Draft environmental impact statement and management plan for the proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary

[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

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

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@

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

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

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

- 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

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

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

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. �� 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.

Introduction

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. �� 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:

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. � 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):

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Sanctuary Management Plan

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.

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;

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

.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.

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

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.

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).

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

-,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

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.

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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).

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.

(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

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;

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).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

(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

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

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.

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.

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,

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

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,

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

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

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

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.

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

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,

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.

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

Santa Cruz

North Monterey Bay
Ae@
Prohibition Area

e6.

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)

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,

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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. �� 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.

� 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.

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.

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.

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;

(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;

(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);

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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

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;

(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;

(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 ��39000-42708
ASBS - Areas of Special Biological Significance; California
Water Code �13260
CCA - California Coastal Act; California Public Resources Code
�27000
SR - State Reserves, Refuges etc; California Fish and Game
Code �1580 and �10500
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 �5000
OGS - Oil and Gas Sanctuaries; California Public Resources Code
�6370
UP - Underwater Parks; California Department of Parks and
Recreation
WQCA - Water Quality Control Act; California Water Code �13000

Federal

CAA - Clean Air Act; 42 USC ��7401-7642
CWA - Clean Water Act; 33 USC ��1251-1376
ESA - Endangered Species Act; 16 USC ��1531-1543
FCMA - Fishery Conservation and Management Act; 16 USC ��1801-
1882
MBTA - Migratory Bird Treaty Act; 16 USC ��703-711
MMPA - Marine Mammal Protection Act; 16 USC ��1361-1407
MPRSA - Marine Protection, Research & Sanctuary Act; 33 USC
��1401-1444,
NHPA - National Historic Preservation Act; 16 USC ��470-470n
OCSI-A - Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; 43 USC ��1331-1343
OPA - Oil Pollution Act of 1961; 33 USC ��1001-1016
PWSA - Ports and Waterways Safety Act; 33 USC ��1221-1227

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. � 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

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.

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. �� 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

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

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. ��

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

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

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.

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.

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. �� 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

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,

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

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. �� 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.

� 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. �� 1431 et seq.

367

� 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.

� 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.

� 944.3 Definitions.

(A) "Act" means Title III of the Marine Protection,

Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C.

�� 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.

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. � 922.2 or in the Act.

� 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.

� 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.

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.

� 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.

� 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.

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.

� 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.

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

� 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.

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.

� 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

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.

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. � 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 �13300 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 � 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 �30233). 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 � 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 � 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

�630(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

� 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

�630 (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 � 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

� 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 �10500). 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 �10502). 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 �10840). 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,�10500(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 �10901). 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 �10500(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 � 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 � 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 �10501.5).

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 �7100). 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 �8140). 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 ��8370-8373). 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 �7580); 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
�29.05).

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 (�8150.7)

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 (�8251).
Lobster permit required (�8254.7). Size restrictions
exist (�8252).

Salmon Restricted according to PFMC Plan.

Crab Fishery open between the second Tuesday in November
and June 30th (�8276).

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 (�8320); kelp bass,sand bass, and spotted bass may
not be sold (�8372); yellow fin and bluefin tuna must
exceed 7 1/2 lbs. to be marketed (�8375); albacore and
skipjack may be taken at any time (�8376 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 (�8388.3)

California
Halibut May be taken at any time (�8391).

(California Fish and Game Code �7920 et secr.). Vessels used in

commercial fishing operations must also carry a Department of Fish

and Game registration number (California Fish and Game Code �7880).

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 � 6480) or

oyster culture (California Fish and Game Code � 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 � 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 �6650). As with other commercial

fisheries, a record book must be maintained (California Fish and

Game Code �6652). 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 �6654).

409

--Endangered Species (California Fish and Game Code �2050 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 �2050 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 �355

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

�356). 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 �3511) 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 �5650

et �.@g. )

It is unlawful to "Deposit or permit any petroleum to pass into the

waters of the statell (California Fish and Game �5650). 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 �6850 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 �6871.2 (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 �133)

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 �151).

Air Resources (California Health and Safety Code �3900 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 �5020.4)

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 �5020.4). 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 �5031). 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 �5118)

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 �

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 �662.6).

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 ��1531-1543)

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 �1532(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 �1536). 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 �1361 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 �1362 (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 �1361(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 �1362(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 �703 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 �703).

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 �1251 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 � 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

�1321(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

��1337(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 �1311(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 �1311(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 �

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 � 1322)

Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC �� 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 �� 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 �� 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 �� 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 ��1301 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 �7401 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 �1331 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 � 1333]. USCG ensures that structures on the OCS are properly

marked and that safe working conditions are maintained onboard [43

432

USC � 1333].

Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33

USC ��1401 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 �� 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

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 �470f). 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. �� 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. �� 1251 et se

DOD - Department of Defense

EIS - Environmental Impact Statement

EPA - Environmental Protection Agency

ESA - Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. �� 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.
�� 1801 et seg.)

MMS Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior

MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. �� 1361 et se

MP - Management Plan

MPRSA - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C.
�� 1401 et seg. and 16 USC �� 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. �� 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. �� 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