 (MMS, 1987) states that one

       sale in the Central California planning area will produce

       approximately 153 million barrels of oil and 286 billion cubic feet

       of gas. More recent estimates from MMS Pacific Region is that

       Lease Sale 119 contains conditional resources of approximately 180

       million barrels of oil. Finally, it is estimated (Personal

       Communication, MMS, March, 1990) that the portion of the Central

       California Planning Area included in the preferred Sanctuary

       boundary has a conditional resource potential of 110 million


                                        275









         barrels of oil and 180 billion cubic feet of gas with an estimated

         net economic value of 280 to 370 million dollars.

             At the current rate of U.S. oil consumption (17.5 million

         barrels/day, API, Personal communication, 1989) the projected

         resources of the oil within the proposed boundary amounts to less

         than seven days worth of energy. On should bear in mind the fact

         that on the California OCS, the average oil and gas production over

         the past 21 years was only 33.1 million barrels of oil and 32.8

         billion cubic feet of gas per each of the producing fields

         (Personal Communication, MMS, March, 1990). In addition, it is

         estimated that only 6 percent of all OCS resources (discovered and

         undiscovered) are in fields containing more than 3 days of supply

         of oil for the Nation and over 80 percent of all OCS sources to be

         discovered are in fields containing 1 day's or less supply of oil

         (Personal Communication, MMS, March, 1990).

             All of the above estimates are based on conditional estimates

         of resources and no estimates of reserve quantities can be

         determined until drilling occurs. As a result one cannot compare

         one estimate to another as each is derived from conditional

         probabilities. Projections on quantity and quality of oil reserves

         may be modified, based on the findings resulting from exploration

         pursuant to OCS Sale #119 and other factors which may make recovery

         more or less economically feasible, such as increases or decreases

         in the price of imported oil or prohibitive costs of or

         environmental restrictions on alternative energy sources. Thus,

         reliable estimates of the amount and value of hydrocarbon resources


                                         276











      affected in the Central California OCS are not available. The

      proposed regulation would also affect the availability of oil and

      gas resources and State income from the leasing of tracts located

      in State waters. Data on the quantity of State oil and gas OCS

      resources in the central California area are not available.

      Currently, however, there is a State moratorium on such leasing.

           Finally, only approximately 60 of the lease tracts in the area

      south of the Gulf of the Farallones selected for consideration

      under Lease Sale #119 fall either totally or partially within the

      proposed marine Sanctuary. Oil and gas resources to the north in

      Lease Sale 119 would still be available as well as any tracts that

      are part of future Lease Sales outside of the proposed boundary and

      within the Central California Planning Area.

           It is possible that the proposed prohibition would reduce U.S.

      Treasury income from offshore leasing royalties and that the

      industry bids on tracts affected by the prohibition would be lost

      in future lease sales. The total amount of lost revenue-estimated

      by MMS from these conditional resource estimates may be modified by

      the results of petroleum development pursuant to actual results

      from drilling associated with some future Lease Sale, as well as an

      analysis of economic feasibility and environmental and regulatory

      constraints. Economic feasibility is determined solely by the oil

      industry based on lease sale costs at the time of sale, current oil

      .prices, proposed project costs, and environmental reviews and

      mitigation costs. Oil development costs and expected returns per

      investment are considered confidential information by the oil


                                       277









          industry. once again, environmental and regulatory constraints are

          impossible to identify due to the lack of experience of the Central

          California Planning Area with offshore oil and gas development.










































                                          278









      (b) Discharges and Deposits

           Discharging or depositing, from within the boundaries of the
           Sanctuary, any material or other substance is prohibited
           except:
                (i) fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in
                or resulting from normal fishing operations in the
                Sanctuary;
                (ii) biodegradable effluents incidental to vessel use
                generated by marine sanitation devices approved by the
                U.S. Coast Guard;
                (iii) water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g.,
                cooling water and deck washdown) excluding bilge pumping;
                or
                (iv) engine exhaust.

           Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries of the
           Sanctuary, materials or other substances, other than those
           listed in (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above, that subsequently
           enter the Sanctuary and injure a Sanctuary resource or
           Sanctuary quality is prohibited.

           The proposed regulations prohibiting discharge or deposit of

      materials or other substances without NOAA approval complements the

      existing regulatory system, would enhance the area's overall

      recreational and aesthetic appeal, maintain the present good water

      quality in the Sanctuary, and help protect Sanctuary resources.

           An exception to this absolute prohibition is existing

      discharges or deposits pursuant to any valid permit executed as of

      the effective date of these regulations. These discharges are

      allowed subject to all prohibitions, restrictions and conditions

      validly imposed by any other authority of competent jurisdiction,

      provided, however, that NOAA may regulate the exercise of these

      existing permits or other authorizations to achieve the purposes

      for which the Sanctuary was designated.

           NOAA will also review applications for non-preexisting permits

      and other authorizations (and applicants must provide timely notice


                                      279









          of the filing of the applications and any additional information

          NOAA deems necessary) and either approve them, approve them with

          terms and conditions, or disapprove them.

               NOAA intends to consult with scientific institutions and

          local, State and regional organizations such as the Association of

          Monterey Bay Area Governments, as well with the owners, holders of

          or applicants for any authorization or right and the relevant

          permitting authorities of these activities to determine means of

          achieving the Sanctuary purposes.

               If additional conditions are necessary, NOAA will work with

          the permittees and permitting authorities to determine the

          necessary level of conditions to provide adequate protection of the

          proposed Sanctuary's resources. NOAA will work with the existing

          authorities to formalize the consultative and management role of

          the Sanctuary through agreements such as Memoranda of

          Understanding.

               For example, the requirement of NOAA certification of existing

          permits for municipal sewage outfalls will ensure NOAA

          consideration of potential impacts on Sanctuary resources and

          qualities. The NOAA certification process will be coordinated with

          EPA and State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards. NOAA

          approval of future permits for municipal sewage outfalls is

          necessary in order for such outfalls not to be subject to Sanctuary

          regulatory prohibitions and will ensure protection of Sanctuary

          resources and qualities. Procedures to ensure efficient

          administration of NOAA certification and other approval processes


                                          280









      are laid out in the proposed Sanctuary regulations (see

      Appendix 1).

           Thus, if a city or town were discharging sewage effluents into

      the Bay pursuant to a valid National Pollution Discharge

      Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued prior to the effective

      date of Sanctuary designation, the city or town could continue to

      discharge under the permit without being in violation of the

      discharge prohibition by requesting certification of the permit in

      accordance with the proposed Sanctuary regulations. The Director

      would then impose on the exercise of the NPDES permit such terms

      and conditions as he or she deems necessary to achieve the purposes

      for which the Sanctuary was designated. Sanctuary management will

      be empowered to take into account when reviewing proposed NPDES

      permits the sensitivity of Sanctuary resources such as finfish and

      shellfish populations to municipal discharge effluents. Such

      discharges would remain subject to all prohibitions, restrictions

      and conditions imposed by any other authority of competent

      jurisdiction.

           In reviewing existing or future permits, licenses, approvals,

      or other authorizations NOAA intends to encourage best available

      management practices to minimize non-point source pollution

      entering the Sanctuary and to require at a minimum secondary

      treatment and preferably tertiary treatment or higher depending on

      the sensitivity of threatened Sanctuary resources and qualities,

      for point source pollution, such as municipal sewage discharge.

           Thus, NOAA will work with the cities of Morgan-Hill and Gilroy


                                      281









          and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to ensure that

          the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary will not be negatively

          affected if the proposed discharge into-the Pajaro River is

          approved. Also, NOAA will consult with the RWQCB and the City of

          Watsonville to determine what affect its discharge of primary

          effluent is having on the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary.

               For another example, if an entity is dumping dredge spoils in

          the Bay pursuant to a valid existing permit, the entity could

          continue to do so by obtaining certification in accordance with

          proposed Sanctuary regulations.

              Any proposed dumping of dredge spoils will be reviewed for the

          effects on Sanctuary resources and qualities, e.g., the benthic

          environment and any local populations of Algae and kelp. The

          negative impacts of ocean dumping and dredge disposal include

          smothering of benthic organisms, increase in water column turbidity

          resulting in potential damage to industry that requires pollutant-

          free water (such as for cooling purposes, refractories etc.),

          mariculture operations, shellfish harvesting, commercial and sport

          fishing and the negative aesthetics due to odor and water

          discoloration to contact and non-contact water recreation.

              A study on the release of dredged material over a 100 fathom

          contour site near the Farallon Islands found a relatively abundant

          but not diverse benthic macrofauna. The study concluded that most

          of the dumped material went straight down and covered the bottom at

          an average depth of about 1 foot (0.3 m). Depending on use levels

          of such a disposal site, smothering and oxygen depletion could


                                          282









       significantly harm the benthic commu nity in the area (COE, 1975).

       However, in the case of Monterey Canyon the continuous natural

       disturbance at the Canyon head causes a naturally resilient benthic

       population (COE, 1977). Community resilience is correspondingly

       lower in the more complex and stable communities of deeper water

       (COE, 1977). The environmental complexities of sediment, water and

       biological interactions means that it is necessary to analyze the

       natural disturbance regime at the potential dredging or disposal

       site and its relation with the associated benthic communities for

       effective management.

            Disposal of dredged material is already regulated by Section

       404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of

       1899. Current disposal practices within the Sanctuary are

       regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Waste

       Discharge Requirements (WDR) under the authority of the Clean Water

       Act. Sanctuary certification of authorized dumping and dredging

       activities will be done in coordination with the Harbor Masters,

       COE, EPA, RWQCB and Regional Water Quality Control Board WDR.

            WDRs include prohibitions and discharge limitations including

       limited time intervals for disposal (WDR No. 88-73 and WDR No. 88-

       68). In the case of the Moss Landing WDR (No. 88-73) and the Santa

       Cruz WDR (No. 88-68), there are also provisions that if the spoils

       are clean enough it is encouraged that they be used for beneficial.

       beach nourishment. NOAA can work within this existing process to

       ensure that these requirements are in-place, enforced and adequate

       to protect the resources of the Sanctuary.


                                       283









              NOAA will ensure that Sanctuary research data is applied to

         the certification process and that environmental data is carefully

         analyzed and used in the certification of the permit.

              In addition, the regulations under Title I of the MPRSA

         prohibit ocean disposal of dredged material which proves to be

         toxic to the organisms of the disposal site. ocean disposal of any

         materials dredged from a site where pollution is possible must be

         preceded by bioassay tests to determine the effect on aspects of

         the marine environment. The test'results will determine whether

         any material from Moss Landing and Santa Cruz may be legally dumped

         at any ocean disposal site in the area under Title I. The

         Sanctuary requirement of certification will assure review for

         possible impacts without imposing undue burdens.

              This regulation also prohibits without NOAA approval, vessels

         discharging or depositing oil, pollutants, litter and other solid

         wastes directly or indirectly into the Sanctuary. Although

         particular discharges, such as oil, are now generally regulated

         under the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Sanctuary regulation is

         designed specifically to protect the area's living resources from

         the effects of all harmful effluent and solid wastes.

              Consistent with the provisions of the Marine Plastic Pollution

         Research and Control Act (MPPRCA) of 1987 that amends the Act to

         Prevent Pollution from Ships which implements Annex V of the

         International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

         (MARPOL), this Sanctuary regulation would prohibit the disposal of

         litter and other solid wastes,-such as fishing lines and non-


                                         284









       biodegradable plastic or metal objects and thus protect marine

       animals and seabirds in the Sanctuary from ingesting these wastes

       while foraging, or becoming entangled in them, possibly leading to

       illness or death.

           Pinnipeds entangled in plastic packing material or discarded

       fishing lines have occasionally been seen near the Farallon Islands

       and Channel Islands (F. Cava, 1989, personal communication). In

       areas of the northern Pacific Ocean as many as 8,000 fur seals

       become entangled in such debris annually (Haley, 1978). The

       incidence of the mortality associated with this type of mammal

       disturbance remains unclear.




       Socioeconomic Impacts of Regulation

            The impact of this regulation on most Sanctuary users is

       expected to be minor. Non-biodegradable and other potentially

       harmful trash will have to be kept on boats and disposed of at

       proper facilities, most likely on the mainland. The impact of this

       regulation on vessel operations is expected to be minor. The

       exceptions to this regulation are designed to allow continued use

       of the Sanctuary by vessels. Fish, fish parts, and bait used in or

       resulting from normal fishing operations within the Sanctuary,

       exhaust, vessel cooling waters, and approved marine sanitation

       wastes are exempted specifically from the prohibition.

            The regulation does not prohibit existing sewage outfall

       discharges or dumping and the disposal of dredge material within

       the Sanctuary pursuant to permits existing as of the date of


                                       285









         Sanctuary regulations, provided however, that NOAA may regulate the

         exercise of these permits as necessary to achieve the purposes for

         which the Sanctuary was designated. In addition, holders of

         permits, licenses, or other authorizations issued after the

         effective date of Sanctuary designation allowing the discharge of

         municipal sewage or the discharge of dredged material will be

         subject to Sanctuary regulatory prohibitions unless approved by the

         Director of the Office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management.

              The regulation may impose additional costs by requiring the

         use of more expensive dredge disposal methods or dumping sites.

         The regulation could also result in additional costs if the

         Director were to determine that a higher level of treatment or

         other, more expensive sewage disposal methods were preferable to

         disposal in the Sanctuary. It is difficult to predict accurately

         the economic impact of this regulation without analyzing specific

         proposals. The application of this regulation to dumping and

         dredge disposal adds further protection of the resources and

         qualities to that afforded by the existing legislation. The

         requirement of Sanctuary certification or other approval of permits

         for municipal outfall and dredge disposal will ensure that these

         potentially harmful activities receive special consideration from

         the Sanctuary viewpoint.

              Another positive effect of the regulations will be that data

         from existing studies can be used to make better informed

         management decisions. For example, DDT and its degradation

         products have been found in the tissues of all eight species of


                                         286










       marine fishes caught and analyzed from Monterey Bay (Shaw, 1972).

       The California Department of Fish and Game in cooperation with the

       California Department of Health Services is conducting an aquatic

       toxicology evaluation program in Monterey Bay (Welden, 1988). The

       main objectives of the program are to determine the average

       chemical contaminants found in a range of the most common

       commercial and sport-caught fish in the bay and to give a current

       risk-assessment of the effects of consuming them. This study was

       scheduled to be released in the fall of 1989 but has not yet been

       released. Sanctuary management can use this data to attempt to

       formulate management measures to address and possibly mitigate the

       source of the pollution to assist in achieving a more healthy and

       productive fishery.

            Another positive impact of the regulation on water quality is

       on existing aquaculture facilities and research institutions which

       require a high water quality standard for raising organisms and

       conducting experiments that need relatively uncontaminated

       background seawater supplies.


















                                       287









         (3) Historical Resources

             moving, possessing or injuring, or attempting to move,
             possess, or injure, a Sanctuary historical resource is
             prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to accidental
             moving, possession or injury during normal fishing operations.


             This regulation is aimed at protecting historical resources

         (as defined in the program regulations, this term includes cultural

         resources) from damage and/or removal. Existing regulatory

         authorities provide some protection for underwater historical

         resources. California can register sites as either "points or

         interest" or I'landmarksol, and thp latter designation provides some

         protection to sites in State waters. Salvage operations in State

         waters must also be permitted by the State Lands Commission. The

         proposed Sanctuary regulations provide for issuance of a NOAA

         permit to further salvage operations in connection with an

         abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary title to which is held by the

         State of California.

             As part of the Sanctuary management regime NOAA intends to

         research the number and type of historical resources within the

         boundaries of the Sanctuary. Thi's research will further our

         understanding of how to protect these resources so that they are

         available,for future generations.

             Historical resources are defined to mean resources possessing

         historical, cultural, archaeological or paleontological

         significance, including sites, structures, districts, and objects

         significantly associated with or representative of earlier people,

         cultures, and human activities and events. Thus any inundated


                                         288









        prehistoric aboriginal sites and associated artifacts, as well as

        shipwrecks would be included in the resource protection regime of

        the proposed Sanctuary.

            NOAA will also seek National Register listing of identified

        resources located in the Sanctuary under the National Historic

        Preservation Act. Listing* would make available grant and survey

        funds from the Secretary of the Interior (Heritage Conservation and

        Recreation Service) to be used to identify resource distributions

        and assess their significance. Placement on the National Register

        also ensures careful review of proposed Federal activities which

        could adversely affect identified resources. However, listing does

        not prevent removal or damage of the resource by non-Federal

        entities.

            The proposed regulation should not significantly affect

        existing activities within the Sanctuary.
























                                        289









         (4)  Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed

              Constructing, placing, or abandoning on the seabed of the
              Sanctuary any structure or material; or drilling through,
              dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary is
              prohibited. This prohibition does not apply if any of the
              above results from: anchoring vessels, normal fishing
              operations, installation of navigation aids, maintaining
              mariculture operations existing as of the effective date of
              Sanctuary designation, routine harbor maintenance, or
              construction of docks and piers.

              Dredging activities are not extensive within the-preferred*

        alternative's proposed Sanctuary boundaries (see Part II, Section

        2); nevertheless, unrestricted alteration of, cofistruction-on, or

        drilling of the seabed represents a potential threat to marine

        resources. Foremost among these adverse impacts-would be increased

        turbidity levels, disruption or displacement of benthic and

        intertidal communities, and human intrusions near marine bird and

        marine mammal concentrations. This proposed regulation will allow

        limited and ecologically sound dredging (particularly along the

        mainland and in harbors) at levels fairly certain not to harm

        breeding grounds, haul out areas, and foraging areas.

              The regulation prohibits persons from placing objects on the

        seabed, such as but not limited to artificial reefs, unless

        permitted by the Director. The prohibition also includes placement

        or abandonment of any structure or material on the seabed, which

        includes vessels that run aground and thereby helps ensure that the

        owners and operators are responsible for their removal.

              Existing holders of authorizations have an obligation to seek

        certification from NOAA of their authorizations. Existing

        activities,.such as dumping of dredge spoils or other waste would


                                         290








       be monitored by NOAA and NOAA may require conditions on their

       existing permits if it determines that these activities injure a

       Sanctuary resource or quality. The current sand mining operations

       north of the City of Monterey will be specifically studied, in

       cooperation with the industry and the relevant permitting

       authorities, to determine if the resources and qualities of the

       Sanctuary are being injured and if additional terms and conditions

       should be required on existing authorizations as necessary to

       achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.

       Socioeconomic Impacts of Regulation

            No severe economic impacts upon commercial firms are expected.

       This regulation will enhance resource protection by reducing the

       presence and operation of large, and often noisy, dredging

       machinery. Thus, both over the short and long term, human

       intrusion upon marine wildlife, along with potentially adverse

       impacts on their food supplies, e.g., benthic and pelagic fish

       resources, will be minimized. Dredging exceptions would allow for

       navigational projects, and the maintenance of existing facilities

       for harbors and mariculture. The regulation of projects for docks

       and piers in the nearshore area will remain the responsibility of

       the existing regulatory authorities. Activities regarding the

       construction and placement of pipelines approved by the Director of

       the office of ocean and Coastal Resource Management are allowed.

       sand mining activities will specifically be examined to first,

       determine the degree of impact on the resources of the Monterey,Bay

       area and second, discuss with the permittee any mitigating measures


                                        291









         or permit conditions that may be necessary to protect the resources

         of the area.

              The activities exempted from this regulation will be monitored

         by the Sanctuary manager, based on information supplied by the COE

         and the California Coastal Commission. If the data collected

         demonstrate that a greater degree of Sanctuary oversight is

         appropriate, amendments to the regulations could be proposed.








































                                         292








       (5)  Taking of Marine Mammals or Seabirds

            Taking any marine mammal or seabird in or above the Sanctuary,
            except in accordance with and as permitted by regulations
            promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and
            the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

            NOAA enforcement officials would be able to consider taking

       cases in the Sanctuary along the same lines that they now consider

       them under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the

       Endangered Species Act (ESA). The MMPA and ESA already provide

       some protection to the marine mammals and seabirds of the

       Sanctuary.

            However, these Acts only provide protection to species on a

       case-by-case basis without consideration of their role in the

       ecosystem or the special purview of the Sanctuary management

       regime. The proposed regulation would overlap the MMPA and ESA but

       also extend it consistent with the intent of the MPRSA to protect

       the Sanctuary resources on an environmentally holistic basis. The

       proposed regulation would provide this protection effectively

       including all marine mammals in the Sanctuary and seabirds in or

       above the Sanctuary.

            The regulation would not preclude a number of current

       activities from continuing. For example, scientific research on

       marine mammals and seabirds as research on Sanctuary resources is

       encouraged as part of the Sanctuary mandate. To facilitate this

       research the proposed regulations allow the issuance of Sanctuary

       permits for research. If the research is on Federal or State

       designated endangered species the researchers are already required

       to obtain permits from the relevant management agency. These

                                        293









        permits will also need Sanctuary approval to ensure the goals of

        the Sanctuary are met. As another example, NOAA will work with

        existing fisheries management agencies to ensure that the

        incidental taking of seabirds and marine mammals in commercial

        fishing nets is minimized and that the existing permits that govern

        this incidental take fulfill the purposes for which the Sanctuary

        is designated.

             Finally, rehabilitation of injured, and studies on dead

        seabirds and marine mammals, would be permitted under these

        Sanctuary regulations if necessary in response to an emergency

        threatening life, property, or the environment or pursuant to a

        Sanctuary research permit.






























                                        294









        (6)  Overflights

             Flying motorized aircraft at less than 1000 feet above the
             Sanctuary within three nautical miles of State of California
             designated reserves, parks, beaches or refuges, or the Los
             Padres National Forest, is prohibited.

             The area-specific prohibition on overflights below 1000 feet

        (305 m) is designed to limit potential noise impacts, particularly

        those that might startle hauled-out seals and sea lions or birds

        nesting along the shoreline margins of the Sanctuary. Intrusive

        overflights during sensitive biological periods would thus be

        minimized. The regulation would complement existing California

        Fish and Game overflight restrictions.

             In particular, adjacent water areas where marine animals

        forage would receive additional protection from potentially

        disruptive overflights. The 1000 ft (305 m) minimum height

        parallels the National Marine Fisheries Services's selective

        prohibition of overflights under 1000 ft (305 m) in area s where

        marine wildlife harassment is likely. Private recreational

        overflights outside the restricted area, which occur regularly but

        almost entirely along the mainland coast anyway, e.g., for whale

        migration watching, would not be affected. There are no commercial

        charters operating here.

             NOAA has received no reports of low-level military overflights

        over sensitive areas. NOAA has consulted with the Department of

        the Navy and determined that current Navy flight operations appear

        to be executed at a safe distance from mammals and seabirds. If

        low-level overflights were to occur after Sanctuary designation,

        NOAA will identify and consult with the responsible Department as

                                         295









         provided for in Article 5 of the draft Designation Document.

              This regulation will contribute to the protection of natural

         undisturbed behavior patterns of marine mammals and birds

         concentrating and breeding along island and mainland shorelines.

         Uses of the area's air space necessary for National Defense or to

         respond to an emergency threatening life, property, or the

         environment, such as Coast Guard search and rescue operations and

         enforcement operations, would be exempted. Because no commercial

         airlines fly regular routes over the area at these low altitudes,

         this regulation should pose no burden on commercial carriers. over

         state designated beaches, parks, reserves and refuges, private

         planes will still be able to enjoy general scenic and whale

         observation opportunities, albeit from altitudes of 1000 feet

         (305 m) or above.

             Marine mammals and birds are highly susceptible to disturbance

         from low-flying aircraft. The California Sea Otter Game Refuge,

         Point Lobos Reserve and the Afio Nuevo Reserve already provide

         protection to their areas by prohibiting aerial overflights below

         1,000 feet. Sanctuary management experience with similar

         regulations in the Channel Islands and Gulf of the Farallones

         National Marine Sanctuaries has revealed that one can enforce such

         regulations from the ground by observing the Identification Numbers

         on aircraft flying below 10001 and then reporting the incident to

         the appropriate airfield.  NOAA will monitor the current status

         and future trends of overflights to determine if the regulation of

         overflights should be expanded to protect additional areas.


                                         296











        (7) Vessel Operation

            Regulation of this activity is included in the Scope of

        Regulations (see above under Regulatory Alternatives) but the

        preferred alternative is not to regulate with designation.

            This analysis includes U.S. and foreign flag dry cargo vessels

        and tankers. Environmental Consequences and risks of local tanker

        traffic associated with central California OCS oil and gas

        development offshore central California is considered separately

        under the section on oil, gas and mineral activities. Local vessel

        traffic will probably increase considerably with the development of

        OCS tracts off Central California due to servicing requirements and

        transportation of produced oil.

            At present only a few, large commercial vessels visit Monterey

        Bay, mainly to dock at Moss Landing. The area has had a long

        history of safe vessel traffic but there may still remain a threat

        to the resources and qualities of the area from possible collisions

        and possible spills of hazardous materials and oil. As discussed

        above there is not only a threat of oil spills from offshore

        platforms, tankers associated with the central California OCS and

        pipeline accidents, but also from vessel traffic much of which is

        not related to United States OCS production.

            For example the following recent incidents were not the result

        of OCS activity. The recent disaster of the Exxon Valdez grounding

        off Valdez, Alaska, highlights the severe environmental and

        socioeconomic damage that results from oil spills in the marine


                                        297









         environment. Recently there were three such tanker oil spills on

         the East Coast: one each in Rhode Island and Texas on June 23,

         1989; and one on the Delaware River near the Port of Philadelphia

         on June 24, 1989. The largest of these resulted when the Uruguayan

         oil tanker President Rivera ran aground near Philadelphia,

         releasing 298,000 gallons of oil into the Delaware River. At

         Narragansett Bay, the.Greek-registered World Prodigy grounded on

         Brenton Reef near Newport, dumping 300,000 gallons of oil. In

         Texas, the tanker Rachel B. collided with a barge resulting in

         252,000 gallons of oil spilling into the Houston Ship Channel.

             According to the U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Pollution Retrieval

         System (July, 1989), since 1973 there have been an average of just

         under 10,000 oil pollution reports per year. Since 1980 there have

         been 588 incidents of 10,000 bbl or greater (43 tankers, 109

         barges, 58 miscellaneous vessels and 378 non-vessel incidents). In

         the year 1988 alone there were 5.5 million gallons of oil spilled,

         of which 60% was attributable to vessels.

             Four spills have recently occurred off the West Coast: the

         tanker Puerto Rican near San Francisco in 1984, the oil barge

         Nestucca off the coast of Washington in 1988, the Exxon Valdez near

         Valdez, Alaska in March, 1989, and the American Trader in 1990.

         The Exxon Valdez disaster has received much publicity and

         scientific investigations are currently underway on the long-term

         effects of the spill and possible future management measures (CMC,

         1989).

             The example closest to Monterey Bay was the Puerto Rican


                                         298









       spill. This tanker was disabled about eight miles seaward of the

       Golden Gate by on-board explosions. The vessel eventually broke

       apart and discharged refined oil products within the boundary of

       the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS). The

       progress of this incident demonstrates the seriousness of the

       potential hazard to Monterey Bay.

           The Puerto Rican was disabled shortly before the predicted on-

       set of the Davidson current, which reverses the direction of

       California coastal currents from a southerly to northerly flow (See

       Part II, Section II). The wind and current direction in the San

       Francisco Bight, however, was still to the south and initial

       trajectory estimates indicated that spills occurring in the area

       would move southward. It was therefore decided to tow the burning

       vessel out to sea, south of the Farallon Islands. The ship broke

       apart southwest of the Farallon Islands and the resulting spill did

       move southward initially. Unexpectedly, wind and current direction

       changed and the spill moved rapidly north through the Gulf of the

       Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and up to Bodega Bay and

       beyond.

            Some 48,000 barrels of hydrocarbons were released into the

       ocean from the Puerto Rican. of this amount, only 1,460 barrels

       were recovered during cleanup operations (USCG, 1985). This spill

       killed an estimated 2,874 seabirds, and did an unquantified amount
       of damage to water quality, fishery resources, marine mammals, and

       human uses. By comparison, in February, 1986, the tanker barge

       Apex Houston spilled some 600 barrels of oil along the central


                                       299









         California coast killing an estimated 9,817 seabirds within the

         Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.

           - NOAA has considered and deferred considering regulation of

         vessel traffic, which may include, but is not be limited to: (1)

         routing of all coast-wise vessel traffic outside of the boundaries

         of the Sanctuary, (2) prohibiting oil barge traffic within the

         Sanctuary, (3) restriction of all large vessels inbound to and

         outbound from Monterey Bay to designated port access route(s), and

         (4) imposing special design requirements, such as double hulls, for

         petroleum and other hazardous substance transport vessels in the

         Sanctuary.

              This preferred alternative will give NOAA the flexibility to

         work in the future with the U.S. Coast Guard on appropriate courses

         of action to protect the resources and qualities of Monterey Bay.

         The U.S. Coast Guard is currently working with the Fish and

         Wildlife Service on a section 7 consultation regarding possible

         impacts from rerouting vessel traffic off the coast of California

         on endangered species, specifically the Southern Sea Otter. As

        .information becomes available on specific probabilities of

         accidents, potential locations of accidents and estimates on which

         resources and qualities are at risk, NOAA will be able to propose

         to the U.S. Coast Guard appropriate mitigating measures.

              USCG current, and proposed regulations also address

         construction standards for vessels as well as officer competency

         and bridge organization; these problems are more effectively dealt

         with on a nationwide basis. Given the difficulty in regulating


                                         300









       staffing and construction standards for vessels in discrete areas,

       the on-going USCG study of traffic lanes and proposed regulations,

       and the speculative nature of the projected vessel traffic increase

       associated with OCS leasing, it seems premature to propose Marine

       Sanctuary regulations to deal with these issues.

            NOAA will consult with DOI and USCG as studies continue and

       data becomes available and may propose action in the future for

       public review. In addition, NOAA will maintain close communication

       with the USCG to evaluate the need for additional regulations

       regarding vessel safety and/or emergency response plans and

       equipment.



       (8) Operation of "Thrill Craft"

            "Thrill craft" means any motorized vessel which is generally

       less than thirteen feet in length as manufactured, is capable of

       exceeding a speed of twenty miles per hour, and has the capacity to

       carry not more than the operator and one other person while in

       operation. The term includes but is not limited to jet skis, wet

       bikes, surf jets, miniature speed boats, and hovercraft.

            These craft can pose a serious threat to the resources of the

       Monterey Bay area. There is a potential for collisions with marine

       mammals and birds; injury to kelp beds; and disturbance, due to the

       noise and exhaust of the craft, to organisms near and on the

       surface at large distances from the craft. NOAA will monitor the.

       activities of "thrill craft" to determine, first, if indeed there

       is a threat to the resources and, second, to determine should be


                                       301









         promulgated prohibiting these activities in specified zones.



         (9) Defense or Law Enforcement Activities

             No prohibition set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall

         apply to activities that are ne cessary for,national defense or law

         enforcement. It is suspected that current and projected levels of

         military activity are consistent with the purposes for which the

         Sanctuary was designated.

             Nevertheless, NOAA will consult with the appropriate

         Department or agency and encourage continued monitoring of these

         activities for undesirable environmental impacts. In addition,

         NOAA is proposing to require the relevant agency to consult with

         NOAA to determine methods of minimizing any adverse environmental

         impacts if there is sufficient time to permit consultation without

         jeopardizing national defense or law enforcement. Activities that

         are not necessary for national defense or law enforcement, such as

         training exercises and routine vessel operations, are subject to

         all prohibitions contained in the Sanctuary regulations.



         (10) Fishing, Mariculture, and Kelp Harvesting

             In its evaluation of this issue, NOAA considered whether,

         under the present regulatory structure, sufficient protection for

         Sanctuary resources existed. NOAA has determined at present, after

         consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service, the National

         Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Pacific Fisheries Management

         Council (PFMC) and the California Department of Fish and Game that


                                         302









      fishing in the Sanctuary, including fishing for shellfish and

      invertebrates and mariculture, shall not be regulated as part of

      the Sanctuary management regime.

           Furthermore, in its decision advising NOAA to proceed with the

      preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the

      proposed Sanctuary, the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC)

      also recommended that the regulation of fishery resources remain

      under the jurisdiction of the State of California, the National

      Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and the PFMC.

           Fishing in the Sanctuary is regulated other than under the

      MPRSA by Federal and State authorities. Designation of the

      Sanctuary shall have no effect on any regulation, permit, or

      license issued thereunder, e.g., regulations promulgated under the

      California Fish and Game Code and regulations implementing Fishery

      Management Plans promulgated under the Magnuson Fishery Conserva-

      tion and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1801 et seq.

           NOAA did evaluate the possibility of proposing some additional

      Sanctuary regulation of fishing. However, the existing management

      authorities, the California Department of Fish and Game, NMFS and

      the PFMC, have comprehensive management authority over these

      resources. Moreover, the long-term interest of these agencies

      parallel those of the Sanctuary -- ensuring healthy stocks and

      their habitats -- and, by relying on the existing arrangements,

      NOAA will avoid duplication of regulations and' programs.

           Thus, the close coordination and consultation which has

      already been initiated between the PFMC, CDF&G and NOAA indicates


                                      303









         that Sanctuary concerns, if any, will be fully communicated to the

         authorities dealing with these on-going management issues.

              Notwithstanding the above, the absence of fishing activities

         from the scope of regulation does not absolve fishermen from

         obeying not only existing State and Federal regulations but also

         Sanctuary regulations, which are designed to protect Sanctuary

         resources and qualities. Specifically regulated pursuant to

         Sanctuary regulations are, e.g.,: discharges and deposits from

         fishing vessels (with certain exceptions); altering of or

         constructing on the seabed (with certain exceptions, including but

         not limited to normal fishing operations and maintenance of

         mariculture operations existing as of the effective date of the

         Sanctuary regulations); and taking of marine mammals or seabirds

         (except in accordance with and as permitted by regulations

         promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the
         Endangered Species Act (ESA)).

              Finally, what li,ttle data exist show that there is minimal

         impact to the benthic resources on the ocean floor from roller

         trawling and that both trawlers and gill-netters are prohibited

         from fishing in nearshore areas with high concentrations of marine

         mammals and seabirds, thus helping minimize any incidental taking

         of these species.

              However, as part of the research and management regime, NOAA

         will consider supporting periodic monitoring of the effects of

         trawling and gillnetting on the Sanctuary resources and qualities.

         NOAA will also consider the possibility of making funds available


                                          304










      for technical assistance for studying the area's marine finfish,

      shellfish, and algae resources and for strengthening the present

      enforcement capabilities of the CDF&G and other enforcement

      entities including the NMFS and the USCG.



      (11) Enforcement

           The impact of enhanced surveillance and enforcement efforts

      focused on Sanctuary resources should be beneficial. What is

      proposed is a coordinated emphasis on resource protection in

      Monterey Bay rather than an elaborate surveillance and enforcement

      presence.

           NOAA, at present, envisions a State-Federal cooperative

      enforcement system involving the California Departments of Fish and

      Game and, Parks and Recreation, the U.S. Coast Guard, the U.S. Fish

      and Wildlife Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and

      the National Park service. since the proposed Sanctuary would

      include both State and Federal waters close coordination between

      State and Federal authorities would be required.


















                                      305













          B.   Research and Education

               The impacts resulting from implementation of the research and

          educationprogram are also expected to be positive. The research

          program will.result in a coordinated mechanism for studying'

          Monterey Bay area's resources and developing effective management

          strategies-. The educational program is designed to enhance public

          awareness of the Bay area resources and the importance of

          protecting such special marine areas.

               The research program would provide a coordinated effort to

          obtain vital baseline and monitoring data on the resources and on

          human activities in Monterey Bay area. Information on water

          quality and circulation, species density and diversity, fisheries

          resources and marine mammals And seabirds would be used in

          assessing the health of the Bay environment and the effects of

          human activity in the area. This would improve management's

          ability to develop long-term planning for the Sanctuary and would

          provide data useful in responding to oil spills.

               The educational program would improve public awareness of the

          importance and fragility of Monterey Bay's resources and thus

          engender support for resource protection efforts. The program

          would provide audiovisual material, exhibits, and other information

          products for individuals, schools and interested groups.

               A major responsibility of the Sanctuary manager is the

          development and enhancement of education and research efforts. As

          presently,.envisioned, the Sanctuary Information Center might also


                                          306










       serve as the administrative headquarters for the Sanctuary.

           The Sanctuary Information Center would be the focus for

       research and education activity. The Center would collect

       literature and information on resources and activities in the

       Sanctuary, and also provide visitor orientation and education

       materials, such as slides, brochures, and apprise visitors both of

       regulations and the need for protecting the marine resources.

       Efforts to develop the Sanctuary Information Center will be

       coordinated with existing agencies, particularly the State of

       California Departments of Parks and Recreation and Fish and Game;

       private institutions, such as the Monterey Bay Aquarium, and other

       Federal agencies such as the National Park Service, and Fish and

       Wildlife Service.

           The general information collection would include both

       technical and non-technical reference material, and would provide

       as complete and detailed a description of Sanctuary conditions and

       use over time as possible.

           To further this end, the Sanctuary manager would ask

       researchers to notify the Sanctuary Information Center of any

       research projects in the sanctuary and to submit reports of their

       research. This notification process  would result in a master

       listing of research projects conducted from the@time of

       designation. This listing would be continually updated and kept

       open for public use.

           A notification procedure should ensure that research parties

       are not only familiar with existing regulatory controls, but also


                                       307









         that they better understand which resources are particularly

         susceptible to adverse research-related impacts. In addition, the

         master listing could: (1) produce a record of scientific

         investigations which might provide important management

         information, (2) contribute to efforts to monitor use patterns

         within the Sanctuary, (3) be of assistance in identifying areas of

         research not receiving adequate attention, and (4) ensure that

         Sanctuary managers are aware of relevant area-specific studies and

         literature. Finally, this notification process would provide both

         sanctuary managers and researches with a record of individuals and

         groups who have first-hand experience with the area's resources.

         This would be a valuable tool in coordinating research efforts and

         encouraging multi-disciplinary analyses.

              In turn, researchers could benefit from the resources of the

         Information Center and, unless the research would require a permit

         notification would not impose any delay. The compilation of

         technical documents in the Sanctuary Information Center will

         provide a baseline of site-specific information which would help

         long-term environmental analysis and encourage further research

         within Sanctuary boundaries. The Sanctuary manager will directly

         encourage research by sponsoring a monitoring program, providing

         partial funding for research, and encouraging researchers and

         funding organizations to conduct or support studies in the

         Sanctuary. The monitoring effort will focus on the overall health

         of the natural resources of the area as well as the level and

         effects of human activities occurring nearby. The information


                                         308










      gained from such monitoring efforts and other research projects

      should enable NOAA to manage and regulate the Sanctuary more

      effectively, and to assist other applicable authorities in carrying

      out their responsibilities.

           Another research objective of the Sanctuary managers would be

      to map and complete a detailed inventory of historical resources.

      Many of the known wrecks in the area need to be documented and

      researched. Limited archaeological research has been conducted in

      the area and active research into, and mapping of, possible

      historical artifacts in the Bay has been initiated on a small scale

      (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1979c).

































                                      309










          (C) Boundary Alternatives

               The seven boundary alternatives would protect resources and

          qualities of the Monterey Bay ecosystem to varying degrees of areal

          extent. Each boundary alternative is explained on the basis of

          distribution of encompassed resources, qualities and human uses.

          The environmental consequences of each boundary alternative is

          discussed in the context of the preferred resource protection and

          management regime.

               Those alternatives that excluded critical components of the

          ecosystem were not considered as they would not have met the intent

          and purpose of the MPRSA to protect special areas of the marine

          environment on an ecosystem basis and to provide a coordinated and

          comprehensive approach to their conservation and management.



          Boundary alternative #1

               Boundary alternative #1 (Figure 17) is based both on depth and

          distance from shore and is designed to encompass the nearshore

          coastal resources. The emphasis of this alternative would be on

          land-sea interactions and immediate coastal processes rather than

          the offshore marine environment.

               Active tectonic and sedimentary processes are incorporated

          within this boundary alternative, but does not represent all of

          these processes. The western boundary includes the Palo Colorado-

          San Gregorio fault zone, the major tectonic boundary of the

          Salinian block; structure and stratigraphy are considerably

          different on either side of the line. The boundary incorporates


                                          310









      mainly the Monterey, Soquel and Carmel Canyons that principally cut

      the shelf. Also, parts of the three sedimentary cells (Aho Nuevo-

      Northern Monterey, Southern Monterey, and Sur Cells) are included.

      It would only provide a minimal buffer to the natural resources of

      Aho Nuevo and the Big Sur coastline. The heads of the Camel and

      Monterey Canyons would be included but the deep sea environments of

      the Canyon complexes would be excluded as would the areas above

      these canyons that are important as feeding grounds for sea birds

      and marine mammals.

           The ground water basins for the Monterey bay region are also

      found within the boundary and all of the water quality studies

      associated with issues resulting from point-source and non-point

      source discharges can be addressed. However, offshore eddy,

      current, "jet", upwelling and pollutant dispersion patterns will

      not be incorporated within the boundary and thus receive less

      emphasis from Sanctuary initiated research studies and resource

      management initiatives.

           This alternative is designed to encompass all of the resources

      in the immediate vicinity of the coastline (described in Part II,

      Section II). The boundary includes the entire range of fish and

      invertebrates found in the study area but excludes much of the

      feeding area over the Monterey Canyon for seabirds. The area would

      include the best areas for sighting cetaceans from shore (off Point

      Lobos, Aho Nuevo and Davenport) and includes the important cetacean

      and seabird feeding areas along the canyon edge.

           However this alternative does not provide sufficient habitat


                                       311









         protection to migrating and foraging mammals and Seabirds above the

         Canyon in the open ocean. The northern boundary would not include

         the northern limit of the sea otter range nor the fishery resources

         off Pigeon Point. Also the nearness of the western boundary to the

         coast would not provide the nearshore resources of Afio Nuevo, Big

         Sur and the kelp beds an effective buffer zone from potentially

         harmful offshore activities.

              The boundaries encompass the areas with the longest history of

         research; the intertidal zone in Monterey Peninsula and around

         Point Lobos. Interpretation of the entire range of habitat and

         community types typical of central and northern California would be

         possible. Monterey Bay, and its adjacent coastline would be the

         focus of the Sanctuary, and of the interpretation program. The

         program could focus on the various coastal environments and upon

         the fishery and fisheries management issues. offshore fisheries,

         such as the trawlers and gill netters would be excluded and not

         available for study or inclusion in Sanctuary management programs

         to protect offshore marine resources. All marine oriented

         recreational opportunities (surfing, diving, sport fishing,

         boating, beachcombing, nature viewing) woul.d be well represented,

         except for any offshore whale watching trips.

              This alternative would preclude all State offshore oil and gas

         drilling but have almost no impact on proposed Federal OCS Lease

         Sales as the boundary approximately follows the three-mile limit.

         Also, offshore vessel traffic would pass beyond the western edge of

         the proposed boundary and thus be subject only to the prohibition


                                          312










      regarding extraterritorial discharges, not to the prohibition

      regarding discharges within the Sanctuary. The limited extent of

      the geographical buffer from this boundary alternative leaves the

      resources and qualities of Monterey Bay quite vulnerable to routine

      vessel traffic and oil and gas activities such as waste and

      discharge disposal as well as more catastrophic events such as well

      blowouts or tanker collisions.

           The Sanctuary could address the sources of point-source and

      non-point source pollution that may affect nearshore Sanctuary

      resources and qualities but would be limited in its ability to

      manage the effects of these waste disposal activities on offshore


      resources.





      Boundary Alternative #2

           Proposed boundary alternative #2, (Figure 18) the preferred

      alternative, will integrate many important coastal, nearshore, and

      deep ocean canyon resource zones into one management regime.

      These zones include Monterey Bay, the Big Sur coastal area, Afio

      Nuevo, the adjacent continental shelf, slope, and rise as well as

      certain highly productive shoreline and intertidal areas, marine

      communities within San Lorenzo, Pajaro, Salinas, Little Sur and Big

      Sur Rivers, Pescadero Marsh and Elkhorn Slough, and the deep ocean

      environments of the Ascension, Monterey Bay, Big Sur and Partington

      Canyon complexes and a portion of the abyssal plain off Monterey.

      The coastline boundary is contiguous with 31 units of the

      California State Park System and Beach System and Ecological


                                       313










         Reserves. These units include the Point Lobos State Reserve,

         Hopkins Marine Life Refuge, Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish

         Refuge, Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve and the Julia Pfeiffer Burns

         Underwater Park with protection extending to subtidal marine

         habitats. Also, five Areas of Special Biological Significance

         (ASBS), established by the State of California, would be included

         in this alternative. In addition, all seven major research

         institutions in the region are encompassed within the boundary.

              The largest breeding population of Stellar sea-lions south of

         Alaska would be incorporated, i.e., Aho Nuevo, which is also the

         most important rookery and resting area for other pinniped species

         in central and northern California, as well as many colonies of sea

         birds. The northern boundary would also encompass the official

         northern range of the Southern sea otter, extending to Pigeon

         Point, as well as provide a large buffer strip for contingency

         planning. Pescadero Marsh and Creek are important nesting areas

         for the snowy plover, a species of special concern in California.

         One fifth of the State's breeding population of snowy plovers are

         found in the Monterey Bay region. Pescadero Marsh is the largest

         coastal wetland between the San Francisco Bay and the Elkhorn

         Slough, covering 81 square miles. Also, the northern boundary is

         designed to encompass valuable commercial fishing grounds

         including a portion of the dover sole fishery between 400 and 1400

         m and the nearshore trammel net and trawl fishery for halibut.

         Pigeon Point is also the site of the greatest sport and commercial

         salmon fishing within this boundary alternative early in the


                                         314















      season.


           The oil and gas resources to the north of the preferred

      boundary alternative #2 would still be available for leasing. In

      all areas of Lease Sale 119 NOAA will work closely with MMS to

      determine any additional technological safeguards that may be

      necessary to protect the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary

      from any potential environmental injury. This boundary alternative

      provides a buffer zone for Sanctuary resources and qualities from

      oil and gas activities, enabling physical and chemical weathering

      of any potential oil spills before contact with the coast of

      Monterey Bay, and a greater response time to deploy booms and oil-

      spill clean-up equipment in areas of predicted high vulnerability.

         . offshore vessel traffic would pass within the western edge of

      the proposed boundary. Thus vessel traffic within the Sanctuary

      would be subject to the Sanctuary prohibitions on discharges and

      deposits within the Sanctuary. However, the resources and

      qualities of the Monterey Bay area would still be vulnerable to

      catastrophic events such as vessel collisions or groundings and

      subsequent spill of oil or hazardous materials. The extent of the

      potential injury would depend on the season and corresponding

      current pattern, location and size of the spill.

           The western boundary is constrained primarily from depth and

      geomorphic parameters. The boundary coincides with the termination

      of the Monterey Canyon on the ocean's abyssal plain at the Paleo

      Subduction Zone. Within this boundary the very active tectonic

      (fault rupture, earthquakes, landslides) and sedimentary processes


                                       315









          (turbidity flows, landslides, littoral drift) of the Monterey Bay

          region take place.   Three major sedimentary cells (Afio Nuevo-

          Northern Monterey Bay, Southern Monterey Bay, and Sur cells) are

          present,'terminated by Monterey, Carmel and Sur Canyons

          respectively. The entire Monterey Canyon system consisting of

          Ascension, Soquel, Monterey, and Carmel Canyons are included as

          well as the Fan-Valleys of Monterey Canyon.

               The western boundary will encompass the deep ocean floor where

          recently cold-seeps were discovered that nourish.abyssal,

          biological communities (EEZ News, October, 1989).    These deep-sea

          communities have only recently been discovered and investigated'and

          usually only in association with deep-sea hydrothermal vents. Many

          birds and mammals are found feeding in the deep waters over the

          Monterey Canyon. Many of these species are endangered or

          threatened and almost the entire population of ashy storm-petrels

          feed during summer and fall within the 1000 fathom (2000 m) isobath

          which is encompassed by the central and northern portions of the

          proposed boundary.

               The southern portion of the boundary is drawn to encompass a

          fishing "hot spot" named "The Gate" west of Point Sur. This Sur

          platform is heavily fished with different gear types for rockfish,

          dover sole, swordfish and thresher sharks. It is also a well known

          area to divers for its abundant and varied populations of benthic

          invertebrates.   The preferred boundary encompasses a major portion

          of the Sur Canyon and the Partington Canyon complexes and is

          contiguous with the southern boundary of the Julia Pfeiffer Burns


                                           316












       Underwater Park and ASBS.

           This southern area contains a pristine environment that is

       relatively uncontaminated when compared with more developed areas

       such as San Francisco Bay. The high water quality of this southern

       area provides the Sanctuary research program with an opportunity to

       contrast pollutant studies between developed versus undeveloped

       land/sea interfaces.

           Throughout the entire area the oceanic circulation is highly

       variable. Many complex current patterns exist within the preferred

       boundary. For example, the Dungeness crab species is not produced

       locally, rather it is advected into local waters by prevailing

       currents (W. Graham, preliminary data, unpublished Master's Thesis,

       U.C. Santa Cruz). The influencing current during the relevant

       months (April-July) is the southerly flowing California Current.

       The Dungeness crab fishery is the most important commercial crab

       fishery on the West Coast but has been greatly reduced by

       overfishing in northern Monterey Bay, leaving a small fishery in

       the Moss Landing area (Dahlstrom and Wild, 1983). To re-establish

       a fishery for the Santa Cruz region the larvae need to recruit to

       local waters from north of Monterey Bay and produce an adult

       population that will approach self-maintaining.

            Wind-driven, coastal upwelling occurs north and south of

       Monterey Bay and upwelled waters from these areas may be advected

       into the Bay.   These nutrient rich waters play a vital role in

       sustaining the high productivity of the Monterey Bay ecosystem.

       One locus of upwelling is the coastline south of Monterey, where


                                       317









         currents and "jets" occur and may concentrate plankton, food for

         fishes, birds and mammals. These areas are encompassed by the

         proposed boundary and provide an opportunity to plan research

         studies to investigate these oceanographic mechanisms.

              Consideration of the physical oceanographic dynamics is

         important to protect the Sanctuary resources from possible

         contaminants transportable by currents and eddies. Coastal

         currents can transport dissolved or suspended materials at the rate

         of 10-20 miles/day. The oil spilled by the Puerto Rican in

         October/November 1984 traveled 20 miles overnight.

              Research shows many instances of coastal waters being carried

         into the Bay from offshore. Main coastal current direction varies

         seasonally, so transport can come from either north or south. The

         preferred alternative boundaries to the north and south will create

         a buffer zone for many of the most sensitive Sanctuary resources

         and provide the Sanctuary Manager adequate response-time to prepare

         contingency plans for pollutants travelling along the coast. The

         western boundary lies seaward of important coastal eddies and

         "jets" that enter Monterey Bay.

              In addition to unifying the rich habitat areas listed above in

         one management and planning area, the proposed Sanctuary, through

         regulations, would create a buffer area between potentially harmful

         activities outside the'proposed Sanctuary and especially sensitive

         habitat areas within. In short, the marine ecosystem's diverse

         resource endowment and rich productivity make it an area of

         regional and national significance. The.area deserves long-term


                                         318









       protection and enhancement to complement the protection already

       provided for some of its resources onshore and for sections of the

       nearshore zone along the northern Monterey Bay coastline, Monterey

       Bay itself, and the Big Sur coastline to the south. Overall, this

       alternative is focused on Monterey Bay and enables coordination of

       research and education facilities in the area as well as

       facilitates cooperation with State and local management authorities

       directly involved with the Bay.



       Boundary alternative-#3

           Boundary alternative #3 is a variation of alternative #2 with

       a southern extension (Figure 19). The southern boundary is

       designed to coincide with the southern boundary of the California

       Sea Otter Refuge and encompass the undeveloped and protected

       coastline along the Los Padres National Forest. This would provide

       an opportunity to integrate management and research plans on land

       and sea interactions across relatively pristine representatives of

       the two environments. In addition to the resources and features

       encompassed by the preferred alternative, this southern extension

       encompasses concentrations of bird, fish and mammal habitat. In

       addition, large areas of Giant Kelp and Bull Kelp are found along

       this southern coastline. Lopez Point is an important breeding and

       nesting area for large colonies of Pelagic and Brandts Cormorants,

       Western Gulls and Pigeon Guillemots. Around Lopez Point are large

       concentrations of squid and a rich area for the salmon fishery. An

       ASBS is located around the mouth of Salmon Creek. Large


                                       319











        concentrations of harbor seals use the beaches north of Plaskett

        Rock as a haulout site. Cape San Martin is important as a haulout

        area for California sea lions and is also a mainland breeding site

        for the northern elephant seal. Finally, this southern extension

        would provide more protection to the California sea otter by

        encompassing the entire range of the California Sea Otter Refuge.

             Although this third alternative would provide additional

        protection to the resources and pristine habitats to the south as

        well As encompassing the entire sea otter refuge, these resources

        seem'adequately protected by existing management authorities and

        not under any immediate or long-term threat from harmful human

        activities, in this southern area.

             This boundary alternative is also prohibitive due to its large

        size and the associated problems with management logistics.

        Enforcement activities would be too diffuse throughout the

        Sanctuary to protect the resources adequately. The area does not

        seem to need any additional layer of protection as it is relatively

        undisturbed by human activities and largely inaccessible to

        visitors. 'No additional discharges are known to be in this area

        but it would include a greater area of the OCS Central California

        Planning Area and pr .eclude any future Lease Sales in this area.

             Finally the preferred alternative, Boundary Alternative W2,

        encompasses similar types of resources and habitats that are

        included in this southern extension of boundary Alte rnative #2.






                                         320










       Boundary alternative #4

            Boundary alternative #4 (Figure 20) is presented in response

       to public comments during the scoping meetings and is justified on

       the basis of providing a continuous management regime between the

       Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and the proposed

       Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. A continuous Sanctuary

       would ensure that the resources of the Monterey Bay area would not

       be vulnerable to any discharges between the Gulf of the Farallones

       NMS and the proposed Monterey Bay NMS and migratory species would

       be better protected within a continuous Central California Marine

       Sanctuary.

            This alternative would also encompass the coastal resources of

       the James V. Fitzgerald Marine Reserve Area and ASBS as well as the

       fishery resources and industry in Half Moon Bay and Princeton

       Harbor. Finally, the recreational and public interpretation

       facilities of the Golden Gate National Recreation Area could be

       incorporated into the educational program of the Sanctuary.

            Although this fourth alternative would provide a

       jurisdictional link between the Gulf of the Farallones and Monterey

       Bay NMSs, it does not encompass additional special marine resources

       to warrant Sanctuary protection. The offshore area is used heavily

       by vessels entering and exiting San Francisco and the Corps of

       Engineers for dumping activities. Also, this area contains the

       southern half of Lease Sale 119 and oil and gas drilling would be

       prohibited in this area if included within this boundary

       alternative.



                                        321












         Boundary Alternative #5

              Boundary alternative #5 (Figure 21) includes all the resources

         described above and represents a total combination of all the

         different public comments and resource information gathered during

         the scoping process. only a couple of commenters suggested that

         the alternatives include an even larger boundary extending from the

         State of Alaska to the Mexican border and out to 200 miles, This

         suggestion was determined to be beyond the scope of reasonable

         analysis for the draft environmental impact statement/management

         plan for the proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and

         therefore was not considered further.

              Alternative 5, as well as 3 and 4, all suffer the major

         disadvantage of extending the boundary beyond the biological,

         geological and physical oceanographic resources of the Monterey Bay

         area. In addition, the large size of these potential alternatives

         is unwieldy from a management perspective and costly for adequate

         enforcement.




         Boundary Alternative #6

              Boundary alternative #6 (Figure 22) is based on excluding

         areas offered by Lease Sale 119 for development of hydrocarbon

         resources. The exclusion of all of Lease Sale 119 from the

         proposed boundary would make available any oil, gas or mineral

         resources in the southern portion of the Lease Sale area (Figure

         11). This southern area has geological characteristics that may


                                         322









       have resulted in the generation and accumulation of commercial

       volumes of hydrocarbons. Economically recoverable hydrocarbon

       resources could possibly exist and, under this alternative,

       therefore be available for development by the oil and gas industry.

            NOAA would coordinate with MMS during all phases of the OCS

       development planning process, including prior to the exploration

       plan approval, to determine any additional technological safeguards

       or environmental monitoring that may be necessary to help protect

       Sanctuary resources and qualities.

            Oil and gas offshore operational technology has advanced

       considerably since the 1960's (Baker, 1985) and the experiences

       from past blowouts and spills have served as the catalyst for the

       present day relatively strong Federal OCS oil and gas regulatory

       regime. Department of the Interior, MMS, final rule for oil and

       gas and sulphur operations in the OCS, (30 CFR Parts 250 and 256)

       provides the regulatory regime for more performance standards and

       new and updated requirements for operational and environmental

       safety. The use of Best Available and Safest Technologies is

       required by the Director of MMS to help prevent significant effects

       on safety, health or the environment (30 CFR Part 250.22).

       Numerous regulations exist to help prevent blowouts during the

       different phases of oil and gas activities and which require

       adequately trained personnel during OCS operations.

            However, it is NOAA's mandate under the MPRSA to identify

       special areas of the marine environment of special National

       significance due to their resource or human-use values and provide


                                        323









         authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and

         management of these marine areas. Since Monterey Bay was

         considered for National Marine Sanctuary status in December 1979,

         NOAA has appraised the physical, geological, chemical and

         biological resources of.the Monterey Bay area as.part of an entire

         ecosystem. The unique geology of the Monterey Canyon is one of the

         main causes of upwelling of the productive nutrient-rich waters

         that in turn are directly responsible for the abundant and diverse

         biological resources that are distributed from as far north as Afio

         Nuevo and Pigeon Point to south of the Big Sur coastline. The

         combination of this ecosystem's resources and human uses in the

         proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary meet all of the

         criteria set by NOAA for meeting the standards of the MPRSA.

             Although it is clear that the natural resources and qualities

         of Monterey Bay are of National significance, scientific evidence

         and public opinion are still divided regarding the effects of oil

         and gas activities on these natural resources despite the available

         technology and operational regulations used in developing the OCS.

              In general, boundary alternative #6 would not only exclude the

         majority of biological resources that are part of the Monterey Bay

         area ecosystem but leave the Monterey Bay area vulnerable to oil

         spills, blowouts, noise and visual disturbances and pollution from

         aquatic discharges. Specifically:

         (a) There would be no buffer for Afio Nuevo or fishing grounds in

             two canyons to the north of Monterey Bay,

         (b) Scenic beauty north of Monterey Bay would be substantially


                                         324










            altered,

       (c)  The threat of oil spills (50% probability of 0.69 estimated

            mean number of spills of greater than 1000 barrels from

            activities directly associated with oil and gas activities in

            the central California OCS Planning area) and the discharges

            (estimated 302,000 barrels of muds and cuttings and 225

            million barrels of formation waters), despite MMS controls,

            would certainly affect Sanctuary resources and qualities due

            to south flowing current and minimal amount of time for

            chemical and physical weathering processes.

            Due to the mandate of the MPRSA to protect Nationally

       significant natural resources and qualities from an ecosystem

       perspective and the reality of the threat to these resources in the

       Monterey Bay area, NOAA is proposing to eliminate concern for any

       adverse environmental impacts that may occur in the Sanctuary from

       oil and gas activities by prohibiting these activities within the

       proposed Sanctuary boundary, (Alternative #2, approximately 2,200

       sq. nmi).



       Boundary Alternative #7

            Boundary alternative #7 (Figure 23) is also based on excluding

       areas offered by Lease Sale 119 for development of hydrocarbon

       resources. Like boundary alternative #6 this scenario would

       exclude all of Lease Sale 119 (Figure 11) as well as additional

       areas adjacent to Lease Sale 119 and all the area south of Monterey

       Canyon exclusive of state waters. This alternative makes the


                                       325









         economically recoverable hydrocarbon resources that possibly exist

         in these areas potentially available for future development.

              This boundary alternative encompasses the same coastal uses,

         resources and qualities described for boundary alternative #1 and

         in addition focuses on encompassing the main features of the

         Monterey Canyon at depths below 500 fathoms.

             The same drawbacks advanced for boundary alternative #6

         regarding both offshore technology and NOAA's statutory authority
         under the MPRSA apply to boi@ndary alternative #7. This boundary

         alternative would leave the Monterey Bay area quite vulnerable to

         oil spills, blowouts, noise and visual disturbances, and pollution

         from aquatic discharges.

              Specifically, there would be no buffer for Aho Nuevo or

         fishing grounds in the two canyons to the north of Monterey Bay,

         there would be no buffer for Point Sur or fishing grounds in

         Partington Canyon to the south of Monterey Bay and significant

         portions of primary commercial fishing areas notably Rockfish

         longline fisheries, trawling zones off Santa Cruz, and similar

         longline fisheries off Point Lobos would be excluded.

              significant seaward extensions of Ascension and Partington

         submarine canyons would be excluded, as would significant areas of

         habitat for migrating and foraging animals above and below Monterey

         Canyon. In addition, important areas of upwelling, oceanic

         currents, eddies and jets north and south of Monterey Canyon would

         be excluded.

              The scenic beauty north and south of Monterey Bay would be


                                         326









        substantially altered and the threat of oil spills and drilling

        discharges would be extended to exceptionally pristine ocean

        environments south of Monterey Canyon.














































                                        327










         D. Management Alternatives

             The preferred alternative offers better opportunities for

         interpretation and communication due to the availability of the

         proposed satellite facilities and immediate staffing. The full-

         time attention of the manager would be available for resource

         protection due to the immediate availability of research and

         education coordinators.

             The management of the proposed Sanctuary would integrate and

         utilize all aspects of the program to provide for the preservation

         of the special values of this unique marine area. Research and

         education, coordination, long-term planning and necessary

         regulations are described in the enclosed Management Plan (MP).

             The MP describes management goals and objectives of the

         Sanctuary tailored to the specific resources and uses of the area.

         The goals and objectives will provide all Sanctuary users with a

         framework for conserving resources and integrating uses compatible

         with the goals of the MP. These management goals are open ended

         and therefore allow for alternative planning strategies. Each

         objective of the MP represents a short-term measurable step towards

         achieving the management goals.

             The management program for the proposed Sanctuary will be

         developed and implemented by NOAA and the on-site manager in

         conjunction with existing agencies in order to benefit from

         existing expertise and personnel. These include those of the

         California Departments of Fish and Game and Parks and Recreation,

         the National Park Service, and perhaps other agencies.


                                         328









            NOAA will also investigate mechanisms to promote State and

       Federal interagency coordination and cooperation, particularly with

       the National Park Service, the USCG, and the NMFS. A particularly

       useful mechanism for coordination would be a Sanctuary Advisory

       Committee, including members from Federal agencies, such as the

       National Park Service, the USCG, the NMFS; State agencies such as

       the Coastal Commission, the Departments of Parks and Recreation and

       Fish and Game, the State Lands Commission, as well as commercial

       and private interests and the public.

            The Sanctuary manager will promote coordination among all the

       authorities concerned with the Sanctuary and will particularly

       stress consideration of the special value of the Sanctuary's living

       resources in the formulation of policies affecting the area. The

       greater understanding of Sanctuary resources and the effects of

       human use gained as a result of the research and monitoring will

       enable NOAA to provide valuable assistance to other authorities in

       their determinations relating to the level of protection for the

       resources of the Sanctuary.

            The Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) would be an especially

       useful coordinating mechanism. The SAC could ensure an exchange of

       information, advise the Sanctuary manager on permit applications

       and. certifications, research priorities, amendments to the

       regulations, and other matters.








                                        329










         Section III:   Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or socioeconomic
                        Effects


              Specific environmental and socioeconomic effects of each

         proposed regulation are included throughout the environmental

         consequences section of the preferred alternative.

              The net environmental and socioeconomic effects of designating

         the Sanctuary and implementing the Sanctuary Management Plan and

         regulations are estimated to be positive. While such effects are

         difficult to quantify, the purpose of the Sanctuary in part will be

         to maintain or improve water quality, fisheries, aesthetics and

         tourism without causing any adverse effects.

              The proposed Sanctuary regulations would allow all activities

         to be conducted in the proposed Sanctuary other than a relatively

         narrow range of prohibited activities. The procedures proposed in

         these regulations for applying for National Marine Sanctuary

         permits to conduct otherwise prohibited activities, for requesting

         certifications for existing leases, licenses, permits, approvals,

         other authorizations or rights authorizing the conduct of a

         prohibited activity, and for notifying NOAA of applications for

         leases or other authorizations to conduct a prohibited activity

         would impose a cost in time and effort on the part of applicants

         for such permits or certifications and those subject to the

         notification requirements. However, NOAA will keep such costs to a

         absolute minimum by working closely with State and Federal

         regulatory and permitting agencies to avoid any duplication of

         effort and will set strict guidelines for reviewing applications in

         as brief a time as possible.

                                         330








           The regulation prohibiting discharges and deposits and

       alteration of or construction on the seabed may require permit

       holders for such activities to seek other areas of disposal or

       apply higher levels of treatment. All measures, terms and

       conditions applied to existing activities will be done in

       consultation with the affected party and the appropriate management


       agency.

            Estimates of revenue foregone by the proposed prohibition of

       oil, gas and mineral activities within the Sanctuary boundary has

       been presented in detail under the socioeconomic consequences for

       this proposed regulation. Balancing the foregone revenue would be

       preventing adverse socioeconomic effects by the proposed

       prohibition of and oil, gas and mineral activities. For example,

       the proposed prohibition may alleviate or remove matters ranging

       from costs to local communities for developing'on-shore facilities

       to political and legal action resulting from public controversy and

       apprehension concerning proposed oil and gas activities.

            it is not possible to quantify the positive socioeconomic

       effects of prohibiting OCS oil and gas activities. The recent NAS

       study (1989) on the Adequacy of Environmental Information For Outer

       Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and California

       found that "few data have been collected by MMS or anyone else to

       address the social and economic impacts of OCS activities".








                                        331










         Section IV:    Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the
                        Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of
                        Long-term Productivity

              Sanctuary designation emphasizes the importance of the natural

         and historical resources of Monterey Bay area. The quality of the

         Monterey Bay environment is still relatively pristine and the

         healthy and the diverse natural ecosystem is relatively unaltered.

         Designation will enhance public awareness of the area and provide

         long-term assurance that its natural resources will be available

         for future use and enjoyment. Implementation of the preferred

         alternative ensures that changes in use patterns which degrade the

         Bay environment are monitored and possibly reversed.

              The education, research and resource protection programs will

         provide information, management and protection that develops a

         foundation for wise public use of the area and results in long-

         term productivity. Similarly, information collected in the

         research program will assist marine natural resource managers in

         making better management decisions. Better management will in turn

         help resolve use conflicts and mitigate the adverse effects of

         human activities.




















                                          332











                                List of Preparers and Acknowledcments



I



































































                                        333












         PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS



         Mr. Mark Murray-Brown - Program Specialist, Marine and Estuarine
         Management Division, NOAA. Mr. Murray-Brown was responsible for
         the overall supervision of this project and preparation of the
         draft EIS/MP and regulations. His academic background includes a
         Bachelor's degree in Biology from Bates College, ME; a Master's
         Degree in Oceanography from the Graduate School of Oceanography,
         University of Rhode Island (URI), RI; and Master's Degree in Marine
         Policy from the Marine Affairs Department, URI.

         Mr. Joseph Flanagan - Environmental Protection Specialist, Ocean
         Minerals and Energy Division, NOAA. Mr. Flanagan was responsible
         for synthesising and collating the information and then writing
         Part II, Section II, which describes the resources and uses of the
         Monterey Bay area. His academic background includes a Bachelor's
         Degree in Geology and Chemistry from the University of Miami,
         Florida; and a Master's Degree in Environmental Systems Management
         from American University, Washington D.C.

         Acknowledgments

              The preparers would like to offer special thanks to Sonja
         Taylor for all of her patience and energy converting scrolls of
         illegible handwriting to pages of word processing output and
         Shirley Pippin for her help generating the mailing list. Stephanie
         Campbell, Mark Haflich and Ted Beuttler's legal advice is also
         gratefully acknowledged. Acknowledgment is hereby given to the
         Boxwood Press for its kind permission to use the cover illustration
         of a southern California sea otter.

              Below is a partial list of people, many of whom are from the
         Monterey Bay area, who provided much of the information for this
         document. Their input was invaluable.

         J. Anderson, A. and S. Baldridge, R. Barber, C. Baxter, L. Breaker,
         W. Broenkow, G. Cailliet, J. Cano, M. Croom, W. Doyle, R. Felty, H.
         Greene, K. Gray, K. Greenberg, D. Haifley, J. Heimlich-Boran, P.
         Jagger, H. Kolb, J. Martin, M. Martin, A. Matthews, E. Melvin, J.
         Nybakken, J. Oliver, N. Papadakis, W. Pierce, R. Saunders, S.
         Shane, M. Silberstein, J. Sobel, B. Stewart, L. Strnad, R. Tyler,
         K. Van Velsor, S. Webster, J. Wieland.










                                         334









       - List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons Receiving Copies


















































                                       335











         PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING
                   COPIES



         Federal Agencies

         Advisory council on Historic Preservation
         Department of Agriculture
         Department of Commerce
         Department of Defense
         Department of Energy
         Department of Health and Human Services
         Department of the Interior
         Department of Justice
         Department of Labor
         Department of Transportation - U.S. Coast Guard
         Environmental Protection Agency
         Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
         Marine Mammal Commission
         Nuclear Regulatory Commission
         Pacific Fishery Management Council

         Congressional
         Members of the U.S. House Committee on Merchant Marine and
         Fisheries
         Members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
         Transportation
         Honorable Alan Cranston, United States Senate
         Honorable Pete Wilson, United States Senate
         Honorable Douglas H. Bosco, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Barbara Boxer, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Tom Lantos, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Nancy Pelosi, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable George Miller-, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Ronald V. Dellums, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Fortney H. Stark, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Don Edwards, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Ernie Konnyu, U.S. House of Representa 'tives
         Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Leon E. Panetta, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable William M. Thomas, U.S. House of Representatives
         Honorable Tony Coelho, U.S. House of Representatives











                                          336











       California State Government and Agencies
       Air Resources Board
       Business, Transportation and Housing Agency
       Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments
       California Coastal Commission
       Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission
       The Resources Agency of California
       Department of Fish and Game
       Department of Parks and Recreation
       Department of Conservation
       Department of Transportation
       Department of Boating and Waterways
       State Water Resources Control Board
       Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
       Oakland-San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
       Monterey Peninsula Water Management District
       State Lands Commission
       Office of Emergency Services
       Board Of Supervisors, San Mateo County
       Board Of Supervisors, Santa Cruz County
       Board Of Supervisors, Monterey County
       Native American Heritage Commission
       Department of Justice

       National and Local Interest Groups

       American Association of Port Authorities
       American Bureau of Shipping
       American Fisheries Society
       American Gas Association
       American Petroleum Institute
       Amoco Production Company
       Atlantic Richfield Company
       Boating Industry Association
       Center for Law and Social Policy
       Center for Marine Conservation
       Chevron U.S.A., Inc.
       cities Service Company
       Coast Alliance
       Conservation Foundation
       Continental Oil Company
       The Cousteau Society
       CZM Newsletter
       Defenders of Wildlife
       Edison Electric Institute
       El Paso Natural Gas Company
       Environmental Policy Center
       Environmental Defense Fund,  Inc.
       Environmental Law Institute




                                        337










         National and Local Groups (continued)

         Exxon Company, U.S.A.
         Friends of the Coast
         Friends of the Earth
         Friends of the Sea Otter
         The Greenpeace Foundation
         Gulf Oil Company
         Inverness Association
         Marine Technology Society
         The Marine Wilderness Society
         Mobil Oil Corporation
         National Association of Conservation Districts
         National Association of Counties
         National Audubon Society
         National Coalition for Marine Conservation, Inc.
         National Federation of Fishermen
         National Fisheries Institute
         National Ocean Industries Association
         National Parks and Conservation Association
         National Recreation and Park Association
         National Research Council
         National Wildlife Federation
         Natural Resources Defense Council
         Natural Resources Law Institute
         Pacific Coast Federation of Fisherman's Associations, Inc.
         Point Reyes Bird Observatory
         Stinson.Beach Village Association
         Tomales Bay Association
         The Whale Center
         Union Oil Company
         Water Pollution Control Federation
         Wilderness Society
         World Wildlife Fund-U.S.























                                          338












                                                                  References






































i
I































                                        339












       PART VII: REFERENCES

       Abbott, I.A. and G.J. Hollenberg. 1976. Marine Algae of
          California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA. 827p.

       AMBAG (Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments). 1978. A
          Matter of Values: Nominations and Comments on Leasing      on the
          Outer Continental Shelf, Central and Northern California. 60p.

       AMBAG (Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments). 1987.
          Annual Report of the Association of Monterey Bay Area
          Governments: 1986-1987. 17p.

       Amoco Cadiz. 1980. Fate and Effects of the Oil Spill. Proceedings
          of November 1979 Conference. Brest, France.

       Anderson, M.E. and G.M. Cailliet. 1975. Occurrence of the Rare
          Pacific Frostfish, Benthodesmus elongatus pacificus Parin and
          Becker, 1970, in Monterey Bay, California. California Fish and
          Game, 61(3):149-152.

       Anderson, M.E., G.M. Cailliet, and B.S. Antrim. 1979. Notes On
          Some Uncommon Deep-sea Fishes From the Monterey Bay Area,
          California. Calif. Fish and Game 65(4):256-264.

       Anderson and Labelle with MMS. 1990. "Estimated Occurrence Rates
          for Analysis of Accidental Oil Spills on the U.S. Outer
          Continental Shelfil, Oil and Chemical Pollution, Vol. 6 No. 1,
          pages 21-35.

       Baker, Ron, 1985, A Primer on Offshore Operations. Published by
          Petroleum Extension Service.

       Baldridge, A. 1972. Killer Whales Attack and Eat a Gray Whale. J.
          Mammal. 53:898-900

       Baldridge, A. 1973. The Status of the Brown Pelican in the
          Monterey Region of California: Past and Present. Western
          Birds 4:93-100.

       Barham, E.G. 1956. The Ecology of Sonic Scattering Layers in the
          Monterey Bay Area. Stanford University, Hopkins Marine
          Station Thesis. 182pp.

       Beck, R.H. 1910. Water Birds of the Vicinity of Point Pinos,
          California. Proceedings of California Academy of Sciences, 4th
          Ser., 3:57-72.

       Boesch, D.F., et al. 1973. Oil Spill and the Marine Environment



                                          340











     Bonnell, M.L., M.O. Pierson, and G.D. Farrens. 1983. Pinnipeds
        and Sea Otters of Central and Northern California, 1980-1983:
        Status, Abundance, and Distribution. Prepared by Center for
        Marine Studies, Univ. of California, Santa Cruz, for the
        Pacific OCS Region, Minerals Management Service, U.S. Dept.   of
        the Interior. OCS Study MMS 84-0044. 220 pp.

     Braham, H. and D.W. Rice. 1984. The Right Whale, Balaena
        glacialis. Mar. Fish. Rev.46:38-44.

     Breaker, L.C. and C.N.K. Mooers. 1986. Oceanic Variability off
        the Central California Coast. Progress in oceanography, 17,
        61-135.

     Breaker, L.C. and W.W. Broenkow. 1989. The Circulation of Monterey
        Bay and Related Processes. Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
        Tech. Pub. 89-1.

     Briggs, J.C. 1979. Marine zoogeography. McGraw-Hill Series in
        Population Biology.

     Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis, and K.F. Dettman. 1983.
        Seabirds of Central and Northern California, 1980-1983: Status,
        Abundance, and Distribution. Center for Marine Studies,
        University of California, Santa Cruz. 237pp.

     Briggs, K.T., and E.W. Chu. 1986. Sooty Shearwaters Off
        California: Distribution, Abundance, and Habitat Use. Condor
        88:355-364.

     Briggs, K.T., and E.W. Chu. 1987. Trophic Relationships and Food
        Requirements of California Seabirds: Updating Models Of
        Trophic Impact. Pp. 279-304 in J.P. Croxall (ed.), Seabirds:
        Feeding Ecology and Role in Marine Ecosystems.    Cambridge
        University Press, Cambridge.

     Briggs, K.T., W.B. Tyler, D.B. Lewis, and D.R. Carlson. 1987a.
        Bird Communities At Sea Off California: 1975 to 1983. Studies
        in Avian Biology No. 11, Cooper Ornith. Soc. 74pp.

     Briggs, K.T., D. G. Ainley, D.R. Carlson, D.B. Lewis, W.B. Tyler,
        L.B. Spear, and L.A. Ferris. 1987b. Final Report: California
        Seabird Ecology Study. Volume I: Feeding Ecology

     Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. Final Environmental
        Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 53, Vol. 1.






                                       341










        Bureau of Land Management. 1979a. Final Environmental Statement
           OCS Sale 48. Vols 1-5. U.S. DOI, BLM, Pacific OCS Office, Los
           Angeles, CA.

        Bureau of Land Management. 1979c. Historic resource surveys in
           the Lease Sale #53 OCS area (Unpublished report).

        Cailliet, G.M. and M.E. Anderson. 1975. occurrence of the
           Prowfish Zaprora silenus, 1896 in Monterey Bay-J, California.
           California Fish and Game, 61 (1): 60-62.

        Caillietl G.M. and R.N. Lea. 1977. Abundance of the "Rare"
           Zoarcid, Maynea californica Gilbert, 1915, in the Monterey
           Canyon, Monterey Bay, California. California Fish and Game,
           63 (4) : 253-261.

        Cailliet, G.M. and E.K. Osada. 1988. Ecological Studies of
           Sablefish in Monterey Bay. California Fish and Game 74(3):132-
           153.


        California Department of Fish and Game. 1979 Living Marine
           Resources of the Proposed Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary. 25pp.

        California Department of Fish and Game. 1980. California Atlas
           of Coastal Resources.


        California Office of Planning and Research. 1978. Staff analysis
           for the State's response to the call for nominations and
           comments for Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale #53
           (Central and Northern California). Memorandum, July 3, 1978.

        Center for Marine Conservation. 1989. The Exxon Valdez Oil SPill:
           A Management Analysis. Prepared by Townsend Environmental and
           Burr Heneman for Center for Marine Conservation, Washington,
           D.C.

        Central Coast OCS Regional Studies Program. January 1989.
           Offshore Oil Drilling on the Central California Coast.

        Chan, G.L. 1973. A study of the effects of the San Francisco Oil
           Spill on Marine Organisms. In: Proceedings of a Joint
           Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. Washington,
           D.C. March 10-15, 1970. pp739-781.

        Chan. G.L. 1977. The five-year recruitment of Marine Life afer
           the 1971 San Francisco Oil Spill. Proceedings of the 1977 Joint
           Conference on Prevention and Control of Oil Spills. New
           Orleans, Louisiana. March, 1977.




                                         342











    Clark, R.A. and R.H. Osborne. 1982. Contribution of Salinas
       River Sand to the Beaches of Monterey Bay, California, During
       the 1978 Flood Period: Fournier Grain-Shape Analysis.     Journal
       of Sedimentary Petrology, 52(3):807-822.

    Coastal Concern. 1989. Letter to Marine and Estuarine Management
       Division, May 18, 1989.

    Combellick, R.A. and R.H. Osborne. 1977. Sources and Petrology of
       Beach Sand from Southern Monterey Bay, California: Journal of
       Sedimentary Petrology, V. 47, p.891-907.

    Dahlstrom and Wild. 1983. Fish. Bull. Vol. 172.

    Dohl, T.P. 1983. Marine Mammals and Seabirds of Central and
       Northern California, 1980 - 1983; Synthesis of Findings. Center
       for Marine Studies, Univ. of Calif., Santa Cruz.   Report on
       Contract No. 14-12-0001-29090 to Pacific OCS Region, Minerals
       Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
       Washington, D.C.

    Dohrenwend, J. C. 1971. Marine Geology of the Continental Shelf
       Between Point Lobos and Point Sur, California: A
       Reconnaissance. Independent Research Report, Stanford
       University.

    Earth Metrics, Inc. 1986. Final Environmental Impact Report for
       the Long Term Wastewater Management Plan, Cities of Gilroy and
       Morgan Hill.

    Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Assessment of
       Environmental Fate and Effects of Discharges from offshore Oil
       and Gas Operations. EPA 440/-4-85/002.

    Estes, J.A. and J.F. Palmisano. 1974. Sea Otters: Their Role in
       Structuring Nearshore communities. Science 185:1058-1060.

    Fiest, D.L. and Boehm, P.D. 1980. Subsurface distributions of
       petroleum from an offshore well blowout - the IXTOC-I blowout,
       Bay of Campeche. In: Proceedings of a symposium on preliminary
       results from the September 1979 Researcher/Pierce IXTOC-1
       cruise, Key Biscayne, FL, June 9-10, 1980. Boulder, CO: U.S.
       Dept. of Commerce, NOAA: pp.169-180.

    Flegal, A.R., M. Stephanson, M. Martin, and J.H. Martin. 1981.
       Elevated Concentrations of mercury in Mussels (Mytilus
       californianus) Associated with Pinniped Colonies. Marine
       Biology 65, 45-48 (1981).




                                      343











        Flegal, A.K., K.J. Rosman, and M.D. Stephanson. 1987. Isotope
           Systematics of Contaminant Leads in Monterey Bay.
           Environmental Science and Technology, Vol.21.

        Foster, M.S. and D.R. Schiel. 1985. The Ecology of Giant Kelp
           Forests in California:A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and
           Wildlife Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.2). 152p.

        Foster, M.S., A.P. De Vogelaere, C. Harrold, J.S. Pearse, and A.B.
           Thum. 1988. Causes of Spatial and Temporal Patterns in Rocky
           Intertidal Communities of Central and Northern California.
           Memoirs of the California Academy of Sciences No. 9.

        Futures Group. 1982. Final Technical Report, Outer continental
           Shelf Oil Spill
           Probability Assessment. Prepared by The Futures Group,
           Glastonberry, Connecticut, for the Bureau of Land Management,
           Department of the Interior.

        Garrison, D.L. 1979. Monterey Bay Phytoplankton. I. Seasonal
           cycles of Phytoplanton Assemblages. J. Plankton Res. 1(3):241-
           264.

        Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1980. "Offshore Petroleum
           Resource
           Development and Marine Mammals: a Review and Research
           Recommendations." Marine Fisheries Review, Nov. 1980.

        Geraci, J.R. and D. J. St. Aubin. 1982. Study of the Effects of
           Oil on Cetaceans. Prepared for the Department of the Interior
           and cited in MMS, 1984.

        Geraci, J.R. and D.J. St. Aubin. 1983. "Fifth Interim Report-Study
           of the Effects of oil on Marine Mammals." Prepared for MMS and
           cited in MMS, 1984.

        Geraci, J.R. and T. G. Smith. 1977. Consequences of Oil Fouling on
           Marine Mammals. In: D.C. Malins (ed.) Effects of Petroleum on
           Arctic and Subarctic Marine Environments an Organisms. Volume
           II. Biological Effrects. Academic Press. New York, NY.
           pp.399-409.

        Gordon, B.L. 1977. Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and
           Cultural Imprints. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, CA. 321p.

        Greene, H.G. 1977. Geology of the Monterey Bay Region. U.S.
           Geological Survey Open-File Report 77-718, 347p.

        Greene, H.G., In Press, McGraw Hill.



                                          344









     Griggs, G. 1986. Monterey Bay    Its Geologic and Hydrologic
        Setting. Abstract to the Symposium on Managing Inflows to
        California's Bays and Estuaries. 13-15 November, 1986,
        Monterey, CA.

     Gross, M.G. 1972. Oceanography - A View of the Earth. Prentice-
        Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, N.J.

     Haley, D. 1978. Marine Mammals. Pacific Search Press, Seattle,
        WA.

     Haley, D. 1987. Marine Mammals. 2nd revised edition. Pacific
        Search Press, Seattle, WA.

     Hanan, D., J.P. Scholl, and S.L. Diamond. 1987. Harbor Seal,
        Phoca vitulina richardsi, Census in California, June 2-5, 30,
        and July 1, 1986. Final Report to the National Marine
        Fisheries service, Southwest Region. Administrative Report SWR
        87-341p.

     Harvey, J.T. 1979. Aspects of the Life History of the Blue
        Shark, Prionace glauca L., in Monterey Bay, California.
        Master's Thesis, San Jose State University. 105pp.

     Harville, J.P. (ed.). 1971. Environmental Studies of Monterey
        Bay and the Central California Coastal Zone. Moss Landing
        Marine Lab. Annual Report, 113pp.

     Hauschildt, K.S. 1985. Remotely Sensed Chlorophyll and
        Temperature Distributions Off Central California and Their
        Potential Relations to Commercial Fish Catches. M.A. Thesist
        San Francisco State University. 154 pp.

     Hayes, S.P. and P.T. Phillips. 1987. California State Mussel
        Watch Marine Water Quality Monitoring Program 1985-1986. Calif.
        State Water Resources Control Board, Water Quality Monitoring
        Report No. 87-2WQ.

     Hawkes, J. 1977. Morphological abnormalities produced by
        hydrocarbon exposure. In: D.A. WOlfe (Ed.). Fate and Effects
        of Petroleum Hydrocarbon in Marine Ecosystems and Organisms.
        Pergamon Press. New York, NY.

     Heimlich-Boran, J.R. 1988. Marine Resources and Human Activities
        in the Monterey Bay Area. Center for Environmental Education,
        April 1988.

     Holmes, W. N. and J. Cronshaw. 1977. Biological Effects of
        Petroleum on Marine Birds. In D.C. Malins (ed.). Effects of
        Petroleum on Arctic and Subarctic Marine Environments and
        Organisms. Volume II. Biological Effects. Academic Press.
        New York,, NY. pp359-398.

                                       345










       Holton, R.L., R.D. Leatham, and G.F. Crandell. 1977.
          Zooplankton. Chapter IV IN: Winzler & Kelly Consultants (eds).
          A Summary of Knowledge of the Central and Northern California
          Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas; Vol.II:   Biological
          Conditions. NTIS PB-274 212.

       Johnston, C.S. 1979. "Sources and Effects of Hydrocarbons in the
          Marine Environment," The Marine Environment andoil Facilities.
          Inst, of Civil Engrs., London.

       Kellogg, M.G., B.E. Bowman, C. Chaffee, D. Drake, E. Fogarine, S.
          Gray, S. Sturgle, B. Weitgrecht, and M.J. HErz. 1978.
          Reconaissance Survey of the Farallon Islands Area of Special
          Biological Significance. Farallon Research Group. Oceanic
          Society, San Francisoc, CA. 148 p.

       Kooyman, G.L., R.W. Davis, and M.A. Castellini. 1977. Thermal
          Conductance of Immersed Pinniped and Sea Otter Pelts beofr and
          after oiling with Prudhoe ay Crude. In: D.A. Wolfe (Ed.). Fate
          and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in Marine Ecosystems and
          Organisms. Perrgamon Press. New York, N.Y. pp. 151-157.

       Kooyman, G.L. and D.P. Costa. 1979. Effects of Oiling and
          Temperature Regulation in Sea Otters. 1979.

       Kukowski, G.E. 1972. A Checklist of the Fishes of the Monterey Bay
          Area Including Elkhorn Slough, The San Lorenzo, Pajaro,     and
          Salinas Rivers. Technical Publication 72-2. Moss Landing
          Marine Laboratories.

       Lewis, D.B. and W.B. Tyler. 1987. Cliff and Island Nesting
          Birds. Pp 78-109 in: Management Recommendations for Coastal
          Terrace and Island Resources at Ano Nuevo State Reserve.
          Final Rep. to Calif. Dept. of Parks and Recreation, Ano Nuevo
          State Reserve.

       Lindstet-Siva, J. 1976. Oil Spill Response Planning for
          Biologically Sensitive Areas of the Santa Barbara Channel.
          Atlantic Richfield Co., Los Angeles, CA. 31 p.

       Loehr, L.C. and E.E. Collias. 1983. Old Cannery Wastes, a
          Potential Source of Trace Metals in the Marine Environmental.
          Mar. Poll. Bull. 14(10):392-394.

       Loomis, L.M. 1895. California Water Birds. No. I-Monterey and
          Vicinity From the Middle of June to the End of August.
          Proceedings of California Academy of Sciences, 2nd Ser., 5:177-
          224






                                         346










     Loomis, L.M. 1896. California Water Birds. No.II-Vicinity of
        Monterey in Midwinter. Proceedings of California Academy of
        Sciences, 2nd Ser., 6:1-30.

     Loughlin, T.R., D.J. Rugh, and C.H. Fiscus. 1984. Northern Sea
        Lion Distribution and Abundance: 1956-1980. J. Wildl. Manage.
        48 (3) : 729-740.

     Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey for Northern and
        Central California, Quartely Report No. 30, October to December,
        1986. California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Resources
        Administrative Report No. 87-9, 1987.

     Martin, B.D., and K.O. Emery, 1967. Geology of Monterey Canyon,
        California. Am. Assoc. Petroleum Geologists Bull., v.51,pp.
        2281-2304


     Martin, M. and W. Castle. 1984. Petrowatch: Petroleum
        Hydrocarbons, Synthetic Organic Compounds, and Heavy Metals in
        Mussels From the Monterey Bay Area of Central California.
        Marine Pollution Bulletin, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 259-266.

     McGee, T. 1986. Coastal Erosion Along Monterey Bay. Thesis.
        Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA.

     McGrath, J. 1986. Developing a Sand Budget For Monterey Bay:
        Sand Sources and the Role of Sand Mining. Selected Repts.    in
        Ocean and Arctic Eng. (In press).

     McGrath, J. 1987. Sand Mining and Erosion in Monterey Bay.
        Proc. of Coastal Zone 1987 Symposium. May 1987, Seattle, WA.

     McMillon, B. 1982. California's Underwater Parks, A Divers Guide.

     Meighan. C.W., 1965. Pacific Coast Archaeology. The Quaternary
        of the United States. Princeton (eds. H.E. Wright and D.G.
        Frey).

     Michael, A.D. 1977. The effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons on
        Marine Populations and Communities. In D. Wolfe (Ed.). Fate
        and Effects of Petroleum Hydrocarbons in marine organisms and
        Ecosystems. Pergamon Press. New York, N.Y. pp.129-237

     Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
        1982. "Archeological Analysis (for) Proposed Lease Sale No. 73,
        Central and Northern California Offshore Area." Minerals
        Management Service, Offshore Environmental Assessment Division.
        Sep. 28, 1982.




                                       347










       Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
          1983. 'Final Environmental Impact Statement, Gulf of Mexico.
          Proposed OCS Oil and Gas Lease Offereings, Central Gulf of
          Mexico (April, 1984). Western Gulf of Mexico (July. 1984).
          Metairie, LA.

       Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984.
          Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Sale No. 90. Minerals
          Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region, Vienna, Va.

       Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986.
          Proposed 5-year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
          Program. January 1987-December 1991: Draft Environmental Impact
          Statement.
          Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C.

       Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987.
          5-year Outer Continental Shelf'Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Mid@
          1987 to Mid-1992: Final Environmental Impact Statement.
          Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C.

       Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
          1986a. Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Oil and
          Gas Lease Sales 110 and 112. Minerals Management Service, Gulf
          of Mexico OCS Region, Metairie, La.

       Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
          1988. California OCS Phase II Monitoring Program. Year-One
          Annual Report Volumes I and II. Edited by J. Hyland and J. Neff
          Battelle Ocean Sciences, Ventura, California for MMS, DOI,
          Pacific OCS Office, Los Angeles, CA.

       Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior.
          1989. Federal Offshore Statistics: 1988, OCS Report 89-0082.

       Monterey County Agriculture, Food for Thought. 1988.

       Morris, R.H., D.P. Abbott, and E.C. Haderlie. 1980. Intertidal
          Invertebrates of the Central California Coast. 3rd ed.    Univ.
          of Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA 761p.

       National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1979. "Georges
          Bank Marine Issue Paper." Office of Coastal Zone Management.
          Washington, D.C. July 27,
          1979.

       NOAA. 1982. Management Plan for the Proposed Monterey Bay
          National Marine Sanctuary. Sanctuary Programs Office,
          National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.



                                          348










     NOAA. 1983. National Marine Sanctuary Site Evaluations.
        Recommendations and Final Reports. Prepared by, Chelsea
        International Corporation for NOAA, Office of Ocean and Coastal
        Resource Management, Sanctuary Programs Division. Contract No.
        NA-82-SAC-00647.

     National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1987. Gulf of
        the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Management Plan.
        Prepared for U.S. DOC/NOAA/MEMD. Prepared by James Dobbin
        Assoc. Inc. Coastal and Ocean Planners, Alexandria, VA.
        Contract No. NO-81-ABC 00209.

     NAS. 1989. The Adequacy of Environmental Information For
        Continental Shelf oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and California.

     National Research Council - Marine Board. 1983. Drilling
        Discharges in the Marine Environment. National Academic Press.
        Washington, D.C. cited in MMS, 1984.

     Nybakken, J.W. 1982. Marine Biology. Harper & Row, N.Y. 446p.

     Oradiwe, E.N. 1986. Sediment Budget for Monterey Bay. Thesis.
        Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey CA.

     Patten, B.G. 1977. Sublethal Biological Effects of Petroleum
        Hydrocarbon Exposures: Fish. In: D.C. Malins (Ed.) Effects of
        Petroleum of Arctic and Subarctic Marine Environments and
        Organisms. Academic Press. New York, N.Y. pp.319-332

     Porter, G.A., R. Ehrlich, R.H. Osborne, and R.A. Combellick. 1979.
        Sources and Nonsources of Beach Sand Along Southern Monterey
        Bay, California-Fourier Shape Analysis: Journal of Sedimentary
        Petrology, V.49, No. 3, p.727-732.

     Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1989. Draft Water
        Quality Control Plan.

     Reilly, S.B. 1984. Assessing Gray Whale Abundance: A Review.
        p.203-223 IN M.L. Jones, S.L. Schwartz, and S. Leatherwood
        (eds.). The Gray Whale. Academic Press, N.Y.

     Remsen, J.V. 1978. Bird Species of Special Concern in California-
        -An Annotated List of Declining or Vulnerable   Species. Calif.
        Dept. Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations Project PR
        W-54-R-9, Wildlife Management Branch Administrative Rep. No.
        78-1. Sacramento, CA. 54pp.

     Ricketts, E.F., J. Calvin, and J.W. Hedgpeth. 1985. Between
        Pacific Tides. 5th ed., Rev. by D.W. Phillips. Stanford Univ.
        Press. 652p.


                                       349










        Riedman, M.L. 1986. Summary of Information On the Biology Of the
           Sea Otter. Technical Support Document No. 1 IN U.S. Fish &
           Wildlife Service. 1986. Proposed Translocation of Southern
           Sea Otters: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. USFWS,
           Office of Sea Otter Coordination, 2800 Cottage Way, Room E-
           1818, Sacramento, CA.

        Riedman, Marianne. 1987. Summary of Information on the Biology of
           the Sea Otter. Volume II, Technical Support Document I, Final
           Environmental Impact Statement, Translocation of Southern Sea
           Otters (USFWS).

        Riznyk, R.Z. 1977. Phytoplankton. Chapter III IN: Winzler and
           Kelly Consultants (eds). A Summary of Knowledge of the Central
           and Northern California Coastal Zone and Offshore Areas;
           Vol.II: Biological Conditions. NTIS PB-274 212.

        Roberson, D. 1985. Monterey Birds: Status and Distribution of
           Birds in Monterey County, California. Monterey Peninsula
           Audubon Society, Carmel, CA. 266p.

        Rosenberg, S. 1987. Diving and Snorkeling Guide to Northern
           California and the Monterey Peninsula. Pisces Books, New York.

        Samuels, W.B. and K.J. Lanfear. 1980. An Oil Spill Risk Analysis
           for Central and Northern California (proposed OCS Sale #53)
           Outer Continental Shelf LEase Area. U.S. Geological Survey.
           Open File Report #80-211.

        Santa Cruz County Conference and Visitors Council. 1989. Memo to
           Congressman Leon E. Panetta, May 25, 1989.

        Santa Cruz Port District. 1987. Annual Management Report:
           Fiscal Year 1986/1987. 75p.

        Saunders, R.T. 1989. Overview of the California Sea Otter
           Population: Biology, Status, and Threats. In Information
           Submitted by Friends of the Sea Otter to NOAA's Marine and
           Estuarine Management Division.

        Scarff, J. E. 1987. Historic and Present Distribution Of the Right
           Whale (Eubalaena glacialis) in the Eastern North Pacific South
           of 50*N and East of 180*W. Rep. Int. Whale. Comm. Special
           Issue 10:43-64.

        Schoenerr, J.R. 1988. Blue Whales Feeding On High Concentrations
           of Euphausiids Around Monterey Submarine Canyon. Master's
           Thesis, Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. 43pp.




                                          350










     Shaw, S.B. 1972. DDT Residues in Eight California Marine Fishes.
        Calif. Fish & Game 58(l):22-26.

     Shepard, F.P. and R.F. Dill. 1966. Submarine Canyons and Other Sea
        Valleys. Rand McNally & Co., Chicago, IL.

     Sindermann, C.J. 1982. Implications of Oil Pollution in Production
        of Disease In Marine organisms. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B
        297, pp. 385-399.

     Sindermann, C.J. 1979. Pollution-Associated Diseases and
        Abnormalities of Fish and Shellfish: A Review. Fish. Bull: Vol.
        76, No. 4. 717-748.

     Smith, R.I. and J.T. Carlson. 1975. Light's Manual: Intertidal
        Invertebrates of the Central California Coast. 3rd ed. Univ. of
        Calif. Press, Berkeley, CA. 716p.

     Stenzel, L.E., J. Kjelmyr, G.W. Page, and D. Shuford. MS. Results
        of the First Comprehensive Shorebird Census of Northern and
        Central California Wetlands, 8-12 September 1988. Draft Report,
        Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

     Udvardy, M.D.F. 1977. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
        American Birds: Western Region. Knopf, N.Y. 855p.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1975. Dredge Disposal Study, San
        Francisco Bay and Estuary. Appendix L. Ocean Disposal.
        September, 1975.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1977. Patterns of Succession in
        Benthic Infaunal Communities Following Dredging and Dredged
        Material Disposal in Monterey Bay. Prepared by J. Oliver, P.
        Slattery, L. Hulberg and J. Nybakken, Moss Landing Marine
        Laboratories, Moss Landing, CA. Final Report. Technical Report
        D-77-27, Under Contract No. DACW39-74-C-0151.

     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1986. Waterborne Commerce of the
        United States. Part 4, Waterways and Harbors, Pacific Coast,
        Alaska, Hawaii. Waterborne Commerce Statistics Center, New
        Orleans..


     U.S. Coast Guard. 1985. On Scene Coordinators Report - Tank Vessel
        Puerto Rican Explosion and Oil Pollution Incident, San Francisco
        CA-31 October 1984. Marine Safety Office San Francisco Bay, San
        Francisco.








                                       351










       U.S. Department of Commerce. 1987. Marine Mammal Protection Act of
           1972, Annual Report 1986/87. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA,
           National Marine Fisheries Service.

       U.S. Department of the Interior. 1987. Proposed 5-year Outer
           Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program: mid-1987 to mid-
           1992; Final Environmental Impact Statement. Minerals Management
           Service, Washington, D.C.

       U.S. Department of the Interior. 1979. Proposed 5-Year OCS Lease
           Sale Schedule.

       U.S. Department of the Interior.    1980. Final Environmental
           Impact Statment on Proposed Five-Year OCS Oil and Gass Lease
           Sale Schedule March 1980-February 1985. January, 1980.

       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. Pacific Coast Ecological
           Inventory, 1:250,000 maps, San Francisco and Monterey sheets.

       U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1986. Proposed Translocation of
           Southern Sea Otters: Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
           USFWS, Office of Sea Otter Coordination, 2800 Cottage Way, Room
           E-1818, Sacramento, CA.

       Valentine, J.W. 1966. Numerical Analysis of Marine Molluskan
           Ranges on the Extratropical Northeastern Pacific Shelf.
           Limnology Oceanography. 11:198-211.

       VanBlaricom, G.R., and Estes, J.A. (eds.). 1988. The Community
           Ecology of Sea Otters. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 247pp.

       Weber, G.E. 1981. Physical Environments in The Natural History of
           Aho Nuevo, by LeBoeuf and Kaza. The Boxwood Press. 61pp.

       Webber, M.A. and J. Roletto. 1987. Two Recent Occurrences of the
           Guadeloupe Fur Seal, Arctocephalus townsendi, in central
           California. Bull. So. Calif. Acad. Sci. 86:159-163.

       Welden, B.A. 1988. Monterey Bay Contamination Study Plan:
           Preliminary Draft, Version 004. Institute of Marine Sciences,
           Univ. of Calif., Santa Cruz, CA. 55p.

       Whipple, J.A., T. Yocum, D.R. Smart and M. Cohen. 1978. Efects of
           Chronis Concentrations of Petroleum HydrocCarbons on Gonadal
           Maturation in Starry Flounder. Proceedings of Conference on
           Assessment of Ecological Impacts of Oil Spills, Keystone,
           Colorado, A.I.B.S. 1978.






                                         352











     Wilson, D. 1986. Intertidal Invertebrates of North Moss Landing
        Harbor and Gibson's Landing Marsh. Resource Planning &
        Management, Inc., Santa Cruz, CA.

     Yellin, M.B., C.R. Agegian, J.B. Pearse. 1977. Ecological
        Benchmarks in the Santa Cruz County Kelp Forests Before the Re-
        establishments of Sea Otters. Center for Coastal Marine
        Studies, Univ. of Calif., Santa Cruz. Final Report to the U.S.
        Marine Mammal Commission. Contract MM6AC029. Report No. MMC-
        76/04. 125p.















          APPENDICES






































































                                           354












        APPENDIX 1:          DESIGNATION DOCUMENT AND PROPOSED REGULATIONS


































































                                        355












                          PROPOSED DESIGNATION DOCUMENT FOR


                      THE MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY




               Under the authority of Title III of the Marine Protection,

          Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (the "Actil),

          16 U.S.C. H 1431 et secl., Monterey Bay and its surrounding

          waters offshore central California, and the submerged lands under

          Monterey Bay and its surrounding waters, as described in Article

          2, are hereby designated as a National Marine Sanctuary for the

          purposes of protecting and managing the conservation, ecological,

          recreational, research, educational, historical and esthetic

          resources and qualities of the area.



          Article I. Effect of Designation

               The Act authorizes the issuance of such final regulations as

          are necessary and reasonable to implement the designation,

          including managing and protecting the conservation, recreational,

          ecological, historical, research, educational, and esthetic

          resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay National Marine

          Sanctuary. Section 1 of Article IV of this Designation Document

          lists those activities that may have to be regulated on the

          effective date of designation or at some later date in order to

          protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Thus, the act of

          designation will empower the Secretary of Commerce to regulate

          the activities listed in section 1. Listing does not necessarily

          mean that an activity will be regulated; however, if an activity


                                         356









         is not listed it may not be regulated, except on an emergency

         basis, unless section 1 of Article IV is amended by the same

         procedures by which the original designation was made.





         Article II. Description of the Area

             The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary (the "Sanctuary")

         boundaries encompass a total of approximately 2,200 square

         nautical miles (approximately 7,550 square kilometers) of coastal

         and ocean waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, in and

         surrounding Monterey Bay, off the central coast of California.

         The boundary encompasses the coastal and ocean waters over the

         entire Monterey Canyon between the northern boundary of Pescadero

         Marsh, 2.0 nautical miles north of Pescadero Point, and the

         southern boundary of Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park and

         Area of Special Biological Significance, 2.5 nautical miles south

         from Partington Point, and extending from the mean high tide line

         from these sites seaward approximately 18 nautical miles on a

         southwesterly heading of 2400 and joined by an arc with a radius

         of 46 nautical miles drawn from Moss Landing over the entire

         Monterey Canyon complex out to the abyssal plain at 1500 fathoms

         (approximately 3000 meters). The land-side boundary follows the

         mean-high tide level but does not include Santa Cruz, Moss

         Landing, or Monterey Harbors. The precise boundaries are set

         forth in Appendix I to this designation document.




                                        357










          Article III. Characteristics of the Area That Give It Particular


          Value

               The Monterey Bay area is characterized by a combination of

          oceanic conditions and undersea topography that provides for a

          highly productive ecosystem and a wide variety of marine

          habitat. The area is characterized by a narrow continental shelf

          fringed by a variety of coastal types. The Monterey Submarine

          Canyon is unique in its size, configuration, and proximity to

          shore. This submarine canyon, along with adjacent submarine

          canyons, enriches local waters through strong seasonal upwelling,

          modifies currents, and provides habitat for pelagic communities.

          Monterey Bay itself is a rare geological feature, as it is one of

          the few large bays along the Pacific coast.

               The Monterey Bay area has-a highly diverse floral and faunal

          component. Algal diversity is extremely high and the

          concentrations of pinnipeds, whales, otters and some seabird

          species is outstanding. The fish stocks, particularly in

          Monterey Bay, are abundant and the variety of crustaceans and

          other invertebrates is high.

               In addition there are many direct and indirect human uses of

          the area. The most important economic activity directly

          dependent on the resources is commercial fishing, which has

          played an important role in the history of Monterey Bay and

          continues to be of great economic value.

               The diverse resources of the Monterey Bay area are enjoyed

          by the residents of this area as well as the numerous visitors.


                                         358










         The population of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties is rapidly

         expanding and is based in large part on the attractiveness of the

         area's natural beauty. The high water quality and the resulting

         variety of biota and their proximity to shore is one of the prime

         reasons for the international renown of the area as a prime

         tourist location. The quality and abundance of the natural

         resources has attracted man from the earliest prehistoric times

         to the present and as a result the area contains significant

         archaeological and paleontological resources, such as Costanoan

         Indian midden deposits, aboriginal remains and sunken ships and

         aircraft.

              The biological and physical characteristics of the Monterey

         Bay area combine to provide outstanding opportunities for

         scientific research on many aspects of marine ecosystems. The
         diverse habitats are readily accessible to researchers.' six

         major research facilities are found in the area. These

         institutions are exceptional resources with a long history of

         research and large databases possessing a considerable amount  of

         baseline information on the Bay and its resources. Extensive

         marine and coastal education and interpretive efforts complement

         Monterey Bay's many research activities. For example, the

         Monterey Bay Aquarium has attracted millions of visitors who have

         experienced the interpretive exhibits of the marine environment.

         Point Lobos Ecological Reserve, Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine

         Research Reserve, Long Marine Laboratory and Afio Nuevo State




                                        359









         Reserve all have excellent docent programs serving the public,

         and marine related programs for school groups and teachers.



         Article IV. Scope of Regulations

         Section 1. Activities Subject to Regulation

              The following activities are subject to regulation,

         including prohibition, to the extent necessary and reasonable to

         ensure the protection and management of the conservation,

         ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical and

         esthetic resources and qualities of the area:

              a.   Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas or

                   minerals in the Sanctuary;

              b.   Discharging or depositing any material or other

                   substance;

              C.   Possessing, moving, or injuring, or attempting to

                   possess, move, or injure, a Sanctuary historical


                   resource;

              d.   Drilling through, dredging or otherwise altering the

                   seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or

                   abandoning any structure or material on the seabed of

                   the Sanctuary;

              e.   Taking marine mammals in the Sanctuary or seabirds in

                   or above the Sanctuary;

              f.   Flying over the Sanctuary in motorized aircraft at low

                   altitude;





                                        360









             9-   operating commercial (other than fishing) vessels in

                  the Sanctuary; and

             h.   Operating thrill craft (e.g., jet skis, wet bikes, surf

                  jets, hovercraft! speed boats less than 13 feet in

                  length) in the Sanctuary.

         Section 2. Consistency with International Law

             The regulations governing the activities listed in Section 1

         of this Article shall apply to United States-flag vessels and to

         persons who are citizens, nationals or resident aliens of the

         United States and shall apply to foreign-flag vessels and persons

         not citizens, nationals, or resident aliens of the United States

         to the extent consistent with generally recognized principles of

         international law, and in accordance with treaties, conventions,

         and other agreements to which the United States is a party.



         Section 3. Emergencies

             Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of,

         loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or

         minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury,

         any activity, including those not listed in section 1, is subject

         to immediate temporary regulation, including prohibition, in

         accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.




         Article V. Defense or Law Enforcement Activities

             No prohibition set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall

         apply to activities that are necessary for national defense or


                                        361









          law enforcement. Whenever an activity necessary for national

          defense or law enforcement would violate a prohibition set forth

          in the Sanctuary regulations were it not necessary for national

          defense or law enforcement, the head of the agency taking the

          action shall notify the Secretary of Commerce or designate of the

          proposed activity if there is sufficient time to permit

          consultation without jeopardizing national defense or law

          enforcement. Such notification shall be sufficiently in advance

          of undertaking the activity in order to permit consultations as

          to how the activity could be conducted to minimize any adverse

          impact on Sanctuary resources and qualities without compromising

          national defense or law enforcement. Activities that are not

          necessary for national defense or law enforcement, such as

          training exercises and routine vessel operations, are subject to

          all prohibitions contained in the Sanctuary regulations.



          Article VI. Effect on Other Regulations, Leases, Permits,
               Licenses, and Rights

          Section 1. Fishing Regulations, Licenses, and Permits

               Fishing in the Sanctuary, including fishing for shellfish

          and invertebrates and mariculture, shall not be regulated as part

          of"the Sanctuary management regime authorized by the Act.

          However, fishing in the Sanctuary may be regulated other than

          under the Act by Federal and State authorities of competent

          jurisdiction, and designation of the Sanctuary shall have no

          effect on any regulation, permit, or license issued thereunder,



                                         362









        e.g., regulations promulgated under the California Fish and Game

        Code and regulations implementing Fishery Management Plans

        promulgated under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

        Management Act, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1801 et geg. Notwithstanding the

        above, discharges and deposits from fishing vessels may be

        regulated pursuant to Article IV, section 1, paragraph (b);

        drilling through, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of

        the Sanctuary or constructing, placing or abandoning any

        structure or material on the seabed of the Sanctuary in

        connection with fishing and mariculture activities may be

        regulated pursuant to Article IV, section 1, paragraph (d); and

        taking of marine mammals and seabirds may be regulated pursuant

        to Article IV, section 1, paragraph (e).

        Section 2. other

             If any valid regulation issued by any Federal, State, or

        local authority of competent jurisdiction, regardless of when

        issued, conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the regulation

        more protective of Sanctuary resources and qualities shall


        govern.

             Pursuant to section 304(c)(1) of the Act, 16 U.S.C.

        ï¿½ 1434(c)(1), no valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other

        authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of

        competent jurisdiction, or any right of subsistence use or

        access, may be terminated by the Secretary of Commerce or his or

        her designate as a result of this designation or as a result of

        any Sanctuary regulation if such lease, permit, license,


                                       363









          approval, other authorization, or right of use or access was

          issued or in existence as of the effective date of this

          designation. The Secretary of Commerce or his or her designate,

          however may regulate the exercise of such authorization or right

          consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is

          designated.

               The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations

          shall not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit,

          license, approval, or other authorization issued as of the

          effective date of Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or

          local authority of competent jurisdiction, or to any right of

          subsistence use or access in existence as of the effective date

          of Sanctuary designation, provided that the owner or holder of

          such authorization or right notifies the Secretary or his or her

          designate of the existence of such authorization or right and

          requests certification in accordance with the Sanctuary regula-

          tions, if the exercise of such authorization or right would

          otherwise violate a prohibition set forth in the Sanctuary

          regulations, and complies with any terms and conditions on the

          exercise of such authorization or right imposed by the Secretary

          or his or her designate as he or she deems necessary to achieve

          the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. Pending the

          imposition of terms and conditions by the Secretary or his or her

          designate, such owner or holder may exercise any such

          authorization or right without being in violation of any

          prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations.


                                         364









             The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations

        shall not apply to any activity authorized by any lease, permit,

        license, approval or other authorization issued after the

        effective date of Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or

        local authority of competent jurisdiction, if the Secretary or

        his or her designate was notified of the application for such

        authorization by the applicant in accordance with the Sanctuary

        regulations and the Secretary or his or her designate did not

        object to the issuance of such authorization, and such

        authorization contains, and the owner or holder complies with,

        such terms and conditions as the Secretary or his or her

        designate deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and

        qualities.

             The prohibitions set forth in the Sanctuary regulations

        shall not apply to any activity authorized by a permit issued by

        the Secretary or his or her designate in accordance with the

        Sanctuary regulations. Such permits shall only be issued if the

        Secretary or his or her designate finds that the activity for

        which the permit is applied will: further research related to

        Sanctuary resources; further the educational, natural or

        historical resource value of the Sanctuary; further salvage or

        recovery operations in or near the Sanctuary in connection with a

        recent air or marine casualty; assist in managing the Sanctuary;

        have only negligible, short-term adverse effects on Sanctuary

        resources and qualities; or further salvage or recovery




                                        365









          operations in connection with an abandoned shipwreck in the

          Sanctuary title to which is held by the State of California.

               In addition, the Secretary or his or her designate may issue

          special use permits in accordance with section 310 of the Act.

               If the Sanctuary regulations prohibit oil, gas, or mineral

          exploration, development, or production, the Secretary or his or

          her designate may in no event permit or otherwise approve such

          activities in the Sanctuary, and any leases, licenses, permits,

          approvals, or other authorizations issued after the effective

          date of Sanctuary designation authorizing the exploration,

          development, or production of oil, gas or minerals in the

          Sanctuary shall be invalid.

          Article VII. Alteration of this Designation

               The terms of designation may be modified only by the same

          procedures by which the original designation is made, including

          public hearings, consultation with interested Federal, State

          regional, and local agencies, review by the appropriate

          Congressional committees and Governor of the State of California,

          and approval by the Secretary of Commerce or his or her

          designate.

          Appendix I. Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

          Boundary Coordinates.

               (Appendix I will set forth the precise boundaries based on

          the comments received on the DEIS).




                        END OF PROPOSED DESIGNATION DOCUMENT



                                         366









         Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, 15 CFR is proposed

         to be amended by adding a new Part 944 as follows:

         PART 944   MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY


         Sec.


         944.1      Purpose.

         944.2      Boundaries.


         944.3      Definitions.


         944.4      Allowed activities.

         944.5      Prohibited activities.

         944.6      Emergency regulations.

         944.7      Penalties.

         944.8      National Marine Sanctuary permits     application

                    procedures and issuance criteria.

         944.9      Certification of leases, licenses, permits, approvals,

                    other authorizations, or rights to conduct a prohibited

                    activity issued or in existence as of the effective

                    date of Sanctuary designation.

         944.10     Notification of applications for leases, licenses,

                    permits, approvals, or other authorizations to conduct

                    a prohibited activity.

         944.11     Appeals of administrative action.



         Authority: Sections 302, 303, 304, 305, 307 and 310 of Title III

         of the Marine Protection,, Researchl and Sanctuaries Act of 1972,

         as amended, 16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1431 et seq.





                                          367










          ï¿½ 944.1 Purpose.

               The purpose of the regulations in this Part is to implement

          the designation of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary by

          regulating activities affecting the Sanctuary consistent with the

          terms of that designation in order to protect and manage the

          conservation, ecological, recreational, research, educational,

          historical and esthetic resources and qualities of the area.



          ï¿½ 944.2 Boundaries.

               The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary consists of an

          area of approximately 2,200 square nautical miles of coastal and

          ocean waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, in and

          surrounding Monterey Bay, off the central coast of California.

          The boundary encompasses the coastal and ocean waters over the

          entire Monterey Canyon between the northern boundary of Pescadero

          Marsh, 2.0 nautical miles north of Pescadero Point, and the

          southern boundary of Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park and

          Area of Special Biological Significance, 2.5 nautical miles south

          from Partington Point, and extending from the mean high tide line

          from these sites seaward approximately 18 nautical miles on a

          southwesterly heading of 240* and joined by an arc with a radius

          of 46 nautical miles drawn from Moss Landing over the entire

          Monterey Canyon complex out to the abyssal plain at 1500 fathoms

          (approximately 3000 meters). The Monterey Bay National Marine

          Sanctuary does not include Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, or Monterey




                                         368









        Harbors. The precise boundaries of the Sanctuary appear in

        Appendix I following section 944.11.



        ï¿½ 944.3 Definitions.

             (A) "Act" means Title III of the Marine Protection,

        Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C.

        ï¿½ï¿½ 1431 et sea.).

             (B) "Administrator" or "Under Secretary" means the

        Administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

        Administration/Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and

        Atmosphere.

             (C) "Assistant Administrator" means the Assistant Admini-

        strator for Ocean Services and Coastal Zone Management, National

        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

             (D) "Director" means the Director of the Office of Ocean

        and Coastal Resource Management, National Oceanic and Atmospheric

        Administration.

             (E) "Commercial vessel" means any vessel engag ed in the

        trade of carrying cargo, including but not limited to tankers and

        other bulk carriers and barges; vessels used in seismic surveys;

        and vessels engaged in the trade of servicing offshore

        installations.

             (F) "Effective date of Sanctuary designation" means the

        date the regulations implementing the designation of the

        Sanctuary become effective.




                                       369









               (G) "Historical resource" means a resource possessing

          historical, cultural,,archaeological or paleontological signifi-

          cance, including sites, structures, districts, and objects sig-

          nificantly associated with or representative of earlier people,

          cultures, and human activities and events.

               (H) "Injure" means to change adversely, either in the long-

           or short-term, a chemical or physical attribute of, or the

          viability of.

               (I) "Person" means any private individual, partnership,

          corporation, or other entity; or any officer, employee, agent,

          department, agency, or instrumentality of the Federal Government

          or any State or local unit of government, or any foreign govern-

          ment.


               (J) "Sanctuary" means the Monterey Bay National Marine

          Sanctuary.

               (K) "Sanctuary quality" means a particular and essential

          characteristic of the Sanctuary, including but not limited to

          water quality and air quality.

               (L) "Sanctuary resource" means any living or nonliving

          resource of the Sanctuary that contributes to its conservationt

          recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational or

          aesthetic value, including, but not limited to, the substratum of

          the Bay, corals and coralline algae, benthic invertebrates and

          algae, plankton, fish, birds, marine mammals and historical


          resources.







                                         370









             (M) "Taking any marine mammal or seabird" means harassing,

        hunting, capturing, collecting, or killing, or attempting to

        harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill, any marine mammal or

        seabird, including, but not limited to, any of the following:

        collecting dead marine mammals or seabirds,  or parts thereof,

        restraining or detaining any marine mammal or seabird, no matter

        how temporary, tagging a marine mammal or seabird, operating an

        aircraft or vessel or doing any other act that result in the

        disturbing or molesting of marine mammals or seabirds.

             (N) "Thrill craft" means any motorized vessel that is

        generally less than thirteen feet in length as manufactured, is

        capable of exceeding a speed of twenty miles per hour, and has

        the capacity to carry not more than the operator and one other

        person while in operation. The term includes but is not limited

        to jet skis, wet bikes, surf jets, miniature speed boats, and

        hovercraft.

             (0) "Vessel" means watercraft of any description capable of

        being used as a means of transportation in the waters of the

        Sanctuary.

             Other terms appearing in the regulations are defined at

        15 C.F.R. ï¿½ 922.2 or in the Act.



        ï¿½ 944.4 Allowed activities.

             All activities except those prohibited by section 944.5 may

        be undertaken subject to any emergency regulation promulgated

        pursuant to section 944.6 and all prohibitions, restrictions, and


                                        371









          conditions validly imposed by any other authority of competent

          jurisdiction. If any valid regulation issued by any Federal,

          State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction, regardless

          of when issued, conflicts with a Sanctuary regulation, the

          regulation more protective of Sanctuary resources and Sanctuary

          qualities shall govern.



          ï¿½ 944.5 Prohibited activities.

                (a) Except as specified in paragraphs (c) through (i) below,

          the following activities are prohibited and thus unlawful for any

          person to conduct or cause to be conducted:

                (1) Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas or

                minerals in the Sanctuary,-

                (2) Discharging or depositing, from within the boundaries

                of the Sanctuary, any material or other substance except:

                     (i) fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used

                     in or resulting from normal fishing operations in the

                     Sanctuary;

                     (ii) biodegradable effluents incidental to vessel use

                     generated by marine sanitation devices approved by the

                     U.S. Coast Guard;

                     (iii) water generated by routine vessel operations

                     (e.g., cooling water and deck washdown) excluding bilge

                     pumping; or

                     (iv) engine exhaust.




                                          372









             (3) Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries

             of the Sanctuary, materials or other substances, other than

             those listed in (2)(i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) above, that

             subsequently enter the Sanctuary and injure a Sanctuary

             resource or Sanctuary quality.

             (4) Moving, possessing or injuring, or attempting to move,

             possess, or injure, a Sanctuary historical resource. This

             prohibition does not apply to accidental moving, possession

             or injury during normal fishing operations.

             (5) Drilling through, dredging or otherwise altering the

             seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing or

             abandoning any structure or material on the seabed of the

             Sanctuary. This prohibition does not apply if any of the

             above results from: anchoring vessels; normal fishing

             operations; routine harbor maintenance; installation of

             navigation aids; maintenance of mariculture operations

             existing as of the effective date of these regulations; and

             the construction of docks and piers.

             (6) Taking any marine mammal or seabird in or above the

             Sanctuary, except in accordance with and as permitted by

             regulations promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection

             Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA).

             (7) Flying motorized aircraft at less than 1000 feet above

             the Sanctuary within three nautical miles of State of

             California designated reserves, parks, beaches or refuges,

             or the Los Padres National Forest.



                                       373









                 (b) The prohibitions in paragraph (a) apply to United

           States-flag vessels and to persons who are citizens, nationals or

           resident aliens of the United States; and to foreign-flag vessels

           and persons not citizens, nationals, or resident aliens of the

           United States to the extent consistent with generally recognized

           principles of international law, and in accordance with treaties,

           conventions, and other agreements to which the United States is a

           party.

                 (c) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(7) do not apply

           to any activity necessary to respond to an emergency threatening

           life, property, or the environment.

                 (d) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(7) do not apply

           to activities that are necessary for national defense or law

           enforcement. Whenever an activity necessary for national defense

           or law enforcement would violate a prohibition set forth in the

           Sanctuary regulations were it not necessary for national defense

           or law enforcement, the head of the agency taking the action

           shall notify the Secretary of Commerce or designate of the

           proposed activity if there is sufficient time to permit

           consultation without jeopardizing national defense or law

           enforcement. Such notification shall be sufficiently in advance

           of undertaking the activity in order to permit consultations as

           to how the activity could be conducted to minimize any adverse

           impact on Sanctuary resources and qualities without compromising

           national defense or law enforcement. Activities that are not

           necessary for national defense or law enforcement, such as


                                            374









       training exercises and routine vessel operations, are subject to

       all prohibitions contained in the Sanctuary regulations.

            (e) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(7) do not apply

       to any activity authorized by a permit issued pursuant to section

       944.8 of these implementing regulations.

            (f) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(7) do not apply

       to any activity authorized by a valid lease, permit, license, ap-

       proval, or other authorization issued as of the effective date of

       Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or local authority

       of competent jurisdiction, or by any valid right of subsistence

       use or access in existence as of the effective date of Sanctuary

       designation, provided that the owner or holder of such

       authorization or right notifies the Director of the existence of

       such authorization or right in accordance with the requirements

       of section 944.9 of these regulations and requests certification

       of such authorization or right, and provided that the owner or

       holder complies with any terms and conditions on the exercise of

       such authorization or right imposed by the Director as he or she

       deems necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary

       was designated.

            (g) The prohibitions in paragraph (a)(2)-(7) do not apply

       to any activity authorized by any lease, permit, license,

       approval, or other authorization issued after the effective date

       of Sanctuary designation, if the Director was notified of the

       application for such authorization by the applicant in accordance

       with the requirements of section 944.10 of these implementing


                                      375









           regulations and the Director did not object to the issuance of

           such authorization, and such authorization contains, and the

           owner or holder complies with, such terms and conditions as the

           Director deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and

           Sanctuary qualities.

                (h) Notwithstanding paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) above, in

           no event may the Director issue a National Marine Sanctuary

           permit authorizing, or otherwise approve, the exploration for,

           development or production of oil, gas or minerals in the

           Sanctuary, and any leases, licenses, permits, approvals, or other

           authorizations authorizing the exploration, development, or

           production of oil, gas or minerals in the Sanctuary issued after

           the effective date of Sanctuary designation shall be invalid.



           ï¿½ 944.6 Emergency regulations.

                Where necessary to prevent or minimize the destruction of,

           loss of, or injury to a Sanctuary resource or quality, or

           minimize the imminent risk of such destruction, loss or injury,

           any and all activities are subject to immediate temporary

           regulation, including prohibition, in accordance with the

           Administrative Procedure Act.




             944.7 Penalties for commission of prohibited acts.

                (a) Each violation of the Act, any regulation in this Part,

          .or any permit issued pursuant thereto, is subject to a civil




                                          376









        penalty of not more than $50,000. Each day of a continuing

        violation constitutes a separate violation.

             (b) Regulations setting forth the administrative procedures

        governing the assessment of civil penalties, enforcement hearings

        and appeals, permit sanctions and denials for enforcement

        reasons, and the issuance of written warnings are governed by

        15 CFR Part 904.




        ï¿½ 944.8 National Marine Sanctuary permits    application

        procedures and issuance criteria.

             (a) A person may conduct an activity otherwise prohibited

        by section 944.5(a)(2)-(7) if authorized by a permit issued under

        this section.

             (b) Applications for such permits should be addressed to

        the Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource

        Management; ATTN: Marine and Estuarine Management Division,

        Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean

        Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1825

        Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235. An

        application must include a detailed description of the proposed

        activity including a timetable for completion of the activity and

        the equipment, personnel, and methodology to be employed. The

        qualifications and experience of all personnel must be set forth.

        The application must set forth the anticipated effects of the

        activity, if any, on Sanctuary resources and Sanctuary qualities.




                                       377









          Copies of all other required licenses, permits, approvals, or

          other authorizations must be attached.

               (c) Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director or

          designate, at his or her discretion, may request such additional

          information from the applicant as he or she deems necessary to

          act on the application, may seek the views of any persons and may

          hold a public hearing-

               (d) The Director, at his or her discretion, may issue a

          permit, subject to such terms and conditions as he or she deems

          appropriate, to conduct an activity otherwise prohibited by

          section 944.5(a)(2)-(7), if the Director finds that.the activity

          will: further research related to Sanctuary resources; further

          the educational, natural or historical resource value of the

          Sanctuary; further salvage or recovery operations in or near the

          Sanctuary in connection with a recent air or marine casualty;

          assist in managing the Sanctuary; have only negligible, short-

          term adverse effects on Sanctuary resources and Sanctuary

          qualities; or further salvage or recovery operations in

          connection with an abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary title to.

          which is held by the State of California. In deciding whether to

          issue a permit, the Director may consider such factors as: the

          professional qualifications and financial ability of the app  li-

          cant as related to the proposed activity; the duration of the

          activity and its effects, the appropriateness of the methods and

          procedures proposed by the applicant for the conduct of the

          activity; the extent to which the conduct of the activity may


                                         378










        diminish or enhance the qualities for which the Sanctuary was

        designated; the end value of the applicant's activity; and such

        other matters as the Director deems appropriate.

             (e) A permit issued pursuant to this section is

        nontransferable.

             (f) The Director may amend, suspend or revoke a permit

        issued pursuant to this section or deny a permit application

        pursuant to this section, in whole or in part, for good cause.

        Any such action shall be communicated in writing to the permittee

        or applicant and shall set forth the reason(s) for the action

        taken. Procedures governing permit sanctions and denials for

        enforcement reasons are governed by Subpart D of 15 CFR Part 904.

             (g) It shall be a condition of any permit issued that the

        permit or a copy thereof be displayed on board all vessels or

        aircraft used in the conduct of the activity.

             (h) It may be a condition of any permit issued that any

        data or other information obtained under the permit be made

        available to the public.



        ï¿½ 944.9 Certification of leases, licenses, permits, approvals,

        other authorizations, or rights to conduct a prohibited activity

        issued or in existence as of the effective date of Sanctuary

        designation.

             (a) The prohibitions in section 944(a)(2)-(7) do not apply

        to any activity authorized by a valid lease, permit, license,

        approval or other authorization issued as of the effective date


                                       379









           of Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or local

           authority of competent jurisdiction, or by any valid right of

           subsistence use or access in existence as of the effective date

           of Sanctuary designation, provided that the owner or holder of

           such authorization or right notifies the Director, in writing,

           within 90 days of the effective date of Sanctuary designation, of

           the existence of such authorization or right, and simultaneously

           requests certification of such authorization or right, and

           provided that the owner or holder complies with any terms and

           conditions on the exercise of such authorization or right

           imposed, as a condition of certification, by the Director as

           necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was

           designated.

                (b) The owner or holder of a valid lease, permit, license,

           approval or other authorization issued as of the effective date

           of Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or local

           authority of competent jurisdiction, or of any valid right of

           subsistence use or access in existence as of the effective date

           of Sanctuary designation, authorizing an activity otherwise

           prohibited by section 944.5(a)(2)-(7) may conduct the activity

           without being in violation of section 944.5(a)(2)-(7) pending

           final agency action on a timely certification request.

                (c) Requests for certifications should be addressed to the

           Director, Office of OCean and Coastal Resource Management; ATTN:

           Marine and Estuarine Management Division, Office of ocean and

           Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean Service, National


                                          380









        Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1825 Connecticut Avenue,

        N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235. A copy of the lease, permit,

        license, approval or other authorization must accompany the

        request.

             (d) After receipt of a request for certification, the

        Director may either issue a decision within 120 days of receipt

        of the request or, within 30 days of receipt of the request for

        certification, request additional information from the applicant

        as he or she deems necessary to condition appropriately the

        exercise of the certified authorization or right to achieve the

        purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. The applicant

        then has 30 days to supply the requested information. Failure to

        supply the requested information within 30 days shall cause the

        applicant to be immediately subject to the prohibitions in

        section 944.5(a)(2)-(7). The Director, in his or her discretion,

        may seek the views of any persons on the certification request.

        The Director, at his or her discretion, will then issue a

        decision within 120 days of receipt of the requested information

        or may, within 60 days of receipt of the requested information,

        issue a notice in the Federal Register of the intent to hold a

        public hearing. The public hearing will then be held within 30

        days of the publication of the notice in the Federal Register.

        The Director will then have 60 days to make a decision from the

        close of the public hearing, if any. As a condition of

        certification, the Director may impose such terms and conditions

        on the exercise of such authorization or right as he or she deems


                                       381









          necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was

          designated.

                (e) Any certification called for in this section shall be

          presumed without the imposition of conditions or terms unless the

          Director acts on the certification request within 120 days of

          receipt thereof or, if the Director has requested additional

          information, within 120 days of receipt thereof, or 60 days from

          the close of any public hearing held.

                (f) The Director may amend, suspend, or revoke any

          certification made under this section whenever the continued

          conduct of the activity would violate any terms or conditions of

          the certification. Any such action shall be communicated in

          writing to both the holder of the certified lease, permit,

          license, approval, or other authorization and the issuing ag ency

          and shall set forth the reason(s) for the action taken.

                (g) Either the holder, owner or the issuing agency may

          appeal any action conditioning, amending, suspending, or revoking

          any certification in accordance with the procedure provided for

          in section 944.11.

                (h) Any amendment, renewal or extension not in existence as

          of the date of Sanctuary designation of a lease, permit, license,

          approval, other authorization or right shall be subject to the

          provisions of section 944.10.








                                          382










        ï¿½ 944.10 Notification of applications for leases, licenses,

        permits, approvals, or other authorizations to conduct a prohibi-

        ted activity.

             (a) The prohibitions set forth in section 944(a)(2)-(7) do

        not apply to any activity authorized by any valid lease, permit,

        license, approval or other authorization issued after the

        effective date of Sanctuary designation by any Federal, State, or

        local authority of competent jurisdiction, provided that the

        Director is notified of the application for such authorization

        within fifteen days of the date of application or of the

        effective date of Sanctuary designation, whichever is later, and

        that the Director or designate does not object to the issuance of

        such authorization and that such authorization contains, and the

        owner or holder complies with, such terms and conditions as the

        Director deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and

        Sanctuary qualities.

             (b) Any person applying for a lease, permit, license,

        approval or other authorization from any Federal, State, or local

        authority to conduct an activity that would be prohibited under

        section 944.5(a)(2)-(7) must notify the Director in writing,

        within 15 days of the date of application or of the effective

        date of Sanctuary designation, whichever is later, of the filing

        of the application. Any applicant may request the Director to

        issue a finding as to whether an activity for which an

        application to any Federal, State, or local authority of

        competent jurisdiction for a lease, permit, license, approval, or


                                       383










          other authorization is proposed to be made or has been made would

          be prohibited by section 944.5(a)(2)-(7) unless the Director is

          notified and does not object to issuance.

                (c) Notification of the filing of an application must be

          addressed to the Director, Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource

          Management; ATTN: Marine and Estuarine Management Division,

          Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, National Ocean

          Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1825

          Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20235. A copy of the

          application must accompany the notification.

               (d) Upon receipt of a notification, the Director may

          request such additional information from the applicant as he or

          she deems necessary to determine whether to object to issuance of

          such lease, license, permit, approval, or other authorization, or

          what terms and conditions such authorization must contain in

          order to protect Sanctuary resources and Sanctuary qualities.

          The Director, in his or her discretion, may seek the views of any

          persons and hold a public hearing on the application.

               fe) The Director shall notify the agency to which

          application has been made within the time period allowed for

          comment on the application of whether he or she has an objection

          to issuance or what terms and conditions he or she determines

          such lease, license, permit, approval, or other authorization

          must contain in order to protect Sanctuary resources and

          Sanctuary qualities.




                                         384









             (f) If the Director fails to notify the agency to which

         application has been made within the time period allowed by that

         agency for comment on the application of his or her objection to

         issuance or of the terms and conditions he or she has determined

         such lease, license, permit, approval, other authorization or

         right must contain, then his or her concurrence to issuance

         without terms or conditions to protect Sanctuary resources and

         Sanctuary qualities shall be presumed.

              (g) The applicant may appeal any objection by, or terms or

         conditions imposed by, the Director to the Assistant

         Administrator or designate in accordance with the procedure set

         forth in section 944.11.




         ï¿½ 944.11 Appeals of administrative action.

              (a) Except for permit actions taken for enforcement reasons

         (see Subpart D of 15 CFR Part 904 for applicable procedures),, an

         applicant for a section 944.8 permit, a section 944.8 permittee,

         a section 944.9 certification requester, or a section 944.10

         applicant (hereinafter appellant) may appeal to the Assistant

         Administrator or designate: 1) the gra nt, conditioning,

         amendment, denial, suspension or revocation of a National Marine

         Sanctuary permit by the Director under section 944.8; 2) the

         conditioning, amendment, or revocation of a certification under

         section 944.9; or 3) the objection to issuance or the imposition

         of terms and conditions under section 944.10. Such appeal must

         be in writing, state the action(s) appealed and the reason(s)


                                        385








          therefor, and be received within 30 days of the action(s) by the

          Director. Appeals must be addressed to the Assistant

          Administrator, National Ocean Service; ATTN: Marine and

          Estuarine Management Division, office of Ocean and Coastal

          Resource Management, National Ocean Service, NationalOceanic and

          Atmospheric Administration, 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.,

          Washington, D.C. 20235.

               While the appeal is pending appellants requesting

          certification pursuant to and otherwise in adherence with section

          944.9 may continue to conduct their activities without being in

          violation of the prohibitions in section 944.5(a)(2)-(7). All

          other appellants may not conduct their activities without being

          subject to the prohibitions in section 944.5(a)(2)-(7).

               (b) Within 30 days of receipt of an appeal, the Assistant

          Administrator or his or her designate may request the appellant

          or any person to submit such information as the Assistant

          Administrator or his or her designate deems necessary in order

          for him or her to decide the appeal. The appellant shall then

          have 30 days from receipt of the request for additional

          information from the Assistant Administrator or his or her

          designate to supply the additional information. The Assistant

          Administrator or his or her designate, at his or her discretion,

          may hold an informal hearing on the appeal. If the Assistant

          Administrator or his or her designate determines that an informal

          hearing should be held, he or she may designate an officer before

          whom the hearing shall be held. Notice of the time, place, and


                                         386









        subject matter of the hearing shall be published in the Federal

        Register within 120 days of receipt of the appeal. Such hearing

        shall be held no later than 30 days following publication of the

        notice in the Federal Register, unless the hearing officer

        extends the time for reasons he or she deems equitable. The

        appellant and the Director may appear personally or.by counsel at

        the hearing and submit such material and present such arguments

        as deemed appropriate by the hearing officer. Within 60 days

        after the record for the hearing closes, the hearing officer

        shall recommend a decision in writing to the Assistant

        Administrator or his or her designate.

             (c) The Assistant Administrator or his or her designate

        shall decide the appeal based on the record before the Director

        and the record of the appeal. If a hearing has been held before

        a hearing officer, the Assistant Administrator or his or her

        designate may adopt the hearing officer's recommended decision,

        in whole or in part, or reject or modify it. In any event, if a

        hearing is held, the Assistant Administrator or his or her

        designate shall notify the appellant and other interested persons

        of his or her decision and the reason(s) therefor in writing

        within 60 days of receipt of the recommended decision of the

        hearing officer. If an informal hearing is not held, the

        Assistant Administrator or his or her designate shall notify.the

        appellant and other interested persons of the final decision and

        the reason(s) therefor in writing, normally within 60 days of the

        date of the receipt of adequate information to make the decision.


                                       387









          The Assistant Administrator's or his or her designate's decision

          shall constitute final agency action for the purposes of the

          Administrative Procedure Act.

               (d) Any time limit prescribed in this section may be

          extended by the Assistant Administrator or his or her designate

          for good cause for a period not to exceed 30 days, either upon

          his or her own initiative or upon written request from the

          appellant stating the reason(s) therefor.




































                                         388








        Appendix I. Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

        Boundary Coordinates.



        (Appendix I will set forth the precise boundaries based on the

        comments received on the DEIS/MP).










































                                       389














         APPENDIX 2:    STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES APPLICABLE TO THE
                        MONTEREY BAY AREA



































































                                         390












        State and Federal Authorities Applicable to the Monterey Bay Area

        Introduction


        Presented below is an overview of the various State and Federal

        management authorities which have statutory responsibility for

        protecting marine resources in the proposed Monterey Bay National

        Marine Sanctuary study area (See Table 14 for a Summary). This

        discussion includes a description of relevant legislative mandates

        as well as administrative measures taken to accomplish them.



        State Authorities




        The State's jurisdiction in the area under consideration extends

        3nm (5.6 km) offshore from the mean high tide line. State

        authorities range in approach and scope from broad regional

        management programs such as the California Coastal Act to laws

        intended to control specific threats or protect specific resources.

        The authorities with broad jurisdiction are described first,

        followed by those addressing a specific threat or resource,

        respectively.



        The California Coastal Act of 1976 Nal. Pub. Res. Code 30000 et


        sea. 1

        The California Coastal Act of 1976 (the CCA) is the foundation of

        the California Coastal Management Program. It establishes a

        comprehensive set of specific policies for the protection of


                                        391









         coastal resources and the management of orderly economic

         development throughout the coastal zone. The CCA defines the

         coastal zone as the land and water area of the State, extending

         seaward to the outer limit of the State's jurisdiction (3.0 nm or

         5.6 km), including all offshore islands), and extending inland

         generally 1,000 yards from the mean tide line. In significant

         coastal, estuarine, habitat, and recreational area, it extends

         inland to the first major ridge line or 5nm (8km) from the mean

         high tide, whichever is less.



         Activities in State waters must comply with the policies

         established by the CCA. In addition, seaward of state jurisdiction

         Federal activities directly affecting the coastal zone must be

         conducted in a manner which is consistent with these policies to

         the maximum extent practicable and activities which require a

         federal license or permit must be conducted in a manner consistent

         with these policies.(16 U.S.C. ï¿½ 1456)



         Provisions of the CCA which address activities or concerns relevant

         to the consideration of a marine sanctuary include:

             1)   Article 4, Section 30230 granting "special protection to"

                  areas and species of special biological or economic

                  significance and requiring uses of the marine environment

                  to be carried out so as to maintain biological

                  productivity.

             2)   Article 4, Section 30233 limiting dredging and filling in


                                         392










                 coastal waters to situations where "there is no feasible

                 less environmentally damaging alternative" and the

                 activities are related to specific listed purposes.

            3)   Article 5, Section 30240 protecting sensitive habitat

                 areas against "any significant disruption of habitat

                 values" and against impacts from adjacent development

                 which would "significantly degrade" the area.

            4)   Article 7, Section 30262, regulating oil and gas

                 development.

       The CCA establishes the State Coastal Commission to implement the

       Act, granting it permit authority until such time as local

       governments adopt local plans approved by the Commission. In

       marine areas the Commission will continue to be the State

       permitting agency and be responsible for reviewing consistency for

       Federal activities and Federally licensed activities including OCS

       activities, which are of particular importance to the area under

       consideration. Local governments with jurisdiction over areas

       affected by OCS activity are invited by the CCC to participate in

       the public hearing process, and CCC deliberations, and to present

       determinations of whether OCS activity is consistent with the local

       coastal plan. Local coastal plans are presently being prepared

       throughout the study area. Most of the counties and cities within

       the study area have fully certified local coastal plans. These

       include San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, and Santa

       Cruz, Capitola, Watsonville, Marina, and Sand City. Communities

       still requiring certification for portions of their plans include


                                        393









         Seaside, Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel.



         Water Ouality Control Act (California Water Code ï¿½13300 et seq.)

         The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act is designed to enhance

         and maintain water quality in State waters, including ocean waters,

         under the jurisdiction of the state. The State Water Resource

         Control Board and the nine regional water quality control boards

         have primary authority for regulating water quality in California.



         The Water Quality Control Plan for Oceans Waters of California

         (1978), which set standards for water quality characteristics for

         ocean waters within state jurisdiction, places particular emphasis

         on maintaining water quality in Areas of Special Biological

         Significance (ASBSs). To be classified as an ASBS, an area of

         ocean water must be considered to contain biological communities of

         such extraordinary value that no risk of change in their

         environments resulting from man's activities is considered

         acceptable (California Water Resources Control Board, 1976).

         Wastes must be discharged a sufficient distance from designated

         ASBSs to ensure that natural water quality conditions within the

         area are maintained. This is accomplished (i.e., administered) by

         Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) which, via a permit

         procedure, set waste discharge restrictions upon:

              a)   elevated temperature wastes;

             b)    discrete, point source or industrial process wastes; and

              C)   non-point source wastes such as, but not limited to,


                                         394









                 storm water runoff, silt, and urban runoff.

        ASBS designations have no impact on vessel wastes, dredging

        control, or dredge spoil deposition because the California Ocean

        Plan, of which ASBSs are a part, is not applicable to those

        activities. To facilitate early containment of an oil spill, the

        CCC has required one lease holder (Exxon, for exploratory drilling

        on certain tracts in the Santa Barbara Channel) to have certain

        minimum oil spill containment and cleanup equipment on drillships

        or at the site at all times, e.g.,: 1) 1500 feet of open ocean

        containment boom and a boat capable of deploying the boom, 2) one

        oil skimming device capable of open use, and 3) fifteen bales of

        oil sorbent material. Also, the CCC has determined that, for

        reasons of navigation safety and environmental protection, the

        placement of drillships in or within 500 meters of sea lanes

        established by the U.S. Coast Guard is inconsistent with the

        Coastal Plan.




        With regard to public trust lands, i.e. State tidelands and

        submerged lands, a significant role is also played by the State

        Lands Commission (SLC). Prior to certification, the SLC may review

        and comment on any aspect of a proposed Local Coastal Plan that

        could affect State lands (Cal. Pub. Res. Code ï¿½ 30415). In

        addition, as the State agency with sole responsibility for

        administering the trust, the SLC has adopted regulations for the

        protection and use of public trust lands in the coastal zone.




                                        395









         The CCA also requires that diking, filling or dredging in open

         coastal waters,, wetlands, or estuaries shall be permitted only for

         certain listed purposes, and only where there is no feasible less

         environmentally damaging alternative, and where mitigation measures

         have been provided (California Coastal Act ï¿½30233). Finally the

         CCA requires the CCC to designate "Sensitive Coastal Resource

         Areas", which must then be acted upon by the Legislature within two

         years.




         State Refuges and Reserves



         Several refuges and reserves for the protection of marine life have

         been established in the proposed sanctuary area by the California

         Department of Fish and Game (see Table 10). These areas fall into

         five general categories (ecological reserves, marine life refuges,

         fish refuges, game refuges, and reserves) providing different types

         of protection to the resources found there. The general authority

         exercised by the Department of Fish and Game within each category

         and within specific refuges or reserves in the study area is as

         follows:




         -Ecological Reserves (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½ 1580 et.

         sea.) of the categories of refuges and reserves administered by

         the Department of Fish and Game, ecological reserves provide the

         most comprehensive protection. Within these ecological reserves,

         the California Department of Fish and Game has the authority to


                                          396









        prohibit any activity which may harm the resources, including:

        fishing, collecting, swimming, boating, low-flying aircraft, and

        public entry (14 California Administrative Code ï¿½ 630 (a)).

        General regulations provide that "no person shall disturb

        geological reserves, formations or archaeological artifacts or take

        or disturb any bird or nest, or eggs thereof, or any plant, mammal,

        fish, mollusk, crustacean.,..or any other form of plant or animal

        life in an ecological reserve" (14 California Administrative Code

        ï¿½630(a)(1)). These prohibited activities may, however, be

        permitted by the Department of Fish and Game in particular reserves

        or in certain areas of particular concern pursuant to specific

        regulations.



        -Point Lobos Ecological Reserve (14 California Administrative Code

        ï¿½ 630 (b)(13))

        The Point Lobos Ecological Reserve includes Point Lobos and

        adjacent ocean waters. Both Point Lobos and Carmel Bay are

        protected due to the fragility of the prevalent rocky tidepools.

        The areas are also heavily used by marine mammals and birds. Point

        Lobos is a favored roosting area for the endangered Brown Pelican

        (Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, 1978).



        Efforts to protect the resources of Point Lobos reserves, including

        750 acres (300 hectares) of underwater area, have been initiated by

        the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR). Because

        DPR lacks authority to prohibit fishing, however, the area was


                                        397









         est ablished as an ecological reserve rather than park. The reserve

         is managed primarily by DPR, which maintains a large, on-site

         staff, with DFG contributing as needed to enforcement efforts. All

         fishing is prohibited within the reserve. Swimming, boating and

         other aquatic sports are permitted. Boats, however, may be

         launched and retrieved only in designated areas and may be anchored

         only during daylight hours.



         --Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve (14 California Administrative Code

         ï¿½630 (b) (26)]

         The Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve encompasses ocean waters of

         Carmel Bay extending approximately .75 sm (1.4 km) from the mean

         tide line to a line drawn across the bay from Granite Point to

         Pescadero Point. The reserve also includes the Pinnacles, a series

         of offshore rocks, and surrounding ocean waters less than 15

         fathoms (28.3 meters) in depth. Carmel Bay marks the beginning of

         the California Sea Otter Refuge. The Bay is an important haulout

         and foraging area for otters and other marine mammals. The

         nearshore zone is typical kelp forest habitat, with the attendant

         abundance of marine life (Association of Monterey Bay Area

         Governments, 1978). While the DFG is primarily responsible for

         managing the reserve, DPR enforcement personnel from Point Lobos

         Ecological Reserve patrol the Bay.

         Sport fishing with hook and line, spear gun, or hand-held

         implements is generally permitted within the reserve. No

         invertebrates may be taken, however. Swimming, boating, surfing,


                                         398









       skin, and scuba diving are all permitted. Extensive restrictions

       apply to the harvesting of kelp. If, at any time, the DFG Director

       finds that the harvesting of kelp will tend to destroy or impair

       kelp beds, or tend to destroy or impair the supply of food for fish

       or wildlife, a notice that a particular kelp bed, or part of a bed,

       will be closed to the harvesting of kelp for period not to exceed

       one year, must be issued. At least 48 hours notice of the

       intention to harvest kelp within the reserve must be given the

       CDFG's regional manager. An observer of the CDFG may accompany the

       harvester. Other regulations apply to the harvesting of kelp on

       particular areas of the reserve.



       --Game Refuges (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½ 10500 et sea.)



       It is unlawful in general to take or possess any bird or mammal or

       part thereof, in any game refuge (California Fish and Game Code

       ï¿½ 10500]. In addition, the use or possession of any firearm, bow

       and arrow, or any trap or other contrivance designed to be or

       capable of being used to take birds or mammals is prohibited within

       a game refuge (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½10500). The

       Department of Fish and Game has complete authority to exercise

       control over all mammals other than marine mammals and birds in any

       game refuge, including the authority to issue permits for their

       taking (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½10502). In navigable water

       areas of game refuges, however, general regulations do not prohibit

       the taking of birds or mammals.


                                        399











         -California Sea Otter Game Refuge



         The California Sea Otter Game Refuge covers portions of Monterey

         and San Luis Obispo Counties between the Carmel River on the north

         and the Santa Rosa Creek on the south, which lie west of California

         Highway No. 1 (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½10840). The refuge

         excludes coastal waters. It is the largest refuge in the state

         covering 86 nm (160 km) of coastline in Monterey County and 30 nm

         (56 km) in San Luis Obispo County (Association of Monterey Bay Area

         Governments, 1978). Within its boundaries are several state parks

         and reserves, including Point Lobos Ecological Reserve and the

         Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park, and the entire Big Sur coastline.

         The refuge was primarily created to protect the threatened

         California Sea Otter, but it also protects important habitat for

         numerous marine birds and mammals (Association of Monterey Bay Area

         Governments, 1978). In addition to the general regulations

         described above, it is unlawful to fly any aircraft less than 1000

         feet above the refuge. Lawful occupants of private lands located

         within the refuge may take otherwise unprotected birds and mammals

         on such lands without a permit.



         --Marine Life Refuges (California Fish and Game Code,ï¿½10500(f))



         It is unlawful in a marine life refuge to take or possess any

         invertebrate or specimen of marine plant life. Such refuges are


                                         400









       generally established to promote research activities.



       --Hopkins Marine Life Refuge



       The Hopkins Marine Life Refuge includes ocean waters extending 1000

       feet from the mean high tide line adjacent to the eastern part of

       the city of Pacific Grove at the southern end of Monterey Bay

       (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½10901). Both the Hopkins and the

       Pacific Grove marine Gardens Fish Refuge (see below) are

       established principally to protect the richness and sensitivity of

       the rocky intertidal ecology. The most important feature of both

       areas is the number of small rocky islands in the nearshore area,

       which provide resting and nesting places for marine birds and

       mammals, particularly the California Sea Otter. Associated with

       these rocky areas are dense beds of giant kelp (Association of

       Monterey Bay Area Governments, 1978). While the taking of

       invertebrates and marine plant life specimens is generally

       prohibited, officers, employees, students, and licensees of

       Stanford University and the University of California are permitted

       to do so for scientific purposes without a permit.



       -- Fish Refuge (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½10500(c)]



       The taking and possession of fish or amphibia and the use and

       possession of any contrivance designed to be used for catching fish

       are generally prohibited in a fish refuge.


                                       401













         --Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge



         The Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge includes ocean waters

         of Monterey Bay to a depth of 60 ft. (18.1 m) measured from mean

         low tide adjacent to the City of Pacific Grove. Its western and

         eastern boundaries correspond to extensions of the western and

         eastern corporate limits of the city. The Hopkins Marine Life

         Refuge falls within the boundaries of the fish refuge (California

         Fish and Game Code ï¿½ 10801).



         For management purposes the refuge is divided into two areas

         applying different regulations for the taking of fish in each area.

         In the western half of the refuge, abalone and sea urchin may be

         taken commercially, except that the area may be closed if it is

         determined that the depletion of these species will endanger the

         balance of marine life. Fish, other than mollusks and crustaceans,

         may be-taken throughout the refuge pursuant to a sport fishing

         license. In addition, marine life may be taken for scientific

         purposes pursuant to an appropriate permit. Finally, sardines,

         mackerel, anchovies, squid, and herring may be taken by net or bait

         in both areas of the refuge.








                                         402











       --Marine Reserves




       Marine Reserves are established by the Department of Fish and Game

       for a wide variety of purposes and, thus, no general regulations

       exist. Rather specific regulations for each reserve are designed

       to protect the unique forms of marine life peculiar to it.




       --Afio Nuevo State Reserve




       The Afio Nuevo State Reserve consists of mainland areas on Aho Nuevo

       Point, ocean waters stretching 100 ft. (30.4 m) from the low tide

       mark adjacent to those areas, and Afio Nuevo Island. The reserve is

       managed by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, due to the

       large numbers of visitors it receives. The entire area of the

       reserve is owned by the state. The basic purpose for its

       establishment is to encourage the reintroduction of pinniped

       populations and to protect them from human disturbance.



       Regulations prohibit the taking of invertebrates on the mainland

       shore between the high tide mark and 100 feet beyond the low tide

       mark [14 California Administrative Code ï¿½ 29.05(b)(3)]. In

       addition, it is unlawful to fly aircraft less than 1,000 feet above

       the land and water area of the reserve (California Fish and Game

       Code ï¿½10501.5).



       Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for


                                        403









         integrating ASBS designations into their area wide basin plans,

         which outline waste discharge prohibitions and restrictions. A

         routine ASBS reconnaissance survey conducted by the SWRCB provides

         RWQCBs with detailed resource information as well as data on

         existing or future uses that are apt to threaten ASBS environmental

         quality. ASBS surveillance and monitoring by RWQCB's ensure's

         compliance with discharge regulations in the broader context of

         basin wide enforcement. Should either an actual discharge

         violation or a threat thereof become apparent, the regional board

         is empowered with specific administrative procedures and remedies

         to enforce compliance (see California Water Code, Section 13300).



         The following ASBSs have been designated within the study area:



         --Afio Nuevo Point and Island: This ASBS includes ocean waters

         extending 3 nm (5.6 km) from the mean high tide line on the

         mainland coast bounded on the north by a line extending southwest

         from the San Mateo-Santa Cruz County line. The ASBS thus covers a

         considerably larger area than the Ano Nuevo State Reserve.

         --Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge and Hopkins Marine Life

         Refuge: This ASBS includes ocean waters contained within the

         Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge (see above).

         --Carmel Bay: This ASBS includes waters contained within the

         Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve (see above).

         --Point Lobos Ecological Reserve: This ASBS includes ocean waters

         contained within the Point Lobos Ecological Reserve (see above).


                                          404











       --Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park: This ASBS includes ocean

       waters contained within the Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park

       (see below).

       --Ocean Area Surrounding the Mouth of the Salmon Creek: This ASBS

       includes ocean waters extending from the mean high tide line to the

       100-foot isobath or 1000 feet offshore, whichever is greater

       between the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line and a point

       approximately five miles north. This is the only ASBS in the study

       area that does not correspond to a state refuge, reserve, or

       underwater park. It was established primarily to protect fragile

       rocky intertidal and kelp forest habitat.



       Fish and Game Code

       The California Department of Fish and Game, under the Fish and Game

       Code (and Chapter 14 of the Administrative Code), regulates and

       manages a wide variety of activities affecting the fish and game

       resources found on the land and in water areas under state

       jurisdiction. The Department of Fish and Game programs can be

       placed into four categories: 1) enhancement of environmental

       quality necessary for the maintenance of fish and game resources,

       2) habitat protection through both regulations and property

       ownership, 3) prohibition of activities which may cause direct harm

       to individual species, and 4) management of fish and game stocks

       for commercial and recreational use. Specific programs of

       relevance to the study area other than ecological reserves

       (discussed above) are regulation of sport and commercial fishing,


                                       405









         protection of endangered species, protection of migratory birds,

         and coordination of the oil spill contingency plans.



         --Regulations of Sport and Commercial Fishing

         The Department of Fish and Game regulates sport fishing through

         license and bag limit systems. A sport fishing license is required

         for the taking and possession of fish for any non-commercial

         purpose (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½7100). Numerous

         invertebrates are also regulated in certain areas (see Table 15).



         Commercial fishing, including the taking of tidal invertebrates for

         commercial purpose, is also governed by a licensing system.

         certain species found in the study area are protected from

         commercial take; all other species may be taken in season

         (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½8140). Species found in the study

         area include: striped bass, kelp bass, sand bass, spotted bass,

         yellowfin croaker, spotfin croaker, sturgeon and California corbina

         (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½ï¿½8370-8373). The above species are

         reserved for recreation taking only. Several other species are

         subject to minimum size, seasonal and volume limitations. The

         restrictions applicable to species found in the study are listed in

         Table 16.




         Every person who operates or assists in using any boat or gear to

         take fish for profit must procure a license (California Fish and

         Game Code ï¿½7580); party boat operators must get special licenses


                                         406










        Table,15.    Restrictions on the recreational taking of
                     invertebrates in tide pools or other areas between the
                     high tide mark (California 14 Administrative Code
                     ï¿½29.05).

        abalones, chitons, clams         --must have written permit from DFG
        cockles,crabs, lobsters,           to take in State marine life
        scallops, sea urchins, and         refuges and other special
        worms                              closures

        ghost shrimp                     --must have written permit from DFG
                                           to take anywhere other than in
                                           State parks, underwater parks,
                                           and national monuments and
                                           seashores

        limpets, mussels, sand           --must have written permit from DFG
        dollarsf octopi, shrimp,           to take in State marine life
        sea urchins, turban snails,        refuges, parks, beaches, recrea-
        and squid                          tion areas, underwater parks, and
                                           national monument and seashores.










            Table 16.    Catch restrictions for species of commercial fish in
                         the Monterey Bay Area (References are to the
                         California Fish and Game Code).


            sardines     Catch limited to 20,000 tons statewide or as adjusted
                         by the Department proportional to increase in spawning
                         population (ï¿½8150.7)

            Anchovies    Restricted according to the Pacific Fishery Management
                         Council (PFMC) Plan.

            Lobster      Fishery open between the first Wednesday in October
                         and the first Wednesday after March 15 (ï¿½8251).
                         Lobster permit required (ï¿½8254.7). Size restrictions
                         exist (ï¿½8252).

            Salmon       Restricted according to PFMC Plan.

            Crab         Fishery open between the second Tuesday in November
                         and June 30th (ï¿½8276).

            Abalone      Unlawful to take for commercial purposes except south
                         of line extending due west from Yankee Point where the
                         depth exceeds 20 ft.

            Clams        Fishery open year round except in an area between
                         lines extending due west from Pigeon Point and Yankee
                         Point where open between September ist and April 30th.

            Scallops     Unlawful to sell or purchase.

            Saltwater/
            Anadromous   Striped bass illegal to possess unless releasing from
                         net (ï¿½8320); kelp bass,sand bass, and spotted bass may
                         not be sold (ï¿½8372); yellow fin and bluefin tuna must
                         exceed 7 1/2 lbs. to be marketed (ï¿½8375); albacore and
                         skipjack may be taken at any time (ï¿½8376 and 8378);
                         white sea bass, barracuda, and yellowtail not less
                         than 28 inches in length may be taken by hook and line
                         at any time.

            Mackerel     Catch limited until stock is enhanced (ï¿½8388.3)

            California
              Halibut    May be taken at any time (ï¿½8391).










       (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½7920 et secr.). Vessels used in

       commercial fishing operations must also carry a Department of Fish

       and Game registration number (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½7880).

       Fishing reports, described in Section 8010 et sea., must be

       supplied by buyers, processors, and anyone else who receives fish

       from fishermen. These reports form the basis of Department of Fish

       and Game statistics used in formulating fishery management

       policies.



       Licenses must also be obtained by any person engaged in the

       business of mariculture (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½ 6480) or

       oyster culture (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½ 6510). State water

       bottoms may be leased for this purpose by the Fish and Game

       Commission.




       Under the Submerged Lands Act of 1953 [43 USC ï¿½ 130(c) et sea.],

       California has jurisdiction over kelp within state waters as a

       seabed resource. A license is required to harvest kelp for profit

       (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½6650). As with other commercial

       fisheries, a record book must be maintained (California Fish and

       Game Code ï¿½6652). The Department of Fish and Game retains the

       power to close any kelp beds if harvesting results in destroyed or

       impaired beds (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½6654).








                                       409









         --Endangered Species (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½2050 et sea.)



         The California Department of Fish and Game maintains a list of

         endangered and threatened species. It is unlawful within the state

         to take or possess any listed species. "Taking" is defined

         (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½2050 et sea.,) in a manner

         analogous to the interpretation under the federal act (see below).

         Listed species found in the study area are the California Clapper

         Rail, California brown pelican, the California Least-tern, the

         light-footed clapper rail, and the Southern sea Otter.



         --Protection of Migratory Birds (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½355

         et sea. and 3500 et sea.)



         In accordance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, California has

         provided protection for migratory birds, their nests and eggs by

         fixing areas, seasons, and hours plus bag and possession limits by

         species for migratory game birds (California Fish and Game Code

         ï¿½356). Of the birds found in the study area, the peregrine falcon,

         brown pelican, California clapper rail, California least tern,

         light-footed clapper rail and Southern bald eagle (California Fish

         and Game Code ï¿½3511) have all been accorded "fully protected"

         status, which protects these birds from taking except as authorized

         for scientific research.








                                         410









      --Oil Spill Contingency Plans (California Fish and Game Code ï¿½5650

      et ï¿½.@g. )

      It is unlawful to "Deposit or permit any petroleum to pass into the

      waters of the statell (California Fish and Game ï¿½5650). The

      California Department of Fish and Game together with an Interagency

      Committee coordinates the state's oil spill contingency plan.

      Because federal law preempts state regulations of oil spill cleanup

      operations, the state's role is that of observer, assistant, and

      advisor--with the important exception that the state has veto power

      over the use of chemical agents in state waters. In practice,

      State Department of Fish and Game personnel: 1) investigate all

      spills in state waters and many spills in federal waters; 2)

      monitor, assist, and advise federal and industry cleanup

      operations; and 3) maintain liaison between various government

      agencies and industry.



      Regulations of Offshore Oil and Gas Development Activities,

      Cunningham-Shell Tidelands Act, as Amended (California Public

      Resources Code ï¿½6850 et seg.)

      The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over all state owned

      lands and State submerged lands extending to 3 nmi (5.6 km) from

      the mean high tide line. Administration of state lands includes

      leasing of these lands for various legislatively authorized

      purposes; in particular, oil and gas exploration and development.

      The Public Resources Code specifically requires that development of

      publicly owned mineral resources not be undertaken at the expense


                                       411









         of environmental values. The State Lands Commission, together with

         the Coastal Commission, regulates activities pursuant to leases for

         oil and gas development to ensure that they proceed safely and that

         marine resources are adequately protected. In this regard, the

         State Lands Commission enforces requirements similar to those of

         MMS concerning blowout prevention, drilling practices, production

         procedures, pollution control, and oil spill prevention,

         containment and cleanup.



         In order to protect particularly sensitive marine areas, the

         California State Legislature may designate Oil and Gas Sanctuaries

         in which petroleum development within submerged lands is

         prohibited. oil and gas sanctuaries are established in all State

         waters in the proposed Sanctuary area (California Public Resources

         Code ï¿½6871.2 (d)). Although leasing is normally excluded from the

         sanctuaries, should underlying oil and gas deposits risk being

         drained by wells located on adjacent federal lands--thereby

         threatening the state's proprietary interest in the resource--the

         state legislature may open up affected sanctuary areas for a

         drainage sale.



         Control of Oil Discharges from Vessels (California Harbors and

         Navigation Code ï¿½133)

         The California Harbors and Navigation Code generally applies to the

         activities of vessels operating in state waters. One of its

         purposes is to prevent the activities of vessels from adversely


                                         412









      affecting the marine environment.



      Any person who intentionally or negligently causes or permits any

      oil to be deposited in the waters of the state is liable for

      cleanup costs and subject to a $6,000 civil penalty (California

      Harbors Code ï¿½151).



      Air Resources (California Health and Safety Code ï¿½3900 et sea.)

      The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is charged with the

      maintenance and enhancement of the ambient air quality of the

      state. The ARB has set air quality standards designed to meet

      National Ambient Air Quality Standards and delegated their

      implementation to local Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs).

      The proposed Sanctuary is located partly within the following Air

      Pollution Control Districts (APCD): Santa Cruz County, Monterey

      County, and San Mateo County.



      Generally, offshore oil and gas development facilities located

      within state waters must both obtain a permit from the appropriate

      APCD and meet ARB omission standards. ARB emission standards are

      also applicable to sources of emissions located beyond state waters

      that are related to an onshore facility. In essence, the permit

      for the onshore facility covers both. Emissions from offshore

      sources are considered together with those of the related onshore

      facility. The total emissions level must meet standards set by ARB

      as implemented by the appropriate APCD.


                                      413













         Emissions from tankers which dock at onshore facilities located in

         California are also considered together with those of the related

         onshore facility. As with onshore oil and gas development

         facilities, the total emissions level of the tanker and the related

         onshore facility must meet standards set by the ARB as implemented

         by the appropriate APCD. Unlike other offshore facilities,

         however, neither the ARB nor an APCD has authority to issue permits

         solely for tanker emissions.



         Preservation of Historic Resources (California Public Resources

         Code ï¿½5020.4)

         Preservation of representative and unique archaeological,

         paleontological, and historical sites in the land and water areas

         of the state is the responsibility of the California Historical

         Resources Commission. The Commission evaluates and makes


         recommendations to the State Historic Preservation Officer on

         nominations to the National Register. The Commission also

         recommends state registration of sites as landmarks and points of

         interest to the Public Resources Department which is responsible

         for maintenance of registered sites (California Public Resources

         Code ï¿½5020.4). Registration as a point of interest is normally

         accompanied by the placement of informational signs. Landmarks,

         along with properties listed on the National Register and city or

         county registers or inventories, become eligible for qualified

         historic property status for which special protection may be


                                         414










       afforded (California Public Resources Code ï¿½5031). At present, no

       sites within the study area have been registered as either

       landmarks or points of interest.






       Underwater State Parks

       In order to protect special marine resources and water-based

       recreational values in ocean waters within state jurisdiction and

       to expand coastal park units beyond the water's edge, the

       California Department of Parks and Recreation has established an

       Underwater Parks Program. Point Lobos Ecological Reserve, the

       first underwater park in the United States, was established in

       1960. As described above, while the DPR manages the reserve, it is

       operated under the legal authority of the Fish and Game Code.



       Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park, on the other hand, is both owned

       and operated by the DPR. The underwater park contains 2.6 nm (4.9

       km) of coastline and adjacent ocean waters and submerged lands

       between Partington Point and McWay Rock Falls. It is managed in

       conjunction with the adjacent land-based park. There are no

       regulations on recreational activities. Instead, visitation is

       controlled by a permit system; and permits are usually only given

       to clubs with an experienced diving master. Several other

       locations are currently under consideration for designation as

       underwater parks. These include expansions of Point Lobos and

       Julia Pfeiffer Burns and new parks at Ano Nuevo State Reserve,


                                       415








         Wilder Ranch State Park and Cannery Row.

         Moss Landing Harbor District (California General Laws ï¿½5118)

         The Moss Landing Harbor District was established in 1947 as a

         special use district of the State of California. The district has

         been granted title in trust to the Elkhorn Slough tidal lands and

         shares jurisdiction over the area with the State Lands Commission.

         It is authorized to regulate and monitor commerce, fisheries, and

         navigation within its jurisdiction.




































                                         416












       Federal Authorities

       Like State authorities, Federal programs vary greatly in approach

       and scope, ranging from fairly broad-based legislation for resource

       conservation and environmental protection (e.g., The National

       Environmental Policy Act and Fishery Conservation and Management

       Act) to regulation of specific activities and resources.



       Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) (16 USC ï¿½

       1801 et secf.) The FCMA provides for the conservation and management

       of all fishery resources between 3 and 200 nm (5.6 and 370 km)

       offshore. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) is charged

       with establishing guidelines for and approving fishery management

       plans (FMPs) prepared by regional fishery management councils for

       selected fisheries. These plans determine the levels of commercial

       and sport fishing consistent with achieving and maintaining the

       optimum yield of each fishery. The waters of the proposed marine

       sanctuary are within the jurisdiction of the Pacific Fishery

       Management Council (PFMC).



       The PFMC has already completed a management plan for anchovy and

       salmon and is currently preparing plans for groundfish and jack

       mackerel -- all of which are found in the study area. The final

       northern anchovy FMP proposes several fishing area closures, none

       of which fall within the study area. The final implementing

       regulations state that commercial fishing for reduction purposes


                                       417









         (e.g., fish meal and oil) may only proceed in two seasons: from

         August 1 to January 31, and from April 1.to June 30. Nonreduction

         fishing may take place at any time (50 CFR ï¿½662.6).



         The salmon FMP establishes several management areas having

         different restrictions on season, size, and gear. The study area

         is part of two management areas -- Management Area D, which covers

         the area from the Oregon-California border to Tomales Point, and

         Management Area E, which covers the area from Tomales Point to the

         United States-Mexico border. Use of nets to fish for salmon is not

         allowed in either management area. Different size and.seasonal

         restriction are established for commercial and recreational

         fishing.



         The FMPs for groundfish and jack mackerel address limitations on

         catch but do not consider closures. Although the FMP for

         groundfish is only in a draft stage, it does appear possible that

         the final FMP may aim to protect intertidal spawning grounds and

         kelp bed habitats such as those found in the study area, which are

         vital to the survival of lingcod, bocaccio, and numerous rockfish.



         Benthic continental shelf fishery resources located outside state

         waters, such as abalone, lobster, crabs, sea urchins, and corals,

         are subject to management under the MFCMA. Within Federal waters

         the MFCMA is enforced by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the

         National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) within the Department of


                                         418









       Commerce. The Act empowers the Secretary of Commerce to enter into

       agreements with any State agency for enforcement purposes in State

       waters. Such an agreement exists between the CDFG and NMFS whereby

       both parties have been deputized to enforce each other's laws. As

       a result, PFMC fishery plan enforcement personnel can now enforce

       State law within 3 nm (5.6km) and State officers can enforce

       Federal laws between 3 and 200 nm (5.6 and 370 km).



       Endangered Species Act (16 USC ï¿½ï¿½1531-1543)

       The Federal Endangered Species program provides protection for

       listed species of marine mammals, birds, and fish in both State and

       Federal waters. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and NMFS

       determine which species need protection and maintain a list of

       endangered and threatened species. The most significant protection

       provided by the Endangered Species Act is the prohibition on

       taking. The term "take" is defined broadly to mean "harass, harm,

       pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or

       attempt to engage in any such conduct" [16 USC ï¿½1532(19)]. Fish

       and Wildlife Service regulations interpret the term take to include

       significant environmental modification or degradation and acts

       which annoy listed species to such an extent as to significantly

       disrupt essential behavior patterns (50 CFR 17.3).



       The Endangered Species Act also provides for the indirect

       protection of endangered species and their habitat by establishing

       a consultation process designed to insure that projects authorized,


                                        419









         funded or carried out by Federal agencies do not jeopardize the

         continued existence of endangered or threatened species, or "result

         in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which

         is determined by the Secretary (of Interior) ... to be critical"

         (16 USC ï¿½1536). Critical habitat areas for endangered species are

         designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National

         Marine Fisheries Service. The 1978 amendments to the Act establish

         a Cabinet level committee authorized to exempt Federal agencies

         (through an elaborate review process) from compliance with their

         responsibilities in regard to critical habitats upon a finding that

         there are no reasonable alternatives to the action, and that its

         benefits outweigh the benefits of other actions consistent with

         conservation of the species or its critical habitat.



         Several species of marine mammals found in the study area are

         listed as endangered or threatened species. These include: 1) sea

         otter, 2) grey whale, 3) fin whale, and 4) humpback whale. The

         blue whale, sei whale, and sperm whale, which have occasionally

         been sighted in the study area are also listed as endangered or

         threatened species.



         Species of birds listed as endangered or threatened found in the

         study area include: 1) California brown pelican, 2) California

         clapper rail, 3) California least tern, 4) Southern bald eagle, and

         5) American peregrine falcon 6) short tailed albatross




                                         420









        Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 USC ï¿½1361 et seg.)

        The MMPA, applies to U.S. citizens in State, contiguous zone and

        International waters, and to foreign nationals subject to U.S.

        jurisdiction. It is designed to protect all species of marine

        mammals. While MMPA allows states to petition for the return of

        management responsibility over harvest of marine mammals,

        California has done so only with regard to the sea otter and that

        petition was later withdrawn.



        Provisions of the Act are implemented by the Department of

        Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), which is

        responsible for whales, porpoises, and pinnipeds other than sea

        lions and walruses, the Department Interior, and U.S. Fish and

        Wildlife Service (FWS), which is responsible for all other marine

        mammals. The Marine Mammal Commission advises these implementing

        agencies and sponsors relevant scientific research. The primary

        management features of the Act include: 1) a moratorium on

        "taking" of marine mammals; 2) the development of a management

        approach designed to achieve an "optimum sustainable population"

        (OSP) for all species or population stocks of marine mammals; and

        3) protection of populations determined to be "depleted".



        MMPA defines "take" broadly to include "harass, hunt, capture, or

        kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine

        mammal" [16 USC ï¿½1362 (12), emphasis added]. The term "harass" has

        been interpreted to encompass acts unintentionally adversely


                                        421









         affecting marine mammals such as operation of motor boats in waters

         in which these animals are found. The MMPA allows certain .

         exceptions to the moratorium. First, the Secretary of the Interior

         may make a special waiver of the moratorium on taking for

         particular species or populations of marine mammals provided that

         the species or population being considered is at or above its

         determined optimum sustainable population. No such waiver,

         however, has been granted concerning any marine mammal found in the

         area under consideration.




         Secondly, the Act directs officials to seek "an optimum   sustainable

         population (of marine mammals)" [16 USC ï¿½1361(6)]. Optimum

         Sustainable Population (OSP) is defined to mean "the number of

         animals which will result in the maximum productivity of the

         population or species keeping in mind the carrying capacity of the

         habitat and health of the ecosystem of which they form a

         constituent element" [16 USC ï¿½1362(9)].



         marine mammal species whose population is determined to be depleted

         receive additional protection. Except for scientific research

         purposes, no permit may be issued for the taking of any marine

         mammal determined to be depleted. Four species of marine mammals

         sighted.within the study area (the fin whale, the southern

         population of sea otter, the humpback whale, and the grey whale),

         and three species or populations which are possible transients (the

         blue whale, the sperm whale, and the sei whale), are treated as


                                         422









        "depleted" based on their listing as endangered or threatened

        species under the Endangered Species Act.



        The MMPA has also recently been amended to include requirments that

        observors be carried aboard commercial fishing vessels to determine

        levels of incidental take of marine mammals. Commercial fishing

        activites are divided into categories on the basis of gear-type and

        associated levels of potential incidental take of marine mammals.

        For example it is mandatory for Category 1 vessels such as

        gillnetters to always carry an observor, whereas Category 3 vessels

        never have to carry an observor. This observor program has only

        just been initiated and although the authority for its management

        is with the NMFS the day-to-day operational management may be

        delegated to state and local authorities.



        Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC ï¿½703 et seq.)

        The essential provision of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, which

        implements conventions with Great Britain and Japan makes it'

        unlawful except as permitted by regulations "to pursue, hunt, take,

        capture, kill... any migratory bird, any part, nest or egg" or any

        product of any such bird protected by the Convention (16 USC ï¿½703).

        The Secretary of the Interior is charged with determining when, and

        to what extent, if at all, and by what means to permit these

        activities. Each treaty establishes a "closed season" during which

        no hunting is permitted. A distinction is made between game and

        nongame birds. The closed season for migratory birds other than


                                        423









        game birds is year-round. Of the birds found in the study area

        only certain species of ducks, geese, boots, gallinules and doves

        are considered game birds. As specifically permitted by the Act

        the California Department of Fish and Game has supplemented this

        authority with its own regulations (see Fish and Game Code

        Discussion, above).



        Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC ï¿½1251 et seq.)

        It is the goal of the CWA to restore and maintain the chemical,

        physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters. To

        varying degrees, waters in the territorial sea, the contiguous.

        zone, and the ocean beyond are subject to requirements of the CWA.



        The CWA Is chief mechanism for preventing and reducing water

        pollution is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

        (NPDES), administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

        Under the NPDES program, a permit is required for the discharge of

        any pollutant from a point source into the navigable waters of the

        United States, the waters of the contiguous zone, or ocean waters.

        Within California state waters, EPA has delegated NPDES permitting

        authority to the state government.



        Since oil and gas development pursuant to Federal lease sales occur

        on the high seas, an NPDES permit from EPA is required for

        discharges associated with this activity. EPA generally grants

        NPDES permits for offshore oil and gas developments based on


                                         424









       published effluent guidelines (40 CFR Part 435). Other conditions

       beyond these guidelines may, however, be imposed by the Regional

       Administrator on a case-by-case basis. The CWA prohibits the

       discharge of oil and hazardous substances in such quantities as may

       be harmful to public health and the environment (except discharges

       outside the territorial sea permitted by the Act to Prevent

       Pollution from Ships, 1987 (33 USC ï¿½ 1901 et seq.). When such

       discharges do take place, the National Contingency Plan (NCP) for

       the removal of oil and hazardous substance discharges (33 USC

       ï¿½1321(c); EO 11735, August 3, 1973), which is designed to minimize

       the impacts on marine resources, takes effect.



       The USCG, in cooperation with EPA, administers the National

       Contingency Plan (NCP) which applies to all discharges of oil in

       the contiguous zone and to activities conducted under the outer

       Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA). The latter includes oil and

       gas activities conducted pursuant to a lease as well as geological

       and geophysical explorations independent of a lease (43USC

       ï¿½ï¿½1337(a), 1340).



       The NCP establishes the organizational framework whereby oil spills

       are to be cleaned up. To carry out the NCP, regional plans have

       been established; the USCG has issued such a plan for Federal

       Region IX which encompasses the study area. Under the plan, Coast

       Guard personnel are to investigate all reported offshore spills,

       notify the party responsible (if known) of its obligation to clean


                                        425









         up the spill, and supervise the clean-up operation. The Coast

         Guard retains final authority over the procedures and equipment

         used in the cleanup. If the party responsible for the spill does

         not promptly begin cleanup operations, the Coast Guard may hire

         private organizations.



         The Clean Water Act also requires that publicly owned sewage

         treatment works meet effluent limitations based on effluent

         reductions attainable through the application of secondary

         treatment by July 1, 1977 [33 USC ï¿½1311(b)(1)]. EPA does have the

         authority, however, to waive the July 1, 1977 deadline for

         secondary treatment for discharges into marine waters under certain

         circumstances (33 USC ï¿½1311(h)). Due to the unusual depth of

         marine waters off the California coast, some municipal sewage

         treatment works in California discharging into the ocean have

         requested waivers from secondary treatment requirements (43 F.R.

         17484 (4/25/78)). Several communities in the study area are

         currently discharging wastes into the ocean (see Part'II, Section

         2).



         Permits from the Army Corps of Engineers, (COE) which are based on

         EPA guidelines, are required prior to the discharge of dredged

         materials into navigable waters of the United States (33 USC ï¿½

         1344). Two sites in Monterey Bay are currently used for dredge

         disposal. Finally, the CWA requires vessels to comply with marine

         sanitation regulations issued by EPA and enforced by the USCG (33


                                        426









        USC ï¿½ 1322)



        Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC ï¿½ï¿½ 401 et sea.)

        Pursuant to the Rivers and Harbors Act, a permit must be obtained

        from COE prior to any construction, excavation or fill activities

        in navigable waters of the United States (33 USC 403). COE may

        refuse to issue permits on the basis of a threat to navigation or

        potential adverse effects on living marine resources.



        Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 USC ï¿½ï¿½ 1231 et sea.)

        The Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), as amended by the Port

        and Tanker Safety Act of 1978, is designed to promote navigation

        and vessel safety and the protection of the marine environment.

        The PWSA applies both in state waters and in Federal waters out to

        200 miles.




        The PWSA authorizes the U.S. Coast Guard to establish vessel

        traffic services and systems for ports, harbors, and other waters

        subject to congested vessel traffic. The absence of a major harbor

        in Monterey Bay and the resulting relatively low level of vessel

        traffic into and out of the Bay has precluded the need for a vessel

        traffic separation scheme (VTSS) or other formal regulatory

        mechanisms for ensuring vessel safety.



        The U.S. Coast Guard provides two sets of customary vessel traffic

        lanes on navigational charts for vessels traversing the West coast.


                                        427









         one set of customary traffic lanes is an extension of the Southern

         VTSS for San Francisco Bay and is intended for vessels traveling

         north and southbound along the coast. The other is intended

         primarily for east-bound traffic heading to and from ports further

         south in California. Adherence to these lanes is strictly

         voluntary. The lanes merely serve as navigational aids, indicating

         to mariners who are unfamiliar with the area that vessel traffic

         historically has followed those patterns, and that the lanes have

         been found to be safe. In addition to vessel traffic control, the

         U.S. Coast Guard regulates other navigational and shipping

         activities. It has promulgated numerous regulations relating to

         vessel design, construction, and operation designed to minimize the

         likelihood of an accident and reduce vessel source pollution.



         The 1978 amendments of the PWSA establish a comprehensive program

         for regulating the design, construction, operation, equipping, and

         banning of all tankers using U.S. ports to transfer oil and

         hazardous materials. These requirements are, for the most part, in

         agreement with protocols (passed in 1978) to the International

         Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, and

         the International Convention on Safety of Life at Sea, 1974.



         The U.S. Coast Guard is also vested with the primary responsibility

         for maintaining boater safety, including the tasks of conducting

         routine vessel inspections and coordinating rescue operations.




                                         428









        Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 USC ï¿½ï¿½ 1901 et sea.)

        The International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the

        Sea by Oil, 1954, and the Oil Pollution Act of 1961 have been

        superseded by the International Convention for the Prevention of

        Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the 1978 Protocol

        relating thereto (MARPOL 73/78) and implemented by the Act to

        Prevent Pollution from ships, 1980, as amended in 1982, 1987. The

        APPS regulates discharges of oil or oily mixtures from vessels with

        the exception of tankers of less than than 150 gross tons and other

        vessels of less then 500 gross tons. Enforcement of the Act is the

        responsibility of the USCG.



        Except for discharges from machinery space bilges, tankers subject

        to the Act may not discharge oil or oily mixtures unless they are

        50 nautical miles from the nearest land; the total quantity of oil

        discharges cannot exceed one part in 15,000 of the total cargo

        capacity. Discharges from other vessels regulated by the Act, and

        discharges from the machinery bilges of tankers must be made as far

        as practicable from land and may not have an oil content of more

        than 100 parts per million. In addition to these requirements,

        discharges by an vessel regulated by the Act must be made while the

        vessel is en route. The instantaneous discharge rate must not

        exceed sixty liters per mile.



        The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987

        (MPPRCA) (33 USC ï¿½ï¿½ 1901-1903, 1905, 1907-1909, 1912) amends the


                                        429









        APPS to implement Annex V of the International Convention for the

        Pevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL) in the United States.

        The MPPRCA prohibits dumping plastics at sea and severely restricts

        dumping other types of ship-generated garbage, both at sea and in

        the navigable waters of the United States. The Annex V provisions

        of the MPPRCA apply to all watercraft, including small recreational

        vessels.




        The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 USC ï¿½ï¿½1301 et. sea.)

        The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 establishes the Federal Aviation

        Administration and gives it broad powers to promote air commerce

        and to regulate the use of navigable airspace to ensure aircraft

        safety and efficient use of such airspace. In furtherance of this

        mandate, the FAA publishes aeronautical charts which provide a

        variety of information to pilots, including the location of

        sensitive areas which should be avoided.






        Clean Air Act (CAA) (42 USC ï¿½7401 et seq.)

        The Clean Air Act (CAA) sets general guidelines.and minimal air

        quality standards on a nationwide basis in order to protect and

        enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources. States are

        responsible for developing comprehensive plans for all regions

        within their boundaries. Thus, as noted above, discharges of air

        pollutants within California state waters are subject to the

        control of the California Air Resources Board.



                                        430











        Beyond state.waters, in EPA Region IX, which includes the study

        area, EPA has asserted that the new Prevention of Sigificant

        Deterioration (PSD) provisions of the CAA apply to new sources on

        the OCS that can adversely affect air quality over the United

        States (EPA Office of General Counsel Opinion, April 18, 1978).

        These regulations would supplement Department of the Interior OCS

        air quality regulations. However, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of

        Appeals has held that the 1978 Amendments to the OCSLA grant the

        Secretary of the Interior exclusive authority to promulgate

        regulations for compliance with ambient air quality standards

        pursuant to the Clean Air Act (State of California v. Kleppe, Doc.

        No. 2363 (9th Cir. August 20, 1979).



        Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act OSCLA (43 USC ï¿½1331 et sea.)

        The Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, (OCSLA) as amended in 1978

        and 1985, establishes Federal jurisdiction over the mineral

        resources of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) beyond 3 nm (5.6 km)

        and gives the Secretary of Interior primary responsibility for

        managing OCS mineral exploration and development. The Secretary's

        responsibility has been delegated to the Minerals Management

        Service (MMS).



        In unique or special areas, MMS may impose special lease

        stipulations designed to protect specific geological and biological

        phenomena. These stipulations may vary among lease sale tracts and


                                        431









        sales. Lessees are required to include, in exploration,

        development and production plans, specific information concerning

        emission and their potential impacts on coastal areas. MMS is also

        charged with supervising OCS operations and enforcing regulations

        under its supervisory role made pursuant to OCSLA (30 CFR Part 250

        and 256) and the enforcement of stipulations applicable to

        particular leases.



        At the present time, the process for Lease-sale 119 has just begun

        with a Call For Information from MMS on November 10, 1988.

        Lease Sale No. 119, covers an area from 3 to 70 miles (5 to 112km)

        offshore central and northern California. The Sale includes tracts

        off the coast of San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, and San Luis

        Obispo Counties. All but the tracts off San Luis Obispo County

        were subsequently dropped from a previous Lease Sale #53 in October

        1980. It is unclear which, if any, of the tracts offered in lease

        sale #119 will be deleted from future consideration.



        In addition to DOI, both the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the

        U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) have responsibility over OCS mineral

        development under the PWSA to the extent that such development

        affects navigation. COE is responsible for ensuring, through a

        permit system, that OCS structures including pipelines, platforms,

        drill ships, and semi-submersibles, do not obstruct navigation [43

        USC ï¿½ 1333]. USCG ensures that structures on the OCS are properly

        marked and that safe working conditions are maintained onboard [43


                                         432











       USC ï¿½ 1333].



       Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33

       USC ï¿½ï¿½1401 et sea.).

       Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act

       (MPRSA), also known as the ocean Dumping Act, addresses the dumping

       of materials into the territorial sea, the contiguous zone and the

       ocean beyond. EPA regulates, through the issuance of permits, the

       dumping of all materials except dredged materials; COE exercises

       authority over dredged materiaYs.



       National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC ï¿½ï¿½ 470 et sea.)

       The National Historic Preservation Act authorizes the Secretary of

       the Interior to maintain a National Register of "districts, sites,

       buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history,

       architecture, archeology, and culture". Sites have been listed on

       the National Register which include or are composed entirely of

       ocean waters and submerged lands within state waters or on the

       Outer Continental Shelf.



       Should any sites in the study area be listed on the National

       Register, any federal agency conducting, licensing, or assisting an

       undertaking which may affect a listed site must provide the

       Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity

       to comment on the proposed action (16 USC ï¿½470f). The basic

       criterion applied by the Council is whether the undertaking will


                                       433









         change the quality of the site's historic, architectural,

         archeological, or cultural character (36 CFR Part 800).



         Los Padres National Forest

         The United States Forest Service is responsible for the management

         of the Los Padres National Forest. The Forest parallels the coast

         from Mount Carmel (near Point Sur) in the north to the Monterey

         County-San Luis Obispo County boundary in the south. The Forest

         includes two coastal areas, one encompassing Cooper Point and

         Pfeiffer Point at the northern boundary of the Forest and the other

         extending from the Lucia vicinity (near Lopez Point) to the

         Monterey County-San Luis Obispo County boundary.



         For management purposes, the Forest is divided into several

         planning units. Both coastal areas of the Forest are included

         within the Big Sur Coastal Planning Unit. The unit as a whole  is

         52 sm (83 km) long and varies from 3 to 9 sm (4.8 to 14.4 km) in

         width. Both coastal areas also fall within the boundaries of'the

         California Sea Otter Game Refuge. Adjoining the Planning unit are

         four State Parks, including the Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park,

         which is operated in conjunction with the adjacent under-water

         park, and two ASBSs at Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park and the

         ocean area surrounding the mouth of Salmon Creek (see above).



         Management policies for the Big-Sur Coastal Planning Unit are

         described in a recently issued Land Management Plan. The Forest


                                         434









       Service worked closely with many governmental agencies in the

       formulation of the plan, including, in particular, the CDNR and

       CDFG, which manage areas directly adjacent to the unit. It is the

       intent of the plan that all management policies be implemented in

       harmony with affected agencies.



       Specific management policies of the plan which are relevant to the

       study area include ensuring the protection of the Salmon Creek and

       Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park ASBSs prior to proceeding with

       any resource development, maintaining a high level of water

       quantity and quality, and ensuring that the management of the

       Planning Unit is consistent with the California Coastal Plan for

       the Monterey Coast.



       Military Activities

       The United States Army maintains an offshore restricted area

       extending approximately 8,000 yards offshore from its Fort Ord

       Military Installation. The restricted area functions as a safety

       buffer to protect the seagoing public from stray firearm rounds

       escaping from small arms firing ranges at Ford Ord. The ranges are

       used intermittently throughout the year. While onshore dune

       backstops contain most stray shots, a certain proportion reach the

       adjacent ocean area.



       Commercial and sport boating and fishing activities are prohibited

       in the restricted area on days when the ranges are used. A colored


                                        435









        warning flag is flown onshore whenever the ranges are used. The

        restricted area appears on all nautical charts of the Bay, and

        schedules for the range are published in the Coastal Pilot. Two

        U.S. Army patrol boats escort mariners away from the restricted

        zone on practice firing days. This danger zone also is utilized

        for Navy mine warefare operations from February through July each

        year.


















































                                        436













      APPENDIX 3:                                            ABBREVIATIONS
































































                                        437











                                                                 Abbreviations

         AMBAG - Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments

         APPS - Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1901 et
                   seq-)

         ARB - Air Resources Board

         ASBS - Areas of Special Biological Significance

         BLM - Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior

         CBNMS - Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary

         CCA - California Coastal Act

         CERCLA   Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
                   Liability Act

         CDF&G   California Department of Fish and Game

         CDP&R   California Department of Parks and Recreation

         COE - U.S. Corps of Engineers

         CWA - Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1251 et se

         DOD - Department of Defense

         EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

         EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

         ESA - Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1531-1543)

         ESNERR - Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve

         FAA - Federal Aviation Authority

         FMP - Fishery Management Plan

         FWS - Fish and Wildlife Service, Department of the Interior

         GFNMS - Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary

         GGNRA - Golden Gate National Recreation Area


         IRA - List of Recommended Areas

         MBNMS - Monterey Bay National marine Sanctuary


                                           438











       MEMD - Marine and Estuarine Management Division, NOAA, DOC,
              Previously the Sanctuary Programs Division (SPD)

       MFCMA - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.
               ï¿½ï¿½ 1801 et seg.)

       MMS   Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior

       MMPA   Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1361 et se

       MP - Management Plan

       MPRSA - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C.
               ï¿½ï¿½ 1401 et seg. and 16 USC ï¿½ï¿½ 1431 et seg.)

       NAS   National Academy of Sciences

       NERR   National Estuarine Research Reserve

       NMFS   National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA, Department of
              Commerce


       NOAA   National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department
              of Commerce


       NPDES   National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

       NPS - National Park Service, Department of the Interior

       NRP - National Research Plan (MEMD)

       OCS - Outer Continental Shelf

       OCSLA   Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1331 et
               secr. )

       PG&E   Pacific Gas and Electric

       PFMC   Pacific Fisheries Management Council

       PRBO   Point Reyes Bird Observatory

       PRNMS   Point Reyes-Farallon Islands National Marine Sanctuary

       PRNS   Point Reyes National Seashore

       RWQCB   Regional Water Quality Control Board
       PWSA   Ports and Waterways Safeiy Act (33 U.S.C. ï¿½ï¿½ 1221 et seg.)

       RFP   Request for proposals

                                         439










                   SAC - Sanctuary Advisory Committee

                   SEL - Site Evaluation List

                   SPD - Sanctuary Programs Division, NOAA, Department of Commerce,
                               now called Marine and Estuarine Management Division (MEMD)

                   SRP - Sanctuary Research Plan

                   SWRCB           State Water Resources Control Board

                   USCG          United States Coast Guard, Department of Transportation

                   VTSS          Vessel Traffic Separation Scheme (USCG)

                   WDR         Waste Discharge Requirement




































                                                                                     440


                                                                                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1990 - 2 6 1 - 9 1 5   2 0 6 2 6












































































                                       3 6668 00002 0356