[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUAR Y F E I S VOLU14E I AUGUST, 1991 F TD 194.56 .C2 F56 tgg Monterey Final Environmental Bay mpact Statement/ National Management Plan Marine Sanctuary volume I 7`2 AM U.S. Department of Commerce 'es!T or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 0-0 A q"- Sanctuaries and hb,7@ Reserves Division (%to Nfts of UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE FINAL ENVIRONMNTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY xxxxx, 1991 (Augustj 1991) U11 Prepared BY: Sanctuaries and Reserves 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 Title Final 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 2,539 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 2400. These southern and northern boundarids 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 shoreward from their respective colreg. demarcation lines except for Moss Landing Harbor where all of Elkhron Slough east of the Highway one bridge is included within 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. zight 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; marine mammals, turtles and seabirds; and "thrill craft". Two other activities are potentially subject to regulations: vessel traffic and fishing. 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: Raphael Lopez, Regional Manager Sanctuaries and Reserves Division Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management National Ocean Service/NOAA 1825 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 714 Washington, D.C. 20235 (202) 606-4126 FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE PROPOSED MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE LIST OF FIGURES ........9...................................... Xi LIST OF TABLES ................................................ Xii PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I-1 I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-3 II. Authority for Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 III. Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program . . . . 1-5 IV. Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program . . . . 1-5 V. History of the Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 VI. Purpose and Need for Designation . . . . . . . . . . . I-10 A. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10 B. Present and Potential Uses . . . . . . 1-13 C. Adequacy of Existing Authorities to Man;g; t'h; @r;a 1-16 D. Benefits Derived From Sanctuary Status . . . . . . 1-19 VII. Socioeconomic Effects of Designation . . . . . . . . 1-23 A. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24 B. oil and Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25 C. Discharge and Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25 D. Thrill Craft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-27 E. overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-28 F. Vessel Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-28 G. Alteration of or construction on the Seabed . . . 1-29 VIII. Manageability of the Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-30 IX. Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-32 A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . . . . . 1-32 B. Endangered Species Act (ESA) . . . . . . . . . . . 1-32 C. Resource Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-33 D. Federal Consistency Determination . . . . . . 1-34 E. Fishery Regulations . . . . * . 0 . . : : 1-34 F. other Federal and State Agencies and the U.S. -35 Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I P 7 11: T E AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT I. Section: The Regional Context 11-4 A. Sanctuary Location . . . . 11-4 B. Regional Access . . . . . . 11-5 II. Section: Sanctuary-Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7 B. Environmental Conditions . . . . . ... . . . . . . 11-7 1. Geological Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7 2. Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10 3. Physical Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12 4. Water Quality : , , * * * * * * * * * * , * - 11-22 C. Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-28 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-28 2. Submarine Canyon Habitat . . . . . . . . . . 11-28 3. Nearshore Sublittoral Habitat . . . . . . . . 11-29 4. Rocky Intertidal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . 11-31 5. Sandy Beach Intertidal Habitat . . . . . . . 11-32 6. Kelp Forest Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32 7. Estuaries and Sloughs .. . . . . . . . . . . . 11-34 D. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 11-36 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . 11-36 2. Plankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-36 3. Algae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-38 4. Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . 11-39 5. Fishes . ... . . . . . . . . . . : : : : : . 11-42' 6. Seabirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-45 7. Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-49 8. Marine Mammals . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 11-49 E. Cultural and Historical Resources . . . . . . . . 11-58 1. Historic sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-58 2. Shipwrecks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-60 F. Existing Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-60 1. State Refuges and Reserves . . . . . . . . . 11-61 2. State Historic Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-69 3. California State Park System and Beaches 11-70 III. section: Human Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-72 A. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-72 1. Commercial Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-72 2. Mariculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-73 3. Kelp Harvesting - - 11-74 B. Hydrocarbon and Mineral A@tivities* 11-75 1. oil and Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-75 2. Sand Mining . . . . * *@e@g. . 0 0 . 0 . . . 11-77 C. Vessel Traffic, Harbors and D ing . . . . . . . 11-77 1. Vessel Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-77 2. Harbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * 11-80 3. Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-82 4. Dredge Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-82 ii D. Discharges, Deposits and Non-Dredge Material Dump Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-83 1. Point Source Discharges .. . . . . . . . . . . 11-83 2. Non-Point Source Discharges . 11-86 3. Desalination Plant Discharges : : : : : : . . 11-87 4. Non-Dredge Material Dump Sites . . . . . . . 11-92 E. Military Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-93 F. Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-94 G. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-98 H. Coastal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-99 I. Recreational Activities and Tourism . . . . . . II-100 1. Tourism II-100 2. Coastal @e@r;atii@n'A@e;s' II-101 3. Recreational Boating . . . . . . . . . . . II-101 4. "Personal water craft" . . . . . . . . . . 11-102 5. Recreational Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . 11-103 6. Intertidal Collecting . . . . . . . . . . . 11-104 7. Diving . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-104 8. Nature Observation . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-105 9. Surfing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-105 IV. Section: Existing Resource Protection Regime . . . 11-107 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-107 B. Federal Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-107 C. State Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-110 PART III: ALTE rG THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE I. Section: Boundary Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 111-6 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-6 B. Boundary Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-7 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-7 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . . 111-7 C. Boundary Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-8 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-8 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . . 111-8 D. Boundary Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-9 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-9 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . . 111-9 E. Boundary Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . III-10 F. Boundary Alternative 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-11 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-11 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . III-11 G. Boundary Alternative 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-12 1. Geography . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 111-12 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . 111-12 H. Boundary Alternative 7 . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 111-13 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-13 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . 111-13 II. Section: Regglatory Alternatives . . . . . . . . . 111-14 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-14 B. oil, Gas and Mineral Activities . . . . . . . . 111-15 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-15 2. Sanctuary Alternative I . . . . . . . . . . 111-18 3. Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred) . . . 111-19 C. Discharges or Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-22 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . 111-22 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d* 111-30 D. Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-39 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . * * * * ' 111-39 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d* . . . . . 111-41 E. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed 111-43 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . * * 111-43 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d* . . . . . 111-45 F. Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles and Seabirds 111-47 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . * ' 111-47 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d . . . . . . 111-48 G. overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * * 111-50 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-50 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . 111-51 H. operation of "Personal water craft . . . . . . . 111-53 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . * * * * ' 111-53 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d* . . . . . 111-54 iv I. vessel Traffic . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . 111-57 1 - Status Quo (preferred) . . . . . . . . . . 111-57 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 111-61 J. Fishing . . . . . * * ' * * 111-64 1. Status Quo (preferred) 111-64 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 111-71 Section: Management Alternatives . . . . . . . . . 111-73 A. Introduction ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-73 B. Alternatives . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-73 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . , * * * 111-73 2. Sanctuary Management Alternative 1 . . . . 111-73 3. Sanctuary Management Alternative 2 (Preferred) 111-74 V PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEOUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES IV-1 I. Section: Boundary Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 B. Boundary Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 C. Boundary Alternative 2 (Preferred) . . . . . . . . IV-8 D. Boundary Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-14 E. Boundary Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16 F. Boundary Alternative 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18 G. Boundary Alternative 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19 H. Boundary Alternative 7 . . . . . . . . . . . ... . IV-22 II. Section: RegMlatogy Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . IV-25 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-25 B. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities . . . . . . . .. . IV-27 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-27 2. Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred) . . . . IV-31 C. Discharges or Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-38 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . IV-38 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d) IV-45 D. Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-54 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . IV-54 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d) . . . . IV-55 E. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed . . . IV-58 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . * * IV-58 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;dj : : : : . . IV-60 F. Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles and Seabirds . . . IV-64' 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . * ' * * * ' IV-64 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@red)* . . . . . . IV-66 G. Overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-68- 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . * * ' ' * ' IV-68 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d)* . . . . . . IV-69 H. operation of "Personal Water Craft" . . . . . . . IV-72 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . ' * * * * * IV-72 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Prefe@r;d)* . . . . . . IV-73 I. Vessel Traffic . , * * * * * * ** * * * * , * , * IV-74 1. Status Quo (Preferred) . . . . . . . . . . . IV-74 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-79 J. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-81 1. Status Quo (Preferred) . . . . . . . . ... . IV-81 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-82 III. Section: Management Alternative Consecruences . . . . IV-84 A. Consequences of Status Quo . . . . . . . . IV-84 1. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-84 2. Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . IV-86 B. Consequences of Sanctuary Alternative 1 . . . . . IV-87 1. Enforcement . - - - i . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-88 2. Research and Education . . . . . . . IV-88 C. Consequences of Sanctuary Alternative 2 (P@eie@r;d) IV-88 1. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . IV-89 2. Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . . IV-89 Vi IV. Section: Unavoidable hdverse EnvirbnMental or Socioeconomic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . IV-93 V. Section: RelationshiR Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Long-term Productivijy . . . . . . . . . IV-95 vii PART V: SANCTUARY MANAGEMENT PLAN V-1 I. Section Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3 II. Section: Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-8 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . V-8 B. Goals . . . . . V-9 C. Sanctuary Regulations . . . V-10 1. Emergencies . V-12 2. Defense or Law Eniorc;m;n@ A'ct'[email protected] V-12 D. Contingency Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-14 1. Existing Capabilities . . . . . . . . . V-14 2. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . . V-17 E. Compatible Use of the Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . V-20 F. Surveillance and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . V-21 1. Sanctuary Action and Coordination with Existing Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-21 2. Public Education and Information . . . . V-23 3. Planning and Coordination . . . . . . . V-24 III. Section: Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-25 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-25 B. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-27 C. Framework for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-28 1. Baseline Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-29 2. Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-32 3. Predictive Studies * * V-35 D. Selection and Management WR;s;a@ch* Pr@j;ct*s* . . V-37' 1. Preparing an Annual Plan . . . . . . . . . . V-37 2. Monitoring Progress . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-38 3. Information Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . V-38 IV. Section Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-39 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-39 B. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-39 C. Educational Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . V-40 D. Educational Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . V-42 1. Site Visitor Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . V-42 2. Information Center Programs . . . . . . . . . V-43 3. outreach Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-46 V. Section: Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-48 A. Introduction V-48 1. Sanctuaries nd Re rv : : : : ; ;e es Division V-48 2. Sanctuary Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . V-49 3. Federal-Agencies, - - . . . . . . . . . . . V-50 4. State, regional and lo@al agencies . . . . * V-51 B. Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-53 C. Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-56 D. Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-57 E. General Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-58 F. Staffing Levels V-61 G. Headquarters and @i;itio@ &n*tWF@c1litie; V-61 viii PART- VI: LIST OF PREPARERS AND ACMOWLEDGMENTS VI-1 PART VII: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES VII-1 PART VIII: REFERENCES VIII-1 PART IX: APPENDICES A. Federal Advisory Committee Act .......................... A-1 B. Designation Document and Proposed Regulations ........... B-1 C. Existing State and Federal Authorities Relevant to Monterey Bay ............................................ C-1 D. Discharges in the Monterey Bay Area ..................... D-1 E. Abbreviations ........................................... E-1 ix LIST OF FIGURES F* Title Pacre - 1 National Marine Sanctuary Program ....................... 1-5 2 Study Area used for DEIS/MP ............................. 1-9 3 Study Area used for FEIS/MP and Regional Context ..... 1-9/11-5 4 Monterey Bay Area Sediment Types ........................ 11-9 5 Generalized Schematic of Major Ocean Currents in the Monterey Bay --.rea ......... -ooo.o- ........ ...... 11-16 6 Sea Surface Temperatures and Upwelling Zones in the Monterey Bay Area ....... o... o- ... o............ 11-18 7 Riverine Input to the Monterey Bay Area.... 11-22 8 Habitat Types within the Monterey Bay Area.. ... 11-28 9 Major Fishery Spawning Areas., ... oo .... oo-o ...... -oo 11-42 10 Significant Seabird Populations in the Monterey Bay Area 11-46 11 Significant Pinniped Haulout Areas and Areas of Offshore Concentration... .... o-ooo ... o ...... oo .... oo ...... oo-o ... oII-49 12 Significant Cetacean Areas of Offshore Concentration.....II-53 13 California Sea Otter Rate of Range Expansion and Distribution..... ..... oo ....o... ... -.-11-55 14 Trawl Fishery- ... -oo ........ - ....... ....... o... 11-73 15 Line, Trap, Lampara and Gillnet Fisheries.... ..... -oo ... 11-73 16 Potential Oil and Gas Development in the Vicinity of the Monterey Bay Area........ .... -o-o--oooo .... oo.-o-II-76 17 Vessel Traffic in the Vicinity of the Monterey Bay Area..II-79 18 Santa Cruz Harbor ..... oooo-o-o-o-o .......- .... ooII-81 19 Moss Landing Harbor... ..... o..... - ..... --ooo ...... o-II-81 20 Monterey Harbor. .... oo-o-o.o.- ... --11-81 21 Ocean Discharge Sites and Dump 22 Total Wastewater, Discharged into Areas Adjacent to the Study Area, By Source, Circa 1984... ... 23 Pesticide Use Adjacent to the Sanctuary Study Area.... ... 11-88 24 military Training Areas in the Vicinity of the Monterey Bay Area..... ... o.oo._ .... _oo .... oo ..... oooo- .... oo.oII-93 25 Research and Education Facilities in the Mont. Bay Area..II-94 26 Land Use Adjacent to the Sanctuary Study Area... ... o..o.-II-94 27 Coastal County Population Change 1960-2010 ........ o-o-II-99 28 Boundary Alternative #1.oooo .... oo-o-o-oo .... o ... oo .... 111-7 29 Boundary Alternative #2, Preferred.... o ...... 30 Boundary Alternative #3---oo-oo-o ... ooo-oo-o-o-III-9 31 Boundary Alternative #4 ......... oo ...... o .............. oIII-10 32 Boundary Alternative #5-oo--oo ...o... --ooo ........ III-11 33 Boundary Alternative #6 ..... ooIII-12 34 Boundary Alternative Vo ... o-.o::ooIII-13 35 Proposed Zones Prohibiting Overflights Less Than 10001-111-52 36 Proposed Zones For operation of Thrill Craft... oo ..... -111-55 37 30 Day Probability of an Oil Spill Contact with the Sea Otter Range, Seasonal Averageo ..... 38 Recent State Restrictions on Commercial Fishing ....... -111-66 X LIST OF TABLES Tables Title 1 Long-Term Average Freshwater Discharges into Study Region Waters .................................................. 11-22 2 Fish Kills by County: 1�85-1989 ......................... 11-27 3 Representative Algae Associated with the Diverse Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area ....................... 11-39 4 Representative Invertebrates Associated with the Diverse Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area ....................... 11-40 5 Representative Fishes Associated with the Diverse Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area ....................... 11-43 6 Representative Seabirds and their Seasonal Status in the Monterey Bay Area .............................. __II-46 7 Marine Mammals Found in the Monterey Bay Area...........II-49 8 Units of the California State Park System and Special Areas Managed by CDF&G in the Monterey Bay study.area...II-61 9 Restrictions on the Recreational Taking of invertebrates in Tide Pools or other Areas Between the High Tide Mark.II-61 10 Summary of Poundage and Value (over $20,000 only) of Fisheries Data for the Ports of Santa Cruz, Moss Landing, Monterey-Salinas (1987) and Princeton (1989) ............ 11-72 11 Trips of Drafts of Vessel Taffic in through San Francisco Bay Entrance, COE, 1988 ..................... o.II-79 12 Land Use by County and Watershed adjacent to Monterey Bay Study area.... .... ooo-oo ..... ... 11-98 13 Major Species of Fish Caught from Private or Rental, Boats, Beaches, Piers and Jetties....... ... oo__ .... oII-104 14 Fish Caught by Commercial Party Boat Fleet for the Ports of Santa Cruz, Monterey and Moss Landing....... ... 11-104 15 Boundary Alternative 1, Summary of.Resources and Uses..III-7 16 Boundary Alternative 2, Summary of Resources and Uses..III-8 17 Boundary Alternative 3 Summary of Resources and Uses...III-9 18 Boundary Alternative 4, Summary of Resources and Uses..III-10 19 Boundary Alternative 5, Summary of Resources and Uses .111-11 20 Boundary Alternative 6, Summary of Resources and Uses 111-12 21 Boundary Alternative 7, Summary of Resources and Uses..III-13. 22 Potential Impacts of Sanctuary Regulations and Status Quo on Resources and Uses....... ... o ...o......... ......III-14a 23 Catch Restrictions for Species of Commercial Fisheries in the Monterey Bay Area., ...... _.oo.oo ... 111-66 24 Environmental Consequences of Boundary Alternativeso.o..IV-5 25 Environmental Consequences of Regulations by Boundary Alternative. ... 0 '0*-*o- ... o o o o-o., IV-25 26 Summary of Threats to Sanctuary Resour@;;*f'@0'M*o;1:i'***o' and Gas Activitieso_o.oo.o.oooo ... o ..... oo.-oo.- ... ooIV-29 27 Potential Oil and Gas Impacts Mitigated by NOAA's Preferred Alternativeooo ... o.oooo-o-oo-o ..... o...... o..oIV-31 xi pKF-C. s A-" A R)e Executive Summary I 0 *I I-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 1-3 II. Authority for Designation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-4 III. Goals of the National Marine Sanctuary Program . . . . 1-5 IV. Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program . . . . 1-5 V. History of the Proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-7 VI. Purpose and Need for-Designation . . . . . . . . . . . I-10 A. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-10 B. Present and Potential Uses . . . . * - - - - - - 1-13 C. Adequacy of Existing Authorities to Man;ge the Area 1-16 D. Benefits Derived From Sanctuary Status . . . . . . 1-19 VII. socioeconomic Effects of Designation . . . . . . . . 1-23 A. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-24 B. Oil and Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25 C. Discharge and Deposits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-25 D. Thrill Craft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-27 E. overflights . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 1-28 F. Vessel Traffic . . . * * * . . . . . . . . . 1-28'. G. Alteration of or Constructi@n-on- the Seabed . . . 1-29 VIII. Manageability of the Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-30 IX. Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . * , , * * * , * 1-32 A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) . . . . . 1-32 B. Endangered Species Act (ESA) . . . . . . . . . . . 1-32 C. Resource Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-33 D. Federal Consistency Determination . . . . . . . . 1-34 E. Fishery Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-34 F. other Federal and State Agencies and the U.S. Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-35 1-2 PART I: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I. Introduction In accordance with Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. �� 1431 et g&q., this Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan proposes the establishment of a National Marine Sanctuary centered on Monterey Bay to facilitate the long-term management, protection understanding and awareness of its resources and qualities. This Part of the report (Part I, The Executive Summary) reviews the authority for Sanctuary designation, the goals and status of the National Marine Sanctuary Program, the development of this proposal, the purpose and need for designating a National Marine Sanctuary at Monterey Bay, the socioeconomic consequences of designation and manageability of the area and con sultations conducted during the designation process. Part II describes the entire study area examined for determining a final preferred boundary alternative, including human uses, natural resources, and the existing resource protection regime. The area recommended for the proposed Sanctuary, about 2,539 square nautical miles, provides the habitat and setting for a. distinctive assortment of living and non-living marine resources'. 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, promoting public understanding of the value of Bay area resources, minimizing overlap with existing 1-3 jurisdictions and minimizing any negative impacts to.the area's income generating activities (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 plan for managing the proposed Sanctuary is provided in Part V. This plan contains guidelines and goals 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 act@ons are considered in four program categories: (1) resource protection, (2) research, (3) education and, (4) administration. II. Authority for Designation Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. �� 1431 et �Ag-, (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 1-4 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 Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD) in the office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management. III. 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: 1. 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. IV. Status of the National Marine Sanctuary Progra Nine National Marine sanctuaries have been established since the Program Is inception in 1972 (Figure 1) 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. 1-5 The National Marine Sanctuary Program orthern Puget Sound 0 1 tmo a Sict A A Thunder Bay A Cordell Bank 0 Gulf of the Farallones A Nor Monterey Bay A Channel Islands 0 MO Gray's Re( Kahoolawe. A Proposed Hawaii AL Flower Garden Designated Banks Florida Ke@ - Key Lar@ Fagatele Bay, - Looe Ke American Samoa The Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary, designated in December 1975, provides protection and management of a loo 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. 1-6 The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary w.as designated by the U.S. Congress, by the Florida Keys Protection Act (H.R. 5909), October 24, 1990. The Act specifies an 2,600 square nautical mile area of coasta'1 waters off the Florida Keys to be encompassed by the boundaries of the Sanctuary. The purpose of this Act is to protect the Florida coral reef area, one of the most diverse ecosystems in the world, specifically from activities such as vessel groundings and pollution. This Act prohibits oil and gas activities within the Sanctuary and requires the Secretary of Commerce to develop a comprehensive management plan and implementinmg regulations not later than 30 months after the date of enactment of this Act. Upon implementation of this Management Plan Key Largo and Looe Key Sanctuaries would be incorporated into the Florida Keys Sanctuary. In addition, the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division is in the p.rocess of studying, or preparing draft or final designation documents for, eight additional proposed Sanctuaries around the coast of the United States. These proposed Sanctuaries are in North Puget Sound and Olympic Coast, Washington; Santa Monica Bay, California; Stellwagen Bank, Massachusetts; Norfolk Canyon, Virginia;. Flower Garden Banks, Texas; Kaboolave Islands, Hawaii; and Thunder Bay, Michigan (Piqure 1). V. History of the PrOROsed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctu M 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 1-7 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 1-8 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-Palaronian 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 f igure 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. Oral and written comment during the scoping period requested that the study area be expanded to include a northern area contiguous with the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and a southern area to include the California Sea Otter Refuge as designated by the California Department of Fish and Game. In response to the public request for an expanded study area the DEIS/MP included a boundary alternative (#5) that encompassed the area of concern (Figure 3). NOAA published proposed regulations including a proposed 1-9 1230 122" 1210 380 % 7- A 380 V Point ReYes LEGEND Study AIW Point Smite I rid Mill G"Yof Point-Lobos San Francisco dw Farahm state watm Point San Pedm Pilar Point San Gregodo I Pescadero Creek 0400 pesce&VO Point Ageon Point Pt. Ano Nuevo Son MW Soque' port Creek on Muftm Mks Uft - ( - a 8 - = -V-- 370 37* Crw low P#pn ElMorn Scuo Moss Lending swinas RKW MmWey Carrnd AM Point tNLAA%JCU Lobals C&Mw MW Sur aw ft &4b POW CT& UPOPOW 0 36 360 Cope son Mw* % ftt PIAW= SWUM Oled 01 T, ?SLARI ca;" 1230 1220 121* Figure 2. su* Area for Draft EWMP. MOWEREY BAY SANCTUARY S, ADJ A'CENT COUNTIES, AND HYDROLOGI =UNrrS 18050005 NORTHERN AREA 900 squa;Q Nautical miles Francisco Mateo . ....... .. ........... 18060002 10060011 180600111 ICENTR AREA 2500 Squars Neubcal MW ........... 18060005 ... ......... SOUTHERN 700 Sware Neu -t Affiff 18060006 ...... ..... Square mileages are approximate. Numerical values indicate hydrobgic units. . . . . . . . . . . Map data prepared by the Strateoc EnWownental Assessrowt Office. of Ocean Resources Conswwtion and Assessawit, Nadonal Ocean Service, RockW#o, U47WW. BOUNDPAY ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1 AlWnatlve 2 Alternabve 3 Aftemabve 4 AlUmadve 5 AlternaDve 8 Altematilos 7 Designation Document and an announcement of public hearings (55 FR 31786) and a DEIS/MP for the proposed designation of Monterey Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary on August 3, 1990. The public hearings were held on September 12, 1990, at Monterey City Hall, Monterey; on September 13, 1990, at veterans Hall Auditorium, Santa Cruz; and on September 14, at the Community Seniors Center, Half Moon Bay. All interested persons were invited to attend. Copies of the DEIS/MP were mailed to all those commenting during the Scoping period and were made available for review at: Half Moon Bay City Hall and Half Moon Bay Library, Half Moon Bay, California; Harrison Memorial Library, Carmel; Castroville Branch of the Monterey County Library, Castroville; Aptos Library, Aptos; Santa Cruz City Library, and the California Coastal commission offices, Santa Cruz; Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, Monterey; and the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, Watsonville. The public comment period closed October 3, 1990. A summary of public comments, both oral and written, received during the- comment period, and NOAA's .response to comments, is provided in Volume II of this FEIS/MP. vi. Purpose and Need for Designation A. Natural Resources The proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary meets all of the site identification criteria developed by the Sanctuaries I-10 TABLE XX- ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES (A) PERCENT RESOURCES ENCOMPASSED RESOURCE CATEGORY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES % Distribution 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNIT jij., Protected Areas All Sites . ......... Invertebrates . .. .... High Conc'n Areas Rockfish 10 50 MENEEMEN 50 20 _Spawning Habitat Squid 40 40 so 30 40 Spawning Habiat Seabirds 20 40 30 20 Hiah Conc'n Areas Fissipeds 6 0@: ...... p: 0 J# of Individuals 6. Pinnipeds 20 40 40 20 High Conc'n Areas .. ..... so 30 High Conc'n Areas Cetaceans 20 6 0- ....... Canyon Habitat 10 mutical miles Kelp Habitat so so 50 so so Sq. na tical miles "M So. nau Wetland Habitat RE NEE fical miles VNEEME Histofical 40 1 40 1 40 40 40 Shipwrecks (8) PERCENT USES ENCOMPASED USE CATEGORY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES % Distribution 1 2 4 S 6 7 UNIT Comm. Fishing Total Fish Value Military 0 10 Sqnmi. Train'g Areas Vessel Traffic 1 30 1 40 40 1 40 1# Vessels/ Year #Adj. Ocean Areas Recreation N Squa Urban. Land Use 9 Miles OCS Oil 30 30 20 20 Million Barrels OCS Gas 30 30 0 20 Billion Cubic Feet Discharges (PS) so so so so so BGY Wwamr in Ocean BGy W\Water Discharges (NPS 71: ot F Ail Resh/Fdn \ANNOWN va@ acilities Legend 90-100% 80% 70% W% 0-50% 22 :7777= S 20 mew "7@-j t Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Altemafive 4 Altemat" 5 Altemalive 6 Alternative 7 and Reserves Division (NOAA, 1983). Located within a broad transition zone between the Oregonian province to the north and the Californian province to the south, the Bay is influenced by relatively cool and fresh waters of the California Current, a classic eastern boundary current that is part of the large-scale North Pacific Gyre. The bathymetry, currents and ocean thermal structure in the area around Monterey Bay provide favorable conditions for strong upwelling of nutrient-rich water, which is often found in the Bay. Consequently, the nearshore waters and diversity of habitats are highly productive and support exceptionally rich and abundant floral and faunal communities that 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 system provides habitat for pelagic communities and, along with other.distinct bathymetric features? may modify currents and act to enrich local water through strong seasonal upwelling. 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 geologic feature, as it is one of the few large bays along the Pacific coast. Its exposure to the open ocean and upwelling sources, combined with the Bay's current patterns and geometry, greatly enhance biological productivity. This lends additional importance to the area as a resting and staging area for migrating birds, and a habitat for an abundant and highly diverse community of marine organisms. 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 (Physete 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. Afio 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 1-12 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 quality and abundance of natural resources has attracted people from the earliest prehistoric times to the present and as a result the area contains significant archeological and paleontological resources. Numerous shipwrecks are located along the central coast of California with significant, valuable historical artifacts. The wide variety and abundance of these natural resources are of outstanding val ue to the local, state, regional, national and international community. While Monterey Bay has thus far enjoyed the reputation as an internationally renowned scenic area with good water quality, such success can not realistically he expected in the'future without deliberate protection. B. Present and Potential Uses 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. 1-13 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. 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. Thirteen research facilities are found in the entire study 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. The Sanctuaries and Reserves 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 uniqu e 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 program, emphasizing land- 1-14 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. 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 central California Planning area of the OCS may be considered in the future. Development in the nerthern Bay area was eensidered with prepesed Lease Sale 0119, althe?agh this Lease Sale has n been eaneelled. STRINEGUT OR NOT 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. 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, Princeton or Monterey. Although this traffic is not yet a major concern, contingency plans designed to react to oil spills resulting from tanker accidents are 1-15 being formulated and can be coordinated with Sanctuary designation. 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. C. Adequacy of Existing Authorities to Manage the Area 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. State programs such as 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. Such critical marine areas as the waters around Afno 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 1-16 being limited, the coordination of resource protection and management programs is essential. The Monterey Bay Sanctuary could provide an important role in such coordination. 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 particulatly 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 becomes available through research projects, no institution is charged with applying that information to practical nanagement 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 1-17 Table . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF REGULATIONS BY SANCTUARY BOUNDARY (A) Predicted Cumulative Impact to Selected Resources Under Status Quo Resource Boundary Alternatives Category 2 3 4 5 6 --- 7-7 U N rr Protected Areas 7--0 0 [:1 L--j 0 0 1All- Sites 1:1 iHiqh Invertebrates @1 E@@ [::] Conc'n Areas Rockfish ED E] Spawning Habitat Squid El Spawning Habitat Seabirds High Con 'n Areas Fissipeds [:1 0 1:1 # of Individuals Pinnipeds [::] [::] High Conc'n Areas Celaceans ED 1--] 1:1 High Conc'n Areas Canyon Habitat Sq. Naulical Miles Kelp Habitat Sq. Nautical Miles. Wetland Habitat E_Sq. Nauical Miles Historical 0 1 0 1 01 01 0 1 0 0 # of Shi.pwrecks (B) Predicted Cumulative Impact to Selected Users Under Status Quo Boundary Alternatives Use Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNIT Comm. Fishing F1 [::] I--] ttJ ff2 E] [:1 Total Fish Value Military E:1 El [::] [::] F-1 Sq. N. Mi. Tr ning Area Vessel Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 Vessels/Year Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Ocean Adiacent Areas Urban Land Use 0 0 0 ;EE@ 0 0 Square Miles ocs Oil 0 a e 0 40- 0 0 Million Barrels OCS Gas 0 9) @Q 0 0 0 0 Billion Cubic Feet Discharge (PS) 0 0 @@) BGY Wastewater to Ocean Discharge (NPS) 0 0 0 0 0 BGY Wastewater Research/Educ'n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 # of Facilities LEGEND HIG-+4 MEDIUM LOW Minimal LOW MEDIUM HIGH P- Negative REGULATORYIMPACT Positive Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alterna0ve 4 Altemative 5 Alternative 6 Alternative7 Table - Continued. (C) Predicted Cumulative Impact to Selected Resources from Sanctuary Regulations RESOURCE BOUNDARY ALTERNATIIVES CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNrr Protected Areas All Sites Invertabr-tes High Conc'n keas Rockfish Spawning Habita t Squid ISoawning Habitat Seabirds 1Hiqh Conc'n Areas Fissipeds of Individuals Pinnipeds High Conc'n Areas Cetaceans High Conc'n Areas Canyon Habitat S . Nautical Miles Kelp Habitat ISq. Nautical Miles Wetland Habitat Sq. Nautical Miles Historical of Shipwrecks (D) Predicted Cumulative Impact to Selected Users from Sanctuary Regulations Boundary Alternatives Use Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNrr Comm. Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Fish Value Military Sq. N. Mi. Training Area Vessel Traffic Vessels/Year Recreation # Ocean Adjacent Areas Urban Land Use Square Miles OCS Oil Million Barrels OCS Gas Billion Cubic Feet Discharges (PS) BGY Wastewater to Ocean Discharges (NPS) EH@ I BGY Wastewater Research/Educ'n of Facilities Abbreviations Conc'n =Concentration. Sq. -Square, Sq.N.Mi. Square Nautical Miles, PS. Point Source, NPS Non-Point Source, Educ'n . Education. BGY - Billion Gallons Year. would forego opportunities for affirmative management. Presently, numerous government agencies are vested with some regulatory authority over certain activities within the area (See Appendix C). 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, teaches, Reserves and Refuges do so in particular. In general, however, the statutes described above and the agencies 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 1-18 jurisdictions, may not be able to respond to future activities on the basis of ecosystem issues. There is 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. D. Benefits Derived From Sanctuary Status 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 (Table XX). 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 1-19 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 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 casesp recolonizing) pinniped breeding populations. Many species Of migratory waterfowl visit seasonally by virtue of the area's 1-20 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 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) ai4 in coordinating actions by existing authorities, (4) formulate long-raLhge 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. The proposed designation will improve resource protection by 1-21 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, 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. 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. The following eight 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; marine mammals, turtles and seabirds; and "thrill craft". Two other activities are 1-22 potentially subject to regulations: vessel traffic and fishing. Table X summarizes the consequences of the Sanctuary regulatory and those of the Status Quo in comparative form. These 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. The overall effect of these regulations, narrowly focused on specific activities, will be beneficial. VII. Socioeconomic Effects of Designation The regulations proposed for the sanctuary are not likely to result in: (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; (2) a major increase in costs.or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, state or local government agencies or geographic regions; or, (3) significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation or on the ability Of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign- based enterprises in domestic or export markets. 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 1-23 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 notifyingNOAA 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. A. Fishing As there is no Sanctuary regulation regarding fishing, there would be no negative effects on this highly productive industry. The net effect of preserving habitat and water quality by controlling pollutants. and disturbance of the seabed should be very positive for maintaining healthy and productive fish stocks. If threats arise in the future from this activity the Sanctuary would consult with the Pacific Fisheries Management 1-24 Council (PFMC) to determine an appropriate course of action to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. The PFMC would have the first opportunity to draft any regulations affecting fishing activities. B. Oil and Gas Estimates of revenue foregone by the proposed prohibition of oil, gas and mineral activities within the Sanctuary boundary is 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". C. Discharge and DeROsits 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 1-25 conditions applied to existing activities will be done in consultation with the affected party and the appropriate management agency. The proposed regulations prohibiting discharges within or beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary, with certain exceptions, complements the existing regulatory system established by EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards. The regulation does not prohibit existing sewage outfall discharges or the disposal of dredge material within the Sanctuary at existing sites pursuant to permits existing prior to the date of 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 deposit of dredged material will be subject to Sanctuary regulatory prohibitions unless approved by NOAA. New dredge disposal and designation of new dredge disposal sites would be prohibited within the Sanctuary. No new dredge disposal activities are being considered within the preferred boundary. In addition, new discharge of primary treated sewage effluent would be prohibited. Within the preferred boundary only the Cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville discharge at primary levels. The City of Santa Cruz is 75% complete with an upgrade to secondary treatment and the City of Watsonville only recently received a 301H waiver permitting primary discharge thus it would 1-26 have five years to upgrade to secondary treatment levels. Proposed desalination activities would not be prohibited with sanctuary designation but rather subject to NOAA certification and approval of appropriate permits required by other agencies to ensure that the activity does not injure Sanctuary resources and qualities. This regulation may impose additional costs by requiring the use of more expensive dredge disposal or dumping sites or methods. The regulation could also result in additional costs if were determined 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 to that afforded by the existing legislation. The requirement of Sanctuary certification or other approval of permits for municipal, power, industrial and desalination outfall and dredge disposal will ensure that.these potentially harmful activities receive special consideration from the Sanctuary viewpoint. D. Thrill Craft Thrill Craft are prohibited in the Sanctuary except within three designated zones near the Cities of Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and Monterey. The intent of this prohibition is to minimize disturbance and potential injury to nearshore and coastal resources such as sea otters and kelp beds by designating these zones beyond 1-27 the 10 fathom contour. At the same time these zones will minimize conflicts with other users of the area such as surfers and swimmers while at the same time provide access to areas traditionally used by thrill craft operators. E. overflights overflights below 10001 are prohibited within three zones located generally around Elkhorn Slough, north of Santa Cruz and south of Carmel out to three nautical miles. The intent of this prohibition is to protect sensitive Sanctuary resources, such as nesting seabirds and mammals at haul out areas from the disturbance and startle affects of low-flying aircraft. Access to airports by commercial airlines will not be affected and a local seaplane charter will still be able to take off and land from its base at Santa Cruz. F. Vessel Traffic There will be no economic effects on vessel traffic as NOAA has considered and deferred considering regulation of vessel traffic, that may include, but not be limited to: (1) routing of all-, or certain classes of 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) dedignation of areas to be avoided or other internationally recognized measures designed to protect the marine environment. NOAA will consult with USCG as studies continue and data 1-28 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. G. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed Dredging activities are not extensive within the preferred alternative's proposed Sanctuary boundaries; nevertheless, unrestricted alteration of, construction on, or drilling of the seabed represents a 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. The suggested regulatory restriction 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. 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. No severe economic impacts upon commercial firms are-expected. Dredging exceptions would allow for installation of navigation aids, and the maintenance of harbors and existing mariculture operations. Harbors are specifically excluded from the Sanctuary boundaries and the regulation of projects for 1-29 docks and piers in the nearshore area will remain the responsibility of the existing regulatory authorities. Activities regarding the construction and placement of pipelines would be allowed after approval by NOAA. New sand mining activities in the surf zone and below mean high tide would be prohibited. Recent studies have shown that this activitiy is causing accelaration of natural erosion of the seabed and the adjacent dune system. The one company that dredges below the surf zone also mines behind the dunes and would thus be able to continue its activities beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary. - 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. VIII. Manageability of the Area 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 1-30 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 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 management program for the proposed Sanctuary will be developed and implemented by NOAA and the on-site manager in conjunction with other state, Federal and local agencies in order to benefit from existing expertise and personnel and to promote State and Federal interagency coordination and cooperation. These include those of the California Departments of Fish and Game and Parks and Recreation, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, 1-31 Department of Boats and Waterways, local municipalities, AMBAG, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife service, the coast Guard and National Marine Fisheries Service. A particularly useful mechanism for coordination would be a Sanctuary Advisory Committee, including members from Federal, State and local agencies, as well as commercial and private interests and the public. 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. IX. Consultations A. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) This document is both a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Management Plan (MP) for the proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The FEIS has been completed in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 1500-1508) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321-4347), including Public Scoping Meetings (January, 1989) and Public Hearings on the DEIS/MP (September, 1990) in the Monterey Bay area. (The MP is included in accordance with Section 304 of the MPRSA). B. Endangered Species 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 1-32 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 IS Endangered (E) and three Threatened (T) species are known to occur in the area. The species identified are: 1. California brown pelican .... Pelicanus occidentalis calif. E 2. Short-tailed albatross .................. Diomedea albatrus E 3. American peregrine falcon ......... Falco 2eregrinus anatum E 4. California least tern ............ gterna antillaru brgwni E 5. Gray whale .......................... Eschrichtius robugtus E 6. Right whale ................... ;....... EubalAena glaciglis E 7. Blue whale .......................... Balaenoptera musculus E 8. Fin whale ..................................... &.- r)hys�lus E 9. Sei whale ..................................... B. borealis E 10. Humpback whale ..................... Mecraptera novaeangliae E 11. Sperm whale .............................. Physeter catodon E 12. Green sea turtle ........................... ghelonia mydas E 13. Leatherback sea turtle ............... Dermoclielys corigcea E 14. Pacific Ridley sea turtle ........... Le2idochelys olivgcea E 15. Loggerhead sea turtle ..................... Caretta carotta T 16. Guadalupe fur seal ................ Arctoce2hAlus townsgndi T 17. Stellar sea lion ...................... Eumatgpias jubatus* T 18. Southern sea otter .................. Enhydra lutris nereis T 19. Santa Cruz long-toed salamander..Ambystoma macro. crogeu E 20. San Francisco garter snake ... Thamnophis sirt. tetratagnia 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. Both the Fws and the NMFS responded that Sanctuary designation was not likely to adversely affect these species and that no formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 was necessary. C. Resource Assessment The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as 1-33 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 Dep artment of the Interior (DOI). This requirement has been met in consultation with the DOI and the assessment report is contained in Part 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. E. Fishery Regglations Section 303(b)(2)(D) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, requires consulation with the Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). During consultation NOAA requested the PFMC to determine if additional fishery regulations were necessary with Sanctuary designation in accordance with Section 304(b)(5). PFMC responded that no additional regulations were necessary and that management responsibility regarding fishing activities should remain with existing authorities. 1-34 F. Other Federal and State Agencies and the U.S. Congress The Secretary has consulted with the Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. On August 3, 1990, the Designation Prospectus for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary was provided to all members of each committee. The results of these consultations have been incorporated into the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Sanctuary Management Plan (FEIS/MP). The Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, and the Interior, the Administrator of EPA,'and the heads of other interested Federal agencies were consulted and their comments were addressed by the FEIS/MP. Copies of all such written comments are provided in Volume II of the FEIS/MP. Appropriate California State and local government agencies were consulted and their comments were addressed by the FEIS/MP. Copies of all such written comments are provided in Volume II of the FEIS/MP. The comments of all other interested persons were addressed by the FEIS/MP and copies of all such written comments are provided in Volume II of the FEIS/MP. 1-35 0 SETTING I 0 The Sanctuary Setting I* 0 ii-i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Section: The Regional Context . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4 A. Sanctuary Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-4 B. Regional Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-5 Section: Sanctuarv Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7 B. Environmental Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7 1. Geological Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . 11-7 2. Meteorology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-10 3. Physical Oceanography . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-12 a. Waves 11-12 b. Water : : : T;mpe@aLre* : : : : : : . . 11-14 c. Offshore Ocean Currents . . . . . . . . 11-14 d. Upwelling and Eddies . . . . . . . . . . 11-17 e. Nearshore coastal currents . . . . . . . 11-19 f. Freshwater input . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-21 4. Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-22 C. Habitats . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . 11-28 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . ; . . . . 11-28 2. Submarine Canyon Habitat . . . . . . . . . . 11-28 3. Nearshore Sublittoral Habitat . . . . . . . . 11-29 4. Rocky Intertidal Habitat . . . . . . . . . . 11-31 5. Sandy Beach Intertidal Habitat . . . . . . . 11-32 6. Kelp Forest Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-32 7. Estuaries and Sloughs . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-34- D. Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-36 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-36 2. Plankton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-36 3. Algae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-38 4. Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-39 5. Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . 11-42 6. seabirds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-45 7. Turtles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-49 8. Marine Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-49 a. Pinnipeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-49 b. Cetaceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-53 c. Fissipeds . 11-55 E. Cultural and Historical R;s@uL;s* 11-58 1. Historic sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-58 2. Shipwrecks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-60 F. Existing Protected Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-60 1. State Refuges and Reserves . . . . . . . . . 11-61 a. Ecological Reserves . . . . . . . . . . 11-61 b. Game Refuges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-64 c. marine Life Refuges . . . . . . . . . . 11-65 d. Fish Refuge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-66 e. Marine Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-67 2. state Historic Parks . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-69 3. California State Park System and Beaches 11-70 11-2 III. Section: Human Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-72 A. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-72 1. Commercial Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-72 2. Mariculture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-73 3. Kelp Harvesting . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 11-74 B. Hydrocarbon and Mineral Activities . . . . . . . . 11-75 1. Oil and Gas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-75 2. sand mining . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-77 C. Vessel Traffic, Harbors and Dredging . . . . . . . 11-77 1. Vessel Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-77 a. Commercial Shipping . . . . . . . . . . 11-77 b. commercial Fishing Vessels . . . . . . . 11-79 c. Research Vessels ' * * * * : * : * : * * 11-80 d. Recreational Boating . . . 11-80 2. Harbors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-80 a. Princdton/P 'illar Point Harbor . . . . . 11-80 b. Santa Cruz Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . 11-81 c. Moss Landing Harbor . . . . . . . . . . 11-81 d. Monterey Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-81 3. Dredging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-82 4. Dredge Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-82 D. Discharges, Deposits and Non-Dredge Material Dump Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-83 1. Point Source Discharges . . . . . . . . . . . 11-83 2. Non-Point Source Discharges . . . . . . . . . 11-86 3. Desalination Plant Discharges . . . . . . . . 11-87 4. Non-Dredge Material Dump Sites . . . . . . . 11-92 E. Military Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-93 F. Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-94 G. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-98 H. Coastal Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-99 I. Recreational Activities and Tourism . .. . . . . II-100 1. Tourism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-100 2. Coastal Recreation Areas . . . . . . . . . II-101 3. Recreational Boating . . . . . . . . . . . II-101 4. "Personal water craft" . . . . . . . . o . 11-102 5. Recreational Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . 11-103 6. Intertidal Collecting . . . . . . . . . . . 11-104 7o Diving . . . . . . o - o . . . . . . . . o 11-104 8. Nature Observation . . . . . . o - o . . . 11-105 9. Surfing . . o . o . . . . . . . . o - - o - 11-105, IV. section: Existing Resource Protection Regime . o - 11-107 A. Introduction . . . o - - o o - - o - - o . . . . 11-107 B. Federal Authorities . . . . . . . . o . o o 11-107 C. State Authorities . . . . o o o o o - II-110 11-3 PART II: THE SANCTUARY SETTING I. Section: The Regional Context A. Sanctuary Location Monterey Bay is located along the central California coast about 50 miles (80 km) south of San Francisco (Figure p. 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 featureir@ 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 imi (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 nmil (550 km') (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 rmi south of Partington Point, and extending from these sites seaward 11-4 LA4-0-NTEREY BAY SANCTUARY ANALYSIS AREAS, ADJACENT COUNTIES, AND HYDROLOGIC UNrrs [NORTHERN 18050005 900 Squaxe Nautical Miles Francisco Mateo 18050006 Xi .............- 18060001 18060002 . . . . . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18060011 18060012 .. ........ . X... @CENTRAL 2500 Square Nautical Miles .... ... 1806000 X. X.. .. ........ ... .......... SOU7HERN A=REA 700 Square Nautical MjAes 18060006 ........... .......... .... ............. ... ........ . ..... .... Square mileages are approximate. Numerical values indicate hydrologic units. Map data prepared by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland. BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES Alternative I Alternabve 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Altemative 5 Alternative 6 Altemative 7 approximately 18 nmi on a southwesterly heading of 240' 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 supportextensive fish, invertebrate, seabird, and marine mammal populations while many commercial fisheries provide a significant economic benefit to the region and the nation. B. Regional Access The Monterey Bay area has been a popular seaside resort since the late 18000s. To the north is the San Francisdo-Oakland metropolitan area with a population of about five million. Highway Number 1 parallels the coast throughout the area, making coastal access possible in many places. North-east Santa Clara and San Benito counties have rapidly growing urban populations in San Jose, Morgan Hill, Gilroy and Hollister. North of the Monterey Peninsula, the shoreline is very accessible because of the large amount of public ownekship. 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 11-5 0 managed by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. 0 11-6 II. Section: Sanctuary Resources A. Introduction The unique marine resources of Monterey Bay are attributable to the area's large submarine canyon and a special set of oceanic conditions that combine to produce the bay's highly productive waters. Distinct bathymetry, combined with the area's ocean currents and thermal structure, produce strong seasonal upwelling of nutrient-rich deep water. 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. Mo 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 and varied fish populations. B. Environmental Conditions 1. Geological Oceanography The Monterey Bay region is located on the continental margin within the California Coast Ranges province. it is situated on a 11-7 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 Gregorio 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 gn 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. Xovement in the active San Andreas Fault caused the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake; the epicenter of the magnitude 7.1 earthquake is located 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 Afto 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 11-8 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 Aho 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). The Monterey Bay area is characterized by a narrow continental shelf and is surrounded by a variety of coa stal types. The San 11-9 1230 1220 .. 121* 38" 3.0 1 - & % % I Point 380 Reyes % LEGEND F Point So%nit. $MR and CwW a Shoa S ; Oaldand EM GUM of ft Point Lobos .I San Francisco Gravw Rock Sand i Point Son Pedro Rhe Sand Pillar Point Mud and Sand San Gregorio Mid Pftmdem Creek Pescadera Point Point brenzo Rhw Pt. Aft Nuevo POO C"t SwIta 370 370 MY imp Nwr pS*O wdxwn sough Mau Landing M Sdrms River Coe hlonOM CamW AREA Point ENLARGED Lobos CA117"d RAW Vl*SLrmw Poirasw Partington Point 3 a 360 6 C4w so Mwdn SAMM Cqm* IIIIwm SmSkawn Omsk and %% % 1236 122* 121" Figure 4. Mmftrey Say Area Saftnent TMM (IVOAA- I-W)- Mateo coastline to the north of Monterey Bay consists of long stretches of sandstone cliffs with intermittent breaks created by streams that provide sandy beaches and small estuarine habitats. The cold ocean currents, coastal fog, tectonic upthrust, and sandstone cliffs provide an ideal environment for the creation of intricate caves, caverns and underground labyrinths known as 11tafoni". These dramatic and complex erosional features are especially intricate in the Cretaceous sandstone of the Pigeon Point formation on the San Mateo Coast. The northern coastline of Monterey Bay 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. Sedimentary rocks, mostly shalest form the slopes of the Salinas Valley and the flat coastal shelf at- the north end of the bay (Gordon, 1977). 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. Sandy beaches backed by large dunes extend southward from here to the rocky headland of the Monterey Peninsula. South of the Monterey Peninsula is the Big Sur coastline that is world renowned for its steep cliffs and rocky headlands. 2. Meteorology The North Pacific High Pressure System dominates the region's large-scale meteorology, and produces northerly winds along the II-10 entire U.S. west coast during most of the year (Beardsley et al., 1987). The high migrates northward and intensifies during early spring, providing the strong upwelling-favorable coastal winds characteristic of March through October (Nelson, 1977). The direction and intensity of coastal winds are also strongly influenced by local coastline orientation and topography (Zemba and Friehe, 1987). Large-scale fluctuations in the wind are caused primarily by atmospheric_storm systems that are several hundred miles in diameter, and have time scales longer than about 2 days (Halliwell and Allen, 1987). 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 th e 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 (Nelson, 1977). 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 off the continental shelf and slope and is II-11 replaced with the warmer, northward flowing waters of the Davidson current (See below under the Physical Oceanography section for detail on current movements in the area). The net effect of these alternating currents is that the Monterey Bay climate is characterized by both northern temperate and southern sub-tropical features. Air temperatures along the shoreline can vary significantly depending upon protection from the dominant northwest winds and storms. For example, Afto 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. 3. Physical Oceanography a. Waves The height and period of waves in Monterey Bay and the nearby coastal ocean vary with the seasons and location. Heights are greatest during winter and lowest in summer (Seymour et al., 1990). Under the more stable summer conditions, the waves are able to 11-12 build broad, gently-sloping beaches. Winter conditions produce higher waves that transport sand to the offshore zone and erode beaches (Gordon, 1977). The typical significant wave height at Marina is about 75 cm wit@i a period of around 7 seconds. Severe waves occurred in the mid-1980's that inflicted damage to the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) outfall. The bathymetry of the Bay, particularly with the submarine canyon has the ability to refract longer period waves, causing a diverging, or lessening of wave energy near the head of the submarine canyon.. However, this is done at the expense of causing wave energy to converge to the south and north and may have been the cause of the damage to the MRWPCA outfall. The northern Bay is somewhat protected from the most energetic storms from the northeast. The significant wave height in Santa Cruz Harbor is about 60 cm, which is concentrated as longer period swell.. Wave periods outside the Bay are similar to those at Marina. However, waves at locations away from the coast are usually larger. Maximum daily significant wave -heights in exposed areas of the Bay are generally 2-4 m. Heights of about 1 m are typical off Half Moon Bay, significant wave heights of 2 m and more occur regularly in the Gulf of the Farallones. swells of 3-4 m and greater have been measured at offshore locations at all times of the year. Because it is a semi-enclosed basin the surface of Monterey Bay will also seiche, or fluctuate, at several longer periods (UP 11-13 to 36 minutes) that are characteristic of its geometry (Schwing et al., 1990b). Seiching generally develops following strong winds, or seismic activity. Given its position relative to several active fault zones, it is not surprising that tsunamis, or seismic sea waves, as large as 1.5 m have been observed in the Bay (Lander and Lockridge, 1989; Schwing et al., 1990b). b. Water Temperature 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 fall and .early summer. No distinct thermocline is present during this period. Surface temperatures in the summer reach 59OF (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 in a narrow nearshore band along the eastern edge of the Bay are much warmer than elsewhere, reflecting the importance of local heating within the Bay (Breaker and Broenkow, 1989). (See below.under section on Upwelling and Eddies). More recent data (Tracy, 1990; Farrel at al., 1990) indicate that warmer, fresher oceanic water moves rapidly into the Bay during periods of weak or southerly spring and summer winds. Thermal gradients, both vertically and horizontally, are greatly reduced in winter. c. offshore Ocean Currents The California Current System (CCS) is a part of the great 11-14 clockwise circulation of the North Pacific Ocean (Dodimead et al., 1963). At high latitudes water move eastward under the influence of strong westerly winds. Near the coast of North America the flow divides 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 transports Subarctic water of relatively low temperature and salinity, and high dissolved oxygen and nutrients toward the tropics (Hickey, 1979). As it moves south, much warmer and saltier Subtropical water, featuring low oxygen and nutrient concentrations, gradually mixes in from the west. Water temperatures at the surface range b6tween 52*F (110C) and 55*F (130C). Equatorial Pacific water, which is warmer and saltier, lower in oxygen and higher in nutrients than surrounding waters, mixes in at subsurface levels as this current flows north. The California Current is also diluted by precipitation and coastal runoff, primarily from the Columbia River. The core of the California Current off Point Sur lies about 60-125 miles (100-200 km) from the coast and features maximum equatorward velocities of less than 5-10 cm/s (Chelton, 1984). The offshore portion of southward flow is seen up to 600 miles (1000 km) offshore and extends deeper than 500 m, but the inshore section of the Current is limited to the upper 200 m over the continental slope (Hickey, 1979). Two velocity maxima per year are noted, in February-March and again in july-Aucjust (Chelton, 1984). 11-15 The CCS includes two other primary currents off central California; the California Undercurrent and the Davidson Current (Figure 5). The northward flowing Undercurrent transports water of relatively high temperature, salinity and nutrients and low dissolved oxygen from equatorial regions (Hickey, 1979). The Undercurrent is trapped along the continental slope, within 45-60 miles (75-100 km) of the coast off Point Sur (Chelton, 1984) at depths of over 200 m. Northward flow extends to the surface from October through February; this portion of the poleward flow is referred to as the Davidson 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. A second, weaker period of northward surface current is noted in late summer over the slope off San Francisco and Monterey. These northward periods of surface flow coincide with the core of the California Current moving offshore (Lynn and Simpson, 1987). The Undercurrent is weakest in spring and early summer. Velocities of up to 14 cmls occur near the surface in December. While this description gives a general view of the large-scale current patterns off central California, it must be stressed that this mean flow exhibits considerable interannual variability. Much larger variations in flow and intensity and direction that occur throughout the year at periods of 10 days and less are superimposed on seasonal patterns (Chelton et al., 1988). In addition,-the 11-16 - ISURFACE OCEAN CURRENTS ............ ............ .................... ........... ............. . .......... .. .... .... ....... ........ (7 .. ............ . ..................... ... .............. .......... SPRING TO LATE SUIIAMER SURFACE OCEAN C RENTS ICALIFORNIA CURRENI. 4APIVILL0001 LATE SUMRWR TO EARLY FALL OCEAN CURRENTS :.-.LATE FALL T"ROUG" WINTER OCEAN CU 4wealmots, woe or ..N- up" 10CFAWC PERIM) JDAVID11001 CURNS"TJ Iffet. Dirseem of am. am. owmilm of am. Me@*# so pp,-.d oswespond-ow ft" F-6110 character of the CCS varies greatly with latitude (Hickey, 1979). d. URwelling and Eddies Jets, eddies and meanders, all contribute to water mass mixing, and make the flow of the CCS extremely complex. Highly transient coastal jets, or filaments, have typical surface currents of So cm/s, and are usually 12-30 miles (20-50 km) wide and 100-200 m deep (Brink, 1987). Eddies, some as large as 60 miles (100 km) in diameter, are able to transport seawater transverse to the mean flow; i.e., normal to the coast (Traganza et al., 1981, Tracy, 1990). Filaments of cold water may be carried more than 100 miles (160 km) offshore from upwelling centers off Point Sur (Breaker and Mooers, 1986) and Afto Nuevo (Tracy, 1990). These filaments frequently display a high concentration of plant pigment, indicating their highly productive nature (Simpson et al., 1986). Evidence suggest the cool nutrient-rich surface waters found in Monterey Bay are advected from sources outside the Bay. The .area near Afio Nuevo has clearly been identified as one source of this water (Tracy, 1990). Southward flow across the mouth of the Bay is indicated by sequences of satellite imagery over several consec utive days (Tracy , 1990), although no accurate estimates of current speed can be made at this time. As it flows south, some of this upwelled water makes its way into the Bay. When it is present, a front observed across the mouth of the Bay may inhibit exchange between the Bay and ocean (Breaker and Broenkow 1989; Tracy 1990). When northerly winds relax, a warm clockwise-rotating eddy 11-17 moves shoreward, bringing oceanic water into the Bay (Bolin and Abbott, 1963; Breaker and Broenkow, 1989; Farrell et al., 1990; Tracy, 1990). Water upwelled off Point Sur may flow northward into the Bay on occasion. Satellite imagery also shows upwelling off of Pillar Point with filaments of'cold water extending south towards Monterey Bay (Figure 6). This period of upwelling occurs almost continuously between March and October. There is then 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 is marked by the absence of upwelling and a warming of the surface water temperature to more than 55*F (13*C). As the surface waters are moved offshore and replaced by the cold, nutrient-rich waters from below the resultant upwelling introduces the nitrates, phosphates, and silicates that are essential for high phytoplankton production in the surface waters, which in turn are responsible for the highly productive waters of Monterey Bay. Ekm an pumping due to local spatial variations in vind stress (Breaker and Broenkow, 1989) and up-canyon flow (Bigelow and Leslie, 1930; Breaker.and Breaker and Broenkow, 1989) have been proposed as mechanisms for local upwelling within Monterey Bay, but there is no hard evidence to support these theories at this time. Long-term satellite observations of surface temperature have not displayed localized upwelling centers inside of the Bay (Tracy, 1990) (Figure 6) . Large internal waves of tidal frequency, 11-18 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . observed near the end of the Canyon (Shea and Broenkow, 1982), may move deeper waters up onto the shelf in that area. e. Nearshore coastal-currents In addition to being influenced by the CCS, currents near the coast are affected by a variety of forces and boundary conditions, including local winds, upwelling, lateral and vertical mixing, tides, freshwater inflow, solar heating, bathymetric changes and El Nifio episodes. Coastal-currents are separate from the large-scale CCS flow and are primarily forced by local winds. While Monterey Bay is unlikely to be impacted directly by variations in the CCS, its indirect effects will be felt through changes in coastal ocean conditions adjacent to the Bay. Coastal flow is much more transient and variable than that seen in the CCS, primarily because atmospheric variations produce a much stronger and more rapid ocean response in shallow water. Current meter studies between the Farallones and Monterey Bay have measured flow predominantly alongshore to the south during the upwelling season (February-September) due to the prevailing northerly winds (Strub et al., 1987; Chelton et al., 1988). Typical current speeds are 20-30 cm/s alongshore and 5-10 CmIs onshore. Ship surveys and satellite imagery off central California reveal that water clearly travels large distances south during this time of year (Robson, 1990; Schwing et al., 1990a, Tracy, 1990). A net northward flow has been observed during the rest of the year (Strub et al., 1987). However, this seasonal cycle is of very small. amplitude; alongshore velocities of 10-20 cm/s in either 11-19 direction occur throughout the year in response to changes in wind direction (Chelton et al., 1987). South of Monterey Bay, currents are typically northward in all months except March-May, with an offshore surface flow and an onshore component at depth (Strub et al., 1987; Chelton et al, 1988). Coastal currents adjacent to the Bay not only vary in direction seasonally, and in response to changes in wind speed and direction over periods of 10 days and less, but can simultaneously flow in opposite directions at two nearby locations. Thus the coastal ocean near Monterey Bay is a zone where currents frequently converge from the north and the south. Currents in the Farallones as little as 9 miles (15 km) apart display very different cross- shelf patterns (Noble and Gelfenbaum, 1990). The flow field is also difficult to predict with any certainty; only about 50% of the', variations in current can be attributed to the wind (Chelton et al., 1987; Noble and Gelfenbaum, 1990). Few direct current measurements have been made within Monterey Bay, and most of those were very near shore (current meters) or of short duration (drogues). These limited measurements (ESIf 1978; Ecomar, 1981, cited in Breaker and Broenkow, 1989) indicate predominantly northward flow in a narrow nearshore band along the eastern edge of the Bay. The distribution of barnacle larvae is consistent with this pattern (K. Miller, pers. comm-f 1990). The results of non-concurrent short duration current meter measurements in the Canyon (Shephard et al.,m 1979 and others, summarized in Breaker and Broenkow, 1989) are inconclusive. The flow within and 11-20 through the Canyon, and the effects of the Canyon on shelf currents are unknown at this time. Most of what is known.about flow in the Bay has been inferred from indirect evidence such as plankton and nutrient distributions, and in situ and remote temperature measurements (Broenkow and Smethie, 1978). Due to the large changes in the Bay's water structure that may take place over very short time periods (about one day during the upwe-lling season), currents inferred from shipboard surveys, which frequently take several days to complete, may not be reliable. on the other hand, flow inferred from snapshots of remotely sensed data,-with no temporal coverage, may also be misleading. Due to the presence of large internal waves in the Bay (Shea and Broenkow, 1982), abrupt bathymetric changes, and likely i'mportance of friction, estimates of current speed and direction based on differences in the Bay's ocean structure are probably not realistic. Even with these caveats, however, certain ,current patterns have been identified, although there are known strong, persistent currents within Monterey Bay. f. Freshwater input Freshwater flow from lands adjacent to the study region is -low when compared to freshwater flows to the ocean in Northern California, Oregon and Washington. However, freshwater flow used to be higher in the. central California area prior to diversion of water for agricultural and urban use. The Pajaro and Salinas rivers, which are adjacent to the central portion of the study area, provide the largest long-term average daily flow into the 11-21 study region and drain the largest basins (Figure XX). The northern portion of the study area is almost entirely adjacent to one watershed. (Only a small portion of the Marin County watershed is included to the north of the Golden Gate). The southern portion of the study area is adjacent to one thin coastal watershed draining the narrow coastal margin of the Big Sur and Los Padres Forest across Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. The highest freshwater yield per unit area flows from the Big Sur River. This river is located in one of the small, localized, drainage basins adjacent to the steep coastal terrain of the Big Sur and is .probably less impacted by reservoirs, irrigation withdrawals, and municipal withdrawals as it is entirely within a protected forested area.. All together, USGS monitoring stations estimate a total of 1,228 cubic feet of fresh water enters the study area every second. (Table X). 4. Water Ouality 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. Water quality data from the National Status and Trends (NS&T) Program, as well as State Monitoring programs, can be used to provide information on whether the water quality in the study area is improving or declining. It may also aid in assessing possible effects of contaminants on the health of the Monterey Bay 11-22 RIVERINE INPUT TO THE MONTEREY SAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY STUDY Points represent United States Geological Survey flow gauge stations. Salmon Creek Numerical values indicate hydrographic units. 18050005 18050006 Pilarcitos Creek Pescadero Creek San Gregorio k Butano Creek -18060001 Scott Creek San Lorenzo R. 18060002 Pajaro River SoQuel Creek 18060011 Salinas River Carmel River 060012 -Big Sur River 806 Map data prepared by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, Office ot Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Mar)dand. Arroyo dela C_ 8060006 Toro Creek LONG-TERM AVERAGE FRESHWATER DISCHARGE INTO STUDY REGION WATERS 24 Arroyo G@nde ski" CRUX 17 a" 00*GOFJO 44 PESCADERO CREEK 45 WTANOCAEEX-V 22 900TT CREEK ioo' 31 SAN LORENZO A(VER 124 J-P 46 ELCAEEK PAA*AD RIVER SU" RIVER 466 J., 120 CAAMM AfVER 106 FAVEA 54 ARMOV0 OF LA CRUZ TORO CREEK ANKM GRANDE JC3 20 100 200 3;0 400 500 DUMAWN 0 CUM MV PlIft SECON'D 8@ UA. alftpw OW 8'. Dbumm two* " Dow d *@ O@ Swim FAdwft. MW*W- LONG-TERM AVERAGE FRESHWATER DISCHARGES INTO STUDY REGION WATERS STATION NAME COUNTY HYDROLOGIC DRAINAGE AREA AT LO TERM MEA YIELD PERIOD OF UNIT CODE STATION DISCHARGE (do) (Wan discharge/ RECORD (8 of years) tftam Miles do/sq. mi.) Salmon Crook at Bodege MARIN 18010111 Is 24 1.50 1962-76 is Pilarchos Creek at Half Moon Bay SAN MATEO 18050006 27 17 0.63 1966-86 21 Son Gregorio Crook at San G no SAN MATEO 18050006 51 44 0.86 1970-86 17 Pescadero Crook near Poscadem SAN MATEO 18050006 46 45 0.98 1952-66 53 Butano Creek now Pescadam SAN MATEO 18050006 Is 22 1.20 1962-75 14 Scott Creekabove Little Crook near Davenport SANTA CRUZ 18060001 25 31 1.24 1959-74 16 San Lorenzo River at Santa Cruz SANTA CRUZ 18060001 115 124 1.08 1953-60 a Soquel Creek at Soquet SANTA CRUZ 18060001 40 46 1.15 1952-86 35 Pajam River at Chitiermien SANTA CRUZ 18060002 1186 164 0.14 1940-86 47 Salinas River near Spreckels MONTEREY 18060ws 4156 456 0.11 1930-86 57 Carmel River near Carmel MONTEREY 1806OD12 246 120 0.49 1962-86 26 Big Sur River near Big Sur MONTEREY 10060006 47 105 2.23 1950-86 37 Arroyo do In Cruz near Son Simeon SAN LUIS OBISPO 18060006 41 54 1.32 1951-79 29 Tom Crook near Morro Bay SAN LUIS OBISPO IOD60006 14 6 0.43 1971-78 8 Arroyo Grandeat Arroyo Grand SAN LUIS OBISPO 18060006 102 20 0.20 1940-86 47 SOURCE:U.S. OWagical SurM. Through ttw Office of Ocean Resources Conservation wW Assessment National Oman Servios. Rockville. Maryland. ecosystem. Data on trade metals and organics are available from three components of the ecosystem from the NS&T data set: sediments, bivalves and fishes. Mussel contaminant data are of secondary value relative to sediment data for establishing the spatial distribution of contamination. However, examination of the distribution of sites (nationally] with the highest levels of contamination has shown that organic contaminants, copper, silver and lead have a strong affinity with urban areas. No contaminants are strongly associated with rural areas (NOAA Tech. Memo. NOS OMA 49). Within the central part of the study area four sites are sampled: two for sediments, fish and bivalves and two additional sites for fish and sediments only. In the southern portion one site is used to sample mussels only. A fourth site, also used to sample mussels only, is located to the north of the study area but within the Gulf of the Farallones NMS. Water quality data from the NS&T Program is only available for the past three years. As such it is too early to confidently predict the existence of any trends in water quality. However, as the Monterey Sanctuary becomes operational and additional data is collected, it is a goal of the Sanctuary to use this data for long- term management issues. compared to other areas Nationwide the offshore sample sites used in the Monterey Bay study area do not have elevated levels of contaminants. However, the estuarine waters of the study area are closed to shellfishing as a result of high Coliform counts. 11-23 Marine water quality is also 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, as well as by NOAA's National Status and Trends Program. The State Mussel Watch program, 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. There is a total of 81 monitoring stations managed by CDF&G via the Toxic Substance Monitoring (TSM) Program and the State Mussel Watch (SMW) Program within the watersheds of the Monterey Bay study area. 39 of these exceed standard criteria (SWRCB, 1987, TSM Report No. 89-1; and SWRCB, .1987, SMW Report No. 87-2). Those measured which exceed "criteria" include cadmium, which is often measured in high concentrations since most of it comes from natural sources. In addition, 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 11-24 and point source coastal discharges are degrading water quality in specific areas. For example, State 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 pt 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 11-25 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 11-26 analyzed from Monterey Bay (Shaw, 1972). California Department of Fish and Game also inventory's fish kills within waters of the state and attempts to correlate the kills to causes including those due to degraded water quality. Table X lists fish kills by county for 1985 to 1989 and shows that many of the kills can be attributed to a combination of both point and non-point source pollution. 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 f ound 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. Until further information is available and analyzed the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RNQCB), 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. 11-27 FISH KILLS BY COUNTY: 1285 THROUGH 1989 COUNTY LOCATION DATE CAUSE COMMONNAME NUMBER KILLED MARIN FIFTH VALLEY CREEK BELOW VALLEY INN FES - 85 CHLORINE RIFFLE SCULPIN 45 MARIN STORM DRAIN OUTLET BEHIND DORTY DRIVE JUL-86 UNKNOWN STRIPED BASS 6 MARIN MILL VALLEY CREEK OCT-88 UNKNOWN TROUT 4 SCULPIN 6 MONTEREY CARMEL RIVER - SCARLET WELL JUL-85 UNKNOWN RAINBOW TROUT 5000 STICKELBACK 4000 EEL 500 MONTEREY SALINAS RIVER ONE MILE FROM MOUTH EAST OF AUG-85 PESTICIDES SUCKER 1000 HIGHWAY I BRIDGE CARP 1000 RAINBOW TROUT I MONTEREY ARROYO SECO R AT THORN ROAD FISH LADDER APR-87 UNKNOWN RAINBOW TROUT 100 MONTEREY TEMBLADERO SLOUGH SEP - 87 AMMONIA UNSPECIFIED low SAN LUIS OBISPO SHELL BEACH AT HIGHWAY 101 ALONG BLUFF DEC-85 PETROLEUM SCULPIN 5 SAN LUIS OBISPO ATASCADERO LAKE MAY - 86 HIGH TEMPERATURE JLOW RAIN13OW TROUT sw DISSOLVED OXYGEN) CHANNEL CATFISH 50 SAN LUIS OBISPO "ILA BEACH INTAKE COVE OF DIABLO CANYON APR-87 FERRIC SULPHATE ROCK PRICKLEBACK I I SAN LUIS OBISPO ATASCADERO LAKE APR-88 COLUMNARIS DESEASE BROWN BULLHEAD 5000 CARP I BLUE GILL 2 RAINBOW TROUT 2 SAN LUIS OBISPO SAN SIMEON CREEK SEP-88 HIGH TEMPERATURE (LOW RAINBOW TROUT 200 DISSOLVED OXYGEN) STARRYFLOUNDER 3 SCULPIN I SAN MATEO SAN PEDRO CREEK FROM TERRA NOVA BLVD JAN - 65 INORGANIC CHEMICALSIACID STICKLEBACK 25 RAINBOW TROUT 500 SAN MATEO BUTANO CREEK, LOWER END MAY-86 PESTICIDES/THIODAN, SALMON so METHYL PARATHION SCULPIN 500 SAN MATEO SAN PEDRO CREEK BTWN. N. FORK AND ADOBE BRIDGE JAN - 87 CHLORINE RAINBOW TROUT 4040 SAN MATEO SAN PEDRO CREEK CONFLUENCE WITH N. FORK MAR-87 CHLORINE RAIN13OW TROUT 700 SAN MATEO SAN CARLOS RIVER OCT-89 INDUSTRIAL SPILL (PAINIT) UNSPECIFIED (?) SANTA CRUZ KELLY LAKE JUL-87 LOW DISSOLVED OXYGEN SACRAMENTO BLACKFISH 20 THREADFIN SHAD 20 SCULPIN 50000 BLUEGILL to SOURCE: NOANs Fish Kill Inventory.Stralegic Envirorwnental Assessment Division, Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assesstnent, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland. I gag. C. Habitats I. Introduction 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 8). The six 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, 5) kelp forest habitat, and 6) estuarine/slough habitat. 2. Submarine Canyon Habitat Approximately 676 square nautical miles of canyon exist in the study area (NOAA Charts 18680 and 18700). 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, 11-28 1230 1220 1210 38 r-Im W, 1. % I I Point 00 3 r UCTMD % N I. 'W&mdm Canyon Point Son' ZNearmhom Suhfftoml Point 0 nd 3. " In Wddaf GUN of dw San Francisco 4Sandy fted InftrWal Flaralcm S. Ofp F 6. ErtuarkwSlaugh ell ii Point San Pedro Pigar Point 3 San Girm-nevi- 6 Pescadero C"i PeKadero Point PQeon POWA Arenzo Rhw Pt Aft Num 2 3 DmawmwPort SV % Oeek 5 Santa .4 Nam 37* %% % cna 370 mbr" M low 82 000 h ftg@ 2 4 ft*o mw amorn sla* Mon uw&g 2 4 5 Seine PJm 3 morl" cmff w Pok AREA I 2 Cvmel Rhw ENLARGED 3 Lu%surftwal Paintsw P" mp I Fait LopmPoint 360 NRWISIJ 36* AWWftck Cape Son MmIn Swmom ON* Pcht MEM CEMNU 123* 12r 121* Rgure L Habftat Types wNhIn Monterey Bay StWy Area (NOAA 1982). Pacific white-sided dolphins, northern right whale dolphins, Rissols dolphins, Dall's porpoise, and possibly the blue shark. Meso- and bathypelagic fishes include the lanternfish (Myctophidae), sablefish, deepsea sole, and Pacific rattail. h, as well as 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, h6wever, indicate a considerable diversity of organisms. Sponges, gorgonians, starfish, brittle stars, crinoids, and sea urchins appear to be the dominant largel 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). 3. Nearshore SuDlittoral 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 i-s based on planktonic productivity 11-29 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 th important commercial fish (salmon, albacore, rockfishes, mackere 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 throughout the bay. 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 11-30 waters. 4. Rocky Intertidal Habitat This habitat is found on rocky substrate between the lowest tidal level and the highest tidal level. Organisms living.in th s 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 at Al., 1988). Marine plants are primarilyi red, brown, and green algae. The invertebrates include mostly sessile species such as mussels, barnacles, and &nemones. 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. All of the Areas of Special Biological Significance (ABBS) found within the study area have rich abundances of invertebrate species. in addition, Asilomar Beach@l and Point Sur are well known areas for invertebrates and the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve has one of the largest intertidal reefs in California supporting an extremely diverse and abundance array of invertebrate species. 11-31 5. 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 allo found here (Wilson, 1986). The only fish that are common are those that use sandy beaches for spawning, e.g., the surf smelt. KelR Forest Habitat There are approximately 200 nautical miles of kelp in the study area. There is continuous stretch of kelp along the coast from Aho Nuevo to Cambria excluding the area from Santa Cruz to Monterey where the sandy substrate is unsuitable for kelp holdfast attachment. North of Aho Nuevo kelp distribution is sparse and almost non-existent north of Pescadero Point. 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 mol The floating portions of these plants form dense canopies on thel sea surface. Kelp forests provide critical habitat for encrusting 11-32 animals such as sponges, bryozoans, and tunicates, as well as fo 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 thel. 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 kel Ip forests in. this area, and otter biology and the ef f ects 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 ef f ect 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 11-33 major role in determining community structure (Estes and Palmisa 0, 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 I increasing in distribution in areas where sea otters live (Reidman, 1986). 7. Estuaries and Sloughs Estuaries provide some of the most productive habitats in t e world. These habitats are critical not only for the local ecosystems in which they appear but also ecosystems elsewhere through the species they support (NOAA and FWS, 1991). In the Monterey Bay area the adjacent estuaries, slough and wetlands no@ only provide critical habitat for some stage in the life-cycle ot a number of plants, fish, shellfish and other wildlife but also provide flood damage protection, protection from storm and wave damage, water quality improvement.through filtering and processing of*agricultural and urban wastes, and recharge of aquifers (NOAA; and FWS, 1991). .The dramatic loss of original coastal wetlands (75% in California) as well as Nationwide emphasizes the value of those remaining estuaries for the species that depend upon them for thqir survival. For example, the tidewater goby Eucycl obius newber (more common in the southern portion of the study area), and the. stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus lejurus (more common in the northern portion of the study area) and both candidate species for Federal listing as species of special concern due to their limited 11-34 numbers and distribution, are distributed throughout the estuarirr and slough habitats of the Monterey Bay area (Cailliet, pers. colim. 1991). In the center of Monterey Bay and east of Moss Landing is Elkhorn Slough, the largest remaining coastal wetland area betweln Morro Bay and San Francisco Bay. The importance of Elkhorn Slou Ih to,the area's ecosystem and the public was recognized when it was designated a National Estuarine Research Reserve in 1981. Numerous other smaller but also valuable estuaries, sloughs and wetlands exist throughout the study area, especially at the mouths of the major rivers that enter the Monterey Bay area, such as Pescadero and Soquel Creeks, and the San Lorenzo, Pajaro, Salinas, Carmel, Little Sur and Big Sur Rivers. Other smaller areas of freshwater input to the ocean include, but are not limited to; Pillar Point marsh, Miramonter Point wetlands, Parisima Creek, Tunitas Creek, San Gregorio Creek, Pompino Creek, Mill Creek, Pescadero Marsh, Big Creek, Limekiln Creek, Carpolare Creek, Salmon Creek, Elkhorn Slough, Laguna Salada Wetland, and San Pedro Creek. In total these -areas where rivers meet the sea provide a rare and. critical series of unique habitats for a wide variety of species that contribute to the national significance of the Monterey Bay area. 11-35 D. BiO109[ical Resources 1. Introduction The diversity and abundance of species in the Monterey Bay area can be attributed in part to the location of the bay within@ the broad transition zone between the Oregonian Province to the north and the warm water California Province to the south. Not only do many northern and southern species coexist in the transition zone but there are also endemic species which seem to survive only in the transition. The fossil record suggest that this transition zone has existed for many millions of years, and that it has been a likely site of evolution for species that later became established as characteristic species of either Oregonian or Californian Provinces. Thus Monterey Bay supports a wide array of temperate cold- water species, with occasional influxes of warm-water species. This species diversity is directly re lated to the diversity of habitats described above and the location of Monterey Bay within a broad transition zone providing a complex gradient of changing environment in which the relative proportions of species changes from north to south. All the biological resources within the Sanctuary will be protected by Sanctuary designation including but not limited to, plankton, algae, invertebrates, fish, seabirds, turtles and marine mammals. 2. Plankton Plankton species present in the Monterey Bay area are primarily characteristic of the cold-water California region, but 11-36 also include a few warm-water species (Holton -et A.1., 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. I 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 11-37 Reports, 1986-1988). Dense swarms of gelatinous pelagic tunicates also occur periodically from early spring to mid-fall (Barham, 1956). In fall 1986, aggregations of euphausids, dominated by the krill -Euphausia pacifica, attracted a large number of endangered blue whales to feed in Monterey Bay (Schoenerr, 1988). 3. Algae Large marine algae, or seaweeds, are diverse and abundant in the Monterey Bay area. The extent of this diversity is shown by I 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. I 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 (Macrocystis 2yrifera) and bull kelp (Nereocystis leutkeana). Bull kelp rejuvenates itself annually; is 11-38 giant kelp is generally perennial, growing all year. Kelp beds are continuous from San Simeon in the south of the study area to Monterey city. Within Monterey Bay from Monterey City to south of Santa Cruz there are no kelp beds due to the sandy substrate of the shore. Kelp beds are thick off of Santa Cruz city and intermittent up to Aho Nuevo. Kelp is rare from Aho Nuevo to Half Moon Bay, the northern limit of its distribution. The Santa Cruz County coast between Terrace Point and Point Aho 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). Table X shows a brief listing of some of the types of algae associated with the different habitats encompassed by the Sanctuary study area. In addition to the marine and coastal types of algae the estuary and slough habitats provide sheltered areas for an abundant growth of marine algae as well as specifically adapted vascular plants such as eelgrass and pickleweed that in turn provide rich micro-habitats for other organisms. 4. invertebrates The Monterey Bay area has one of the most diverse and species- rich invertebrate faunas of any marine area of similar size in the entire world (James Nybakken, pers. comm., 1989). This diversity can be illustrated by the following facts: 1) of the 33 or so invertebrate phyla, the only ones that have not been collected in 11-39 Table/(. Representative Algae Associated with the Diverse Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area. Representative Common Habitat Alaae Classificatio Name Submarine phytoplankton Chaetoceros spp. diatoms Canyon phytoplankton Ceratium Spp- dinoflagellates Nearshore No suitable substrate Sublittoral Sandy phytoplankton diatoms Intertidal Xelp Kelp Macrocystis pyrifera giant kelp Beds Kelp Ngreocystis leutkeana bull kelp fucalean algae Cystoseira Rocky red algae Indocladia spp. Intertidal brown algae Fucus'spp. rockweed green algae Ulva spp. sea lettuce Estuary/ phytoplankton diatoms slough green algae Enteromor.Rha in&enstinalis red algae Gracilaria lemaneiformis Flowering Plants zostera marina eelgrass Salicornia pickleweed 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 X). The rocky intertidal habitat support the widest array of invertebrate species (Ricketts et a-I., 1985; smith and Carlson, 11-40 Table Representative Invertebrates Associated with the Diverse. Habitats of the Monterey Bay Area (J. Nybakken, pers. COMM.1 19s9; Elkhorn Slough NERR, Management Plan). Representative Common Habitat Invertebrates Classification Name Submarine hexactinellid Porifera glass sponge Canyon gorgonians Cnidaria soft coral euphausiids Euphausia pacifica krill bivalve Calyptogena. clam crinoids Echinodermata sea lily Nearshore polychaetes Aricidea sp. bristle-worms Sublittoral bivalves Macoma sp. burrowing clam snails Olivella biRlicate olive snail crabs Blepharipoda spiny sand crab occidentalis mysids Acanthomysis davisi opossum shrimp tunicates Dolioluirf tritonis. salps Sandy bivalves Tivela stultorum, pismo, clam Intertidal crabs Emeri-ta analoga- mole crab amphipods Orchestoidea spp. sand hoppers sea urchins Dendraster sand dollar excentricus snails olivglla olive snail columellaris Kelp gastropods Haliotidae abalone Beds bryozoans Membranipora encrusting bryozoan tunicates Ascidiacea sea squirt gastropods Acmaga spp. limpet sea urchins Strongylocentrotus purple sea RurRuratus urchin gastropods Tegula, turban snails Rocky sea snails Littorina spp. periwinkles Intertidal sea stars Asteraidea spp. starfish barnacles Balanus spp. acorn barnacles bivalves Myti spp. mussels sea anemones AntheRleura aggregate sea elegantissima anemone sea snails Teaula funebralis Black Turban snail Estuary/siouqh clams Tresus-nutallii gaper clam Macoma segta white sand clam clinocardiu nutAllift basket cockle worms urechis caupo fat inkeeper worm Notomastus-tenuis rubber-band worm Neanthes brandti clam worm shrimp Callianassa ghost shrimp californien-s-iA snail Aiolysia californica, sea hare agnCU" mud crab crabs HemigraRsus 21292DEW shore crab Ra-chygram 1975; Morris 1-t- al., 1980). Particularly rich and diverse areas within this class of habitat and encompassed by the Sanctuary study areas include the State designated Areas of Special Biological significance, as well as Asilomar Beachl the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve and Point Sur. Characteristic species include 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 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 11-41 the clam Calyptogena, which is the same genus as the giant clams of the thermal vent areas of the Galapagos. Estuarine and slough habitats can support widely diverse and abundant invertebrate species. Historical studies of the Elkhorn Slough area, showed approximately 371 species of benthic invertebrates (excluding oligochaetes) (Nybakken, 1977). The best known inhabitants include clams, such as the gaper, white sand and the basket cockle. In addition worms, shrimp, snails and crabs actively assist in the process of converting the sloughs rich organic matter into food and in the process providing larger organisms such as fish and birds with a plentiful food base. Invertebrate species harvested by commercial and recreational fishermen include squid, spot prawn, Dungeness crab, abalone, and pismo clam. 5. 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 (Figure XX). Approximately 345 species of fish are found within the study 0 11-42 380 0@ 1230 1220 121 point 3r UEGEND Point Bonita RocklIsh Oakland SLI Guff of Point Lobos San Francisco Dovwsob Point San Po&o PH Point Dungwmw Oub Squid Gregorlo ,.r- Peowdero 0eek Pesmdero Point P*on Point I Pt. Aflo Nuevo San LorenZD Rkw 0 DavenPort r = F, 0 37 6M! NWAW Santa ftww MIM Cna Mon M shaft win 370 Bay (-- abhonr go* Mon Landing salinaslitiver Mon" Caffnel ARFA I C&MBI NM ENLARGED ps ok paifit POW 360 360 A%d*t ftd CW* Son Mwfln Sw"M Ched Powph"WOM San N@Mw CM T&W 1230 1220 121" Figure 9. Major Fishery Spmft Arm Adapted from Adas of Marine Resources thr Cenva/ CaMomis (Central Coast Regional Studies Aug. 19W) and Ecology of Important RWW@ Species Oftore Calffornia (OCS Study, NMS 86-0093, ISM area. The numbers of species most "common" to have been identified and associated with the various habitats include: (1) Canyon and deep bottom, - 93; (2) Rocky intertidal (tidepools), - 24; (4) Subtidal (kelp), - 34; (5) Estuaries, Sloughs and Sandy intertidal - 68; (6) Nearshore sublittoral (soft bottom) - 33; (7) Epipelagic - 25; and (8) Meso- and Bathypelagic - 69 (Greg Cailliet, pers. comm. June, 1991). The diverse habitats of the area each have their own characteristic assemblage of fish (Table X). 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 @gt Al., (1979) reports fishes belonging to 41 families were captured in the bay by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories or by fishermen. Several of the 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 (Benihodesmus elongatus pacificus), a species unknown in California, was caught in Monterey Bay in 1968 (Anderson and Cailliet, 1975). A rare prowfish (ZaRrorA sile was caught 11-43 0 Tabl 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 Embassichthys bathybius Canyon sablefish Anoplopoma fimbria persimmon eelpout Maynea Californica Pacific hake Merluccius productus spiny dogfish Squalus 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 Atheripops affinis starry flounder Platichthys stellatus speckled sanddab Citharichthys stigmaeus Pacific sandlance Ammodytes hexapterus Kelp Beds rockfishes Sebastes spp. kelp greenling Hexagrammos decagrammus painted greenling Oxylebius pictus lingood Ophiodon elongatus Rocky tidepool snailfish Liparis florae Intertidal tidepool sculpin Oligocottus maculosus monkey-face eel Cebidichthys violaceus rockweed qunnel Xererpes fucorum blackeye goby Coryphopterus nicholsii Estuary/Slough tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus leiurus Northern anchovy Engraulis mordax Pacific herring Clupea palis topsmelt/jacksmelt Atherinopsis spp. bat ray Myliobatis californica leopard shark Trakis semifasciata 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 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, 11-44 rock eel, dwarf surfperch, juvenile cabezon, sculpins, and blennies (California Department of Fish and Game, 1979). Few fishes live year-round in sloughs although some fish such as the tidewater goby Eucyclogobius newberryi and the stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus leiurus depend upon the more brackish upper reaches of the estuarine habitats. Full time residents such as the staghorn sculpin and the bay pipefish depend upon the mud, eelgrass and other microhabitats, to feed, reproduce and hide from predators (Silberstein and Campbell, 1989). Mid-water swimmers such as the Northern anchovies (Engraulis mordax) , Pacific herring (Clunea vallis) and topsmelt and j acksmelt (AtheginORsis sPRJ also use the area for feeding while at the same time using the microhabitats for protection from predators (Silberstein and Campbell, 1989). Large marine predators such as bat rays (Myliobatis californica) and leopard sharks (Trakis semifasciata) forage extensively on the benthic fauna of the more saline lower reaches of the estuaries (Silberstein and Campbell, 1989). Sardines were the basis for an extensive fishery in the 1930's. Overfishing caused stocks of the Pacific sardine to decrease until the fishery collapsed. 6. 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: 11-45 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 adjacent to 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. 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 X 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 X. 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 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 ternst and pomarine 11-46 Table @,@ Representative Seabirds and their Seasonal Status in the I/ Monterey Bay Area (from Briggs, It Al., 1983). Breeding species Double-crested cormorant Forster's tern Brandt's cormorant Common murre Pelagic cormorant Pigeon guillemot Western gull Marbled murrelet (Threatened) 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 SRring/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/visitorg Buller's shearwater Black storm-petrel Black-footed albatross Royal tern Pink-footed shearwater Eleqant 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 qull 127 Pt. eyes 121, ocr 00 "J.0,0 .O@ v San Francisco 0:0 Farallonesfs.N@2 06@50: 0 GO, b". 00- )00c@@ ::Yww:w. 0 0 C:....:: 0 0 Pillar Pt. 0 000( 0 000( )00 000( )00 0 P05474dero P1. igeom Pf. t. AAo Nuevo Sawa Cruz Significant Sea Blird Monterey Populations In ft Monterey Bay National Marine Pg. Lobos Sanctuary Area Bmndwy Alernatives 1. Sur High COnCOntraliOn3 Of Tubenosm Mar.,U. (32-1561SqKm) High Concentrabons d Lopa Pt. Pelicans Aug.4iov. (.54.2/Sq*n) A High Caicentrations of Cape Jam Martin Jaegws, Gulls w4 Term Dec.-Feb. (16-47.14410n) ........... . 7(D Onshore Colones t Piedras Bkmcas 0 is 30 -Sit -aw -bL M I a s ............... 3W Altemative 1 Altemative 2 Aftwnah* 3 Aftemah* 4 Altemative 5 Aftmative 6 Alternative 7 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 Afto 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 contaified 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). offshore distributions and concentrations of seabirds show the importance of the Monterey Bay area marine ecosystem as a habitat for seabirds (Figure XX and ZX). There are a total of 94 species of seabirds which can be found in 23 main rookeries and colonies in the Monterey Bay area. Fiqure X, taken from Chabot and associates (1990), shows the areas of high concentration for significant populations of seabirds in the study area. It also shows a total of 23 rookeries and colonies within the study area. Significant populations include pelicans, tubenoses, jaegers, gulls and terns. The highest concentrations 11-47 are found in the northern portion of the study area. 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 It 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). 11-48 Sea ducks and geese use the coves along the bay for staging during spring migration. Aho Nuevo Bay is an important wintering site for Harlequin ducks (a species of Special Concern) and brant. 7. Turtles Four species of sea turtles are found in the study area. The Leatherback (Dermochelip coriacea) is the most common followed by the Green (or Black) turtle (Cheloia myslas agassizi), the Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and an occasional Olive Ridley (LepidocheliR olivaceas). There are no sea turtle nesting areas in the study area. They.are mostly seen during their foraging activities in the summer and early fall. Most appear during the warmest sea temperatures (above 16 degrees C and most common above 18 degrees C). Many of the turtles distributions seem to be regulated by the 16 degree C isotherm (Pers. comm., Scott Eckert, NOAA/NMFS, 1991). 8. Mgrine Mammals Twenty-six species of marine mammals have been observed in the Monterey Bay area, including f ive species of the sub-order pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), one species from the sub-order figsipeds (the sea otter), and twenty species of the order cetaceans (whales and dolphins) (Table X) . Representatives of the order and each sub-orders in the Monterey Bay area are described further below. a. Pinnipgds Figure XX shows the principal Pinniped breeding and haulout areas and offshore concentrations. There are a total of 9 11-49 Table 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* EumatoRias jubatus SR Northern elephant seal Mirodnaa angustirostris SR Northern fur seal Callorhinus ursinus ST Guadelope fur seal ArctoceRhalus townsendi ST Harbor seal Phoca vitulina YR FISSIPED: Southern sea otter Enhydra lutris YR CETACEANS: California gray whale Eschri ctius robustus ST Blue whale BalaenORtera musculus ST Fin whale Balaenoptera Rhysalus' ST Minke.whale BalaenORtera acutorostrata SR Humpback whale MegaRtera 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 ziRhius cavirostris ST Short-finned pilot whale GlobiceRhala macrorhynchus ST Killer whale Orcinus orca ST False killer whale Pseudorc 'lens ST Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus SR Pacific white-sided dolphin Lagenorhynchus obliggidens SR Northern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis borealis SR Dall's porpoise Phoccenoides dalli SR Harbor porpoise phocoena SR Bottlenose dolphin Tursins truncatus ST common dolphin Delphinus delphis ST Endangered Threatened 127 OW P:.Reyes 121 San Francisco Farallones is- Pillar Pt. ......... ............ ........ .... ... . . ... .... ........... Pescadero Pg. .......... igeon Pg. Pt. AAo Nuevo 4 Santa r6a T: Monterey Significant Seal and Sea Uon Pg. Labm Populations In the Monterey, Bay National Marine Pg. Sur Sanctuary Area Boundary A)Wmtv*3 High Conowfttions of Loper Pg. Pinnipeds Offshme SGO.-NoV.(.4-6.41SqKm) 771 High Conmmokwo of C San Manin 14adw, Fur SeWs Jam-Mq (.4-1.6r*qKm) (D Pinnipeds Onshore Piedrar 8 0 30 AL StWe mwS % -i* I - I;. i. ........... Alternative 1 Altemabve 2 ft&MaOVO 3 AlternabVe 4 AltegmatiVe 5 AftMaJiVe 6 AlternaVve 7 rookeries/ colonies in the study area. The areas of concentration and principal rookeries/ colonies here estimated from Figure XX provided by Chabot and Associates (1991). The highest areas of concentration are within the southern portion of the study area (encompassed by boundary alternative 3). Most of the rookeries/colonies are within the central portion of the study area (boundary #2). The five species of pinnipeds considered common in the Monterey Bay area include California sea lions, Steller sea lions, Northern elephant seals, Northern fur seals, and Pacific harbor seals. An additional species, the Guadaloupe 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 Mo 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 11-50 coast between the Monterey Peninsula and Point Sur, and the long breakwater of Monterey Harbor. Although Aho Nuevo Island has the largest breeding population of Steller (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 Nifio), but recovered to pre-El Niho levels in 1984 and 1985. NOAA will be developing a "recovery plan" for this species with special attention to rookery areas such as Aho Nuevo. Northern elephant seals breed in the winter months and then disperse to feed in pelagic vaters 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 haulout1to molt. The largest populations are on Aho 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 11-51 based on population structure indicate that elephant seals of the Aho 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 Afto 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 knpwn 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. Harbor seals also use the estuarine habitat of Elkhorn Slough. A recent census of harbor seals at Elkhorn Slough sholws the mid-august population increasing from 40 in 1986 to 120 in 1990 (Elkhorn Slough NERR, monitoring data, 1990). 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 Aho 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. 11-52 b. Cetaceans of the twenty species of.cetaceans seen in the Monterey Bay area (Table X), about one-third occur with frequency. Six of the whales are listed as endangered species: the blue, fin, humpback, gray, right, and sperm. Figure XX taken from Chabot and Associates, (1991), shows the areas of high concentration for grey wales, porpoises and dolphins. Other cetaceans such as humpback whales, right whales, minke whales, fin whales, blue whales and killer whales also seasonally inhabit the waters within the study area. The highest concentration areas of cetaceans are within the southern and central portions of the study area. Gray whales are seasonal migrants (Figure 13). 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 15,000 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. 11-53 Fx: ... .. ..... )OOOC )OOOC )OOOC )OOOC )OOOC a San Francisco Farallones 4i Pillar Pg. 000C )OOOC :000C )OOOC '000C 1000C---- 10000000C 10000000C Peicadero Pg. 10000000C 10000000C Pigeon Pt. 10000000C Pg. AAo Nwvo Santa Cruz )LIUU )0000 )00 0 )00 0 000 )OOOC*' 00 )OU immew. i 66E Oc :3) Oc 4 Navy DO )0 Oc 55. )0 C P Lobos Significant Whale, Dolphin )OOOC and Porpoise Populations 5000C in the Montere .5000C y Bay National )OOOC 00000C ... Pt. SUP Marine Sanctuary Area )0 00000C - :X:-:r- .......... )0 0000C )00 000C Boundwy Alternah%s ?929 00C )OOOC r--q High Concenvabons of )OOOC :)000( Y000C :)000( LLJ Gray Whales Dec.-mv. )OOOC Oc Loopa (.05-17ISql(n) 3000C . . . . . High Uncentrabons d 30010C Harbw Porpoises All Yew 30100( Cape San Martin 3000C )OOOC :)000( UO H@h Conceftalions of 00004 Dolphins aid Porpoises 3000( 30004 All Yew (8-321W) 30004 Blanc 0 15 ............ 1*1 vmvai. v X ............ ... Altemative 1 Altemative 2 Altematve 3 Armmatve 4 Allemati" 5 AtWnatve 6 AlWnabve 7 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 throughout central California beginning in the early 19801s. 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 Mo Nuevo (Scarff, 1987). 'Sperm whales are occasionally seen offshore at the mouthof 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 11-54 attacking gray wha les (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. ball's porpoise is seen frequently along the edge of the canyon. Pacific white-sided dolphins, northern right whale dolphins, and Rissols 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). c. FissiReds There are approximately 1,241 individual sea otters within the study area (Chabot and Associates, 1990). The range of the sea otters within the study area is approximately 130 square nautical miles (Figure XX). Since the southern portion of the study area includes the California Sea Otter Game Refuge, Boundary Alternatives 3 and 5 contain the most number of individuals and the greate st range within the study area. The California or-southern sea otter is a threatened species that is found throughout the shallow waters of Monterey Bay from Pismo Beach to Afto Nuevo Island. Sea otters inhabit a narrow zone 11-55 38* 123* 122* 121* Point 380 % % US -CDFG COnsas Date, 1W4 % ',PsWDZuwn of sse ottv Point Bonita r7rT7!7" Poi , '. I 0aldand Q6,7 Gulf of dw ntLobos Fardlows .IIt San Francisco, 11-36 Point San Pedro Pillar Point About 232 sea use this ama NOTE. The seaward extent of the density bands is illustratlve and Is not meant to imply 0* seaward San Gregono actent of the sea otter ditribution. Plescadem Pescadero Point Pqeon Point Pt. Aflo Nuevo Lm@ RAw --- ------ - --- Soquel 1994 Davenport Greek OOW NVAbW mom Santa r 0 37 P ------ b--AL---ahc- cra Mift 37 Monterey .11981 1 ------ say DOP& h Fobom 10 o197S Ao*o ffiver Moss Landing -------- ------- 1972 Sam Piver Mon" 1'1959 Carmel AREA ---------- point ENLARGED Lobos 1947 ---- cannel R&W 1938 Ove Sur RAW PWK SON 69 Sur, mw 9W g- paist ally creat I Loa Point 360 360 - --- -------------- ---- cape son Martin saw= CIO* 9- -------- - -------------- ------- Point PWdm Mmm son S@@ COW* 1230 1220 121* Figure 13. CaWorrila Sea Otter Rams of ROW EWfWm and Dbb2xdbm Rate of EVansfon (1914-1984) (Reidman, 1986) Spring D&Wbution of Sea Otters USFV4<DFG Census Dole, IM4 as provided by Chabot and Assm 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 all, 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 entanglement in fishing nets, other possible factors for the low 11-56 population growth include illegal shooting, white shark attacks, pathological disorders, contamination from degraded water quality, 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 Aho Nuevo/Pigeon Point. Figure 14 shows the rate of sea otter range expansion from 1914 to 1984. An official state-designated Sea Otter Game Refuge extends from Carmel south to Santa Rosa Creek near Cambria, encompassing about half the otter's established range. 11-57 E." 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 (BIX, 1980). Historical and cultural resources are defined as those areas of the marine environment possessing historical, cultural, archeological or paleontological significance, including sites, structures, districts, and objects significantly associated with or representative of earlier people, cultures, and human activities and events. Historical and cultural resources in the marine environment may generally be categorized into (a) prehistoric remains, (b) inundated cities, harbors, and shore installations, and (c) shipwrecks. 1. Historic sites The coastal lands of central California contain numerous archaeological sites, most of which represent Native American resources. There are approximately 718 reported and verified historic sites in the Sanctuary study area and adjacent coastal zone (M MS, 1990). 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 and as a result there may be many additional undiscovered inundated historic and aboriginal sites within the proposed Sanctuary. The gap in our understanding of the full historical 11-58 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 wit hin 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 Afto Nuevo Point and to the further south shellmounds are found above the rocky shoreline of the Monterey Peninsula. According to BLM (1979) significant historic sites exist throughout the study area especially at urban centers, such as San Francisco, Santa Cruz, Monterey and Carmel. National Register Historic Sites exist at San Simeon Estate, and at Half Moon Bay. Piedra Blancas, Fort Point and Point Montara Lights are classified as Historic Lighthouses; and Point Pinor% and Pigeon Point Lights are classified as both National and California Historic Lighthouse Sites. Point Sur and Point Bonita Lights are classified as California Historic Sites. 11-59 2, Shipwrecks Offshore cultural and historical resources include sunken ships and aircraft. An in-house study conducted by the BLX 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. Recently on June 24, 1990, a research submersible SEACLIFF discovered the wreck of the airship MACON and two of its Grumman Sparrowhawk fighters in approximately 1,500 feet of water off Point Sur. Much attention and research has been focused on the MACON in attempts to learn more about the wreck and determine the feasibility of raising parts or all of the airship and its planes. Within the entire study area there have been identified but unconfirmed reports of approximately 311 addit ional shipwrecks (MMS, 1990). The California State Lands Commission (SLC) has a computer .inventory of all sites identified within the Sanctuary study area. The SLC has an agreement with the University of California at Berkeley to provide further research on these sites and vessels to determine their historic significance (Peter Pelkofer, pers. comm. 1990). The SLC in association with the State Historic Preservation officer nominates appropriate sites and vessels for listing on the Register. F. Existing Protected Areas Within the entire study area there are approximately 36 existing protected areas of coastline and adjacent marine habitat 11-60 that are managed by the State of California Department of Fish and Game or Parks and Recreation (Table X). In addition to state areas, the National Park Service manages the Golden Gate National Recreation Area (at the northern end of the study area) and the National Forest Service manages the Los Padres Forest (at the southern end'of the study area). All of these state protected areas are designated by the State with the intent to protect significant local resources for either research, education or aesthetic purposes (Table XX) (Also see Recreation and Tourist, and Research and Education sections below). A brief discussion on the types of, and management regime for, the protected areas follows: 1. 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. These areas fall into five general categories and relate to the type of resource and it's specific protection needs; a) ecological reserves, b) game refuges, c) marine life refuges, d) fish refuges, and e) marine reserves. 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: a. Ecological Reserves (California Fish and Game Code � 1580 et. seg.) Of the categories of refuges and reserves administered by the 11-61 Table 7.. Units of the California State Park System and.Special areas managed by CDF.&G within the proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary study area. (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, and CDF&G, pers. Comm, 1990. San Mateo County James V. Fitzgerald State Marine Reserve (SR and ASBS) Aho Nuevo (SR and ASBS) Bean Hollow (SB) Pescadero (SB) Santa Cruz County Big Basin Redwoods (SP) Wilder Ranch (SP) Natural Bridges (SB) Lighthouse Field (SB) Twin Lakes (SB) New Brighton (SB) .Seacliff (SB) Manresa (SB) Sunset (SB) Monterey County Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (State/Federal), Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge (SF and ASBS) Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve (SR and ASBS) Point Lobos (SR and ASBS) Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Underwater Park (SP and ASBS) John Little (SR) Hopkins Marine Life Refuge (SF) California Sea Otter Game Refuge (SF) moss Landing (SB) Salinas River (SB) Zmudowski (SB) Marina (SB) Monterey (SB) Asiloser (SB) Carmel River (SB) Monterey (S") Pfeiffer Big Sur (SP) point Sur (SHP) Garrapata (SP)- Andrew Molera (SP) San Luis Obispo Salmon Creek (ASBS) U.C. Landels-Hill Big Creek Natural Reserve (SR) San Simeon (SB) SR = State Reserve sp = State Park SF = State Refuge SB = State Beach SHP State Historic Park 1 Significance ASBS Area of Special Biologica Table 12. 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 dollars, octopi, shrimp, to take in State marine like sea urchins, turban snails, refuges, parks, beaches, recrea- and squid tion areas, underwater parks, and national monument and seashores. 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 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. For example 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 established as an ecological reserve rather than park. 11-62 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. For another example 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, surfinge 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 11-63 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. b. 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. For example, 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 11-64 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. c. 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 generally established to promote research activities. For example, 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 11-65 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 'Ehe University of California are permitted to do so for scientific purposes without a permit. d. 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. For example, 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 11-66 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. e. Marin e 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. For example the Kfio 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 Afto 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 o.f 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 11-67 Game Code �10501.5). Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) are responsible for integrating Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) designations into their area wide basin plans, which outline waste discharge prohibitions and restrictions. A routine ASBS reconnaissance survey conducted by the State Water Resources Control Board (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 RWQCBs ensure's compliance with discharge regulations in the broader context of basin wide enforcement. -Should either an actual discharge violation or a threat thereof b6come 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 .arda: (1) Aho 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 Aho Nuevo State Reserve. (2) 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). (3) Carmel Bay: This ASBS includes waters contained within the 11-68 Carmel Bay Ecological Reserve (see above). (4) Point Lobos Ecological Reserve: This ASBS includes ocean waters contained within the Point Lobos Ecological Reserve (see above). (5) Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park: This ASBS includes ocean waters contained within the Julia Pfeiffer Burns Underwater Park (see below) . (6) 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-S.an 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. 2. State Historic Parks (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 (see Section on Historic Resources above for nominated sites). The commission also recommends state registration of sites as 11-69 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 afforded (California Public Resources Code �5031). At present, no sites within the study area have been registered as either landmarks or points of interest. 3. California State Park System and Beaches The California Department of Parks and Recreation is responsible for managing State Parks and Beaches for their recreational and aesthetic value (Table X). However, 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. For example, 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 11-70 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 Aho Nuevo State Reserve, .Wilder Ranch State Park and Cannery Row. 11-71 III. Section: Human Activities A. Fishincr 1. Commercial Fishing The Monterey Bay area has a large and economically important commercial fishing industry. The major commercial fishing ports are Princeton, Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and Monterey. Table XX, derived from 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 the four major ports in the study area. In 1987, a total of over 34 million pounds of fish with an ex-vessel value of almost $15 million was landed at Moss Landing, Monterey, Santa Cruz and Princeton. Salinas processes fish landed primarily at Monterey. The retail value of the fish to the local economy is worth two to three times that of the ex-vessel value. 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 71 at Princeton. These statistics also include shrimp, crab, octopus, squid, eels, lobster, abalone, and sea urchins. There are five main types of commercial fisheries in the Monterey Bay area: 1) a troll (book-and-line) fishery for salmon and albacore, 2) a trawl fishery for the various species of rockfish and flatfish, 3) a gill and trammel net fishery for California halibut, rockfish, and white croaker, 4) a roundhaul and lampara net fishery for squid, anchovy, and herring and 5) a trap 11-72 -Summary of Poundage and Value (over $20,000 only) of Fisheries Data for the Ports of Santa Table Cruz, Moss Landing, and Monterey (Including processing facilities at Salinas), CDF&G, 1987, and for the Port of Princeton, CDF&G, 1989. Common Santa Cruz Moss Landing Monterey Princeton Fish Name Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Pounds Value Salmon 193,085 5659070 276,218 793,564 236,520 658,754 878,624 92,007,603 Rockfish (ALL) 56,317 32,651 3,257,030 1,052,225 2,675.657 1,029,657 832,704 360,010 Swordfish 34,558 1 136,771 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, 261,855 105,296 963,278 430.096 Tuna 50,583 1 39,203 1,195,167 868.427 97,779 69.410 Sablefish 1 613,360 182,953 258,867 57,979 350,902 169,345 Col. Halibut 50,769 1 113,524 1 39ff@ _ 1 86,054 1 19,672 1 53,582 White Croaker 1 215,161 68,004 81,350 20,857 331,265 118,420 Linac6d 171,660 57.856 139.675 52,762 266,455 121,048 Mackerel 2,546,110 144,693 Sandab 75,593 1 24,366 645,762 196,691 Shark 1 14,669 1 21,660 87,531 86,591 Anchovy 1,153,530 75,077 - - --------- --------------------------- Rock Crab 17,083 19,087 Dungeness Crab 276,374 478,472 Abalone 127,249 511,189 ------ -- - -- -- Urchin 72 5 7 00 222,524 - ---------- Ot-her 1- -1-0-1,046- 1 --- 1-01,299 ----- I ---- 508,927--f-80--.047 ----- 2-90-.767 134.010 ----- 223.702 83,863 Total 1 500,991 J_T@_009,236_1 12,182,969] 4,438,335 16,444,484 4,383,842- 1 5,658,770 1 4,841,930 096 345 '5a @2 7 7 @2 fishery for dungeness and rock crab. Figures XX and XX show the location of primary commercial fishing areas and types of gear utilized. There are approximately 6 to 15 gill-net boats; 8 trawlers using a mixture of otter trawls and roller trawls; and one to three trap boats participating in the commercial fishery off Monterey Bay (Personal Communication, Marine Resources Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March 1990). 2. Mariculture 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 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 produ ces 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 11-73 3 0 1230 1220 8 1210 Point I Q 38 LEGEND F ntgwita, Rodfth Oakland (So - 1000 fathoms) Shoa .0 Poin tw .. t GuIYof San Francisco Dowsole P 0 - 706 fathoms) English Soje Point San Pedro (30 - 300 fathoms) if, Pillar Point Sable Fish -700f (30 athoms) HSIAwjt San Gregorio (5 - SO fa dwms) Haabut* Pescadero Creek (5 so fathom) Pescadero Point Igeon Point -ExPerimental Program under pernitt from CDF&G. Pt Alh Nuevo SOW Creek Davenport Sente Naliftli WIMP 37 Cruz 37 Aftn" man Bay VI pajoro NW Moss Landing SAWRIver Monterey A, Caffnel AREA point ENLARGED Lobos Camid Rhw Mtge cpm* Low Point 36 360 Cape San Martin A Sakilon CIO* IF .. ...... point 1114" Bknw San Skneon Co" 1230 122* 1210 Pqure 14. TravA Fishery. Atlas of Marine Resources for Central Calffomia, Central Coest Regional Studes Program August 1990- 0 1230 122" 38 ...... - 121* y*:::::,_-*:; gt 3p, A UW"D --------------- N Safton non F Point Bonita ------------------ rid (0 - 100 flethoins) Kai t Son Frandsco RoddWAJngcod H&L (50 - ISO fathoms) X ... . . . .T . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . ..... ............ Crab naps Point San Pedro fadiom) PM. Pd rrt GAWO (50 - ISO fathoms) Y, Y, Sampalb TMp & Longom San Gregorio (300 - M ft&,om) ... . Squid Peraderc Creek 3 milm from wait) Pescadiero Point Pigeon Point MwW restrictions aWly. Ck* Reg. AIL for Fishft Piestrictions a Regulations) PL AAo Nuevo kwem RAw Soqud Nvenport Cnillk 0 Santa 37 Cruz 37" 4 AM& say .......... I.... - - A ftjaro Nw Elkhom Sough -A Moss Landing _. 9w Salinas River MonbM camw AREA Point ;L;@ ENLARGED obos Camw PAW LitasurAlbw Fbirit Sur OA Sfg Sur Nw Ng crest Lcpaftw 3 0 6 36* Cap Son Martin Sail"OnCreek In POO" ft Fie" M PO t7w Mar 1220 121'0 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 a-s 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 maximizegrowth rates. Some lobsters were sold to market. Abalone West and Pacific Abalone Farms are each involved in red abalone research and development. 3. KelR Harvesting Kelp is harvested commercially for alginate extraction. KELCO, a San Diego based company has harvested Macrosystis Rvrifera (Giant kelp) since 197 6. KELCO harvests once a year and sometimes twice depending upon seasonal growing conditions. Almost all of the harvesting is done with a 4 to 5 miles area between Point Sur 11-74 and Pfeiffer Point. Approximately 5,000 tons of kelp (wet weight) are harvested a year from the.study area compared with approximately 151,000 tons of kelp (wet weight) harvested in 1990 from all of California, (primarily in southern California). KELCO uses 3 harvesting vessels, two of 400 wet ton capacity and one of 600 wet ton capacity. Kelp is also harvested as food for abalone by four small aquaculture facilities (Foster, pers. comm., 1989). These companies use small vessels, less than 30 feet, and together harvest approximately 500 tons/yr. B. Hydrocarbon and Mineral Activities 1. oil and Gas Activities in the Central California Planning area began n 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 Monterey Bay Sanctuary study area lies within the central California planning region (pigure xx). MMS estimates that the high case conditional mean estimate of the undiscovered, economically recoverable oil resource for the entire Central California Planning area is 530 million barrels and 920 billion 11-75 cubic feet of gas (Cooke and Dellagiarino, in press). Conditional mean values for oil resource within the proposed Sanctuary study area is 370 million barrels and 580 cubic feet of gas (MMS Pacific Regional Office, 1991). (Conditional mean estimates for all proposed boundary alternatives are provided in Figure X). The first lease sale scheduled for the Central California region was Lease Sale #119 which was subsequently canceled in 1990. The latest draft proposal Comprehensive Program for OCS Natural Gas and Oil Resource Management considars only studies and no leasing in the Central California area through 1997. Approval of this proposal is due in Mid-1992. Future 5-Year Plans may consider leasing other geographical areas within the central California planning area that may contain additional hydrocarbon resources. The current Federal Lease Sale process, which takes up to two years, includes public hearings, environmental studies, and recommendations from the Governor. President Bush in July, 1990 declared that OCS activities within the proposed boundaries (Boundary Alternative #2, of approximately 2,539 square nautical miles) of the Monterey Bay National Marin e Sanctuary would be permanently prohibited. All state waters off central California have been designated by the State as an oil and gas sanctuary (Sections 6871.1 and 6871.2 Of the California Public Resources Code). No oil and gas leasing is permitted within this three-mile state limit. The six central California coastal counties (Monterey, Santa 11-76 123* 1220 0 380 y 7-710 121 Point 380 R" UW%FXD High 09 and Gas PoftntW point Bon% it. 3 Oakland Guffoftf* Point Lobos Fmalmes San Francisco Anm Conddwwd for ofthoro Abdm sonamy Oil L"ft In the now canoWbd Lease sale a 19 (Aludins a Ab94 1 go Point San Pedro Pillar Point Son Gregorio ....... Amodero Creek PeKadero Point .. ..... Pigeon Point Pt. Aflo Nuevo Lorenzo Rhow so IqIt SWU 902d "NOW left 37 a 1 0 37 ...... Cruz m amift man JL% monow hy ION ft*o mW Elkhorn Sough mosunding Sallne Mm Montmey Camw point AREA I P Upomed bw HNIOW Lobos CA-Mel PAfar ENLARGED OL&ONIRIBOURN mm ALTOW"TWAMA OL am L"asurRhW Point Sur BID pwd "a pdt a I mdoo a 110 Isamw P= P4"d N ftthkgtg.PdMt mg CIO* 3 Poscom cW*I*c4pftm II0 "a =00e*-*Wn*W) Lqm POW 360 WdftFamkm 36* 4 fm Pw&m%n ftt NO Absked Plod 5 3WWvmvvcW&% III cape so Martin PW=dmC0W*%PWa VIX P4*t 41 3 (I Xo mm- -01cid "da) Paw Pleft Blarlm ------- a 110 1 A7.;@.-;mWAcId ff do* Son Sbmm Aft"OWNIVA low TF 123" 122* 1210 RgUM I L POUNdW ON and GOS D6vd0PmM In 00 Vkk*Y Of *0 MW*WQy Bay' 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 in the Central Coast area. 2. Sand Minincr 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, below the high tide line, 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, from the surf zone and ocean. The Monterey Sand Company has applied to the Department of the Army, Army Corps of Engineers, for authorization to continue its sand extraction activities of 150,000 cubic yards annually for a ten year period. Lone Star Industries, Inc. operates a facility at Marina which dredges approximately 200,000 cyds./yr. of san from'an inland pond ..at the rear of the beach which is presisma ly naturally resupplied with coarse beach sand during high tides. Prior to 1987, Lone Star mined between 50,000 and 100,000 cyds./yr. at an additional facility in Sand City. C. Vessel Traffic, Harbors and Dredging 1. Vessel Traffic a. Commercial ShipRing Almost 9,000 commercial vessels (excluding domestic fishing craft) entered and exited the San Francisco Bay entrance in 1988 11-77 (Table X). Of these vessels approximately 4,500 vessels, including foreign flag vessels transit south through the study area to and from San Francisco. The majority of these southern vessels were passenger and dry cargo vessels. Just under 25% of the vessels moving to and from San Francisco to the south, and through the Sanctuary study area, were tankers of medium size (draft less than 50 feet). In contrast tankers approaching and exiting San Francisco to the north contain a large proportion (approx. 5%) of large tankers (draft greater than 50 feet). Most of the commercial shipping along the coast follows customary north-south shipping lanes., Tankers 16aded with oil from Alaska pass along the central coast of California approximately 85 nautical miles offshore from Point Sur and those bound for the Los Angeles area turn to the east at a point about 100 nautical miles southwest of Point Sur and then gradually approach the entrances to the Santa Barbara Channel (U.S. Coast Guard, 1983). Vessels travel in approximately a straight line between the end of the Santa Barbara Channel Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) and the San Francisco Bay entrance TSS (Texaco, 1989, in CMC, 1991) (Figure XX). These vessels would therefore travel within 10 to 15 miles of Point Sur. Approximately 27% of vessel traffic are within 0-5 miles; 36% within 6-10 miles; 17% within 11-15 miles and; 20% over 16 miles off headlands (CMC, 1991). The U.S. Coast Guard proposed to establish a routing system that amended the San Francisco Traffic Separation Scheme (TSS) and the Santa Barbara Channel TSS and linked them with a Shipping 11-78 TRIPS AND DRAFTS OF VESSELS HARBOR OR WATERWAY DIRECTION DIRECTION SELF PROMUO VESSELS MON-SELF OFELLED SELF FROPMtO VESSELS 00001 SILF FROPILLID YES ELS VESSELS DRAFT (FEET) PASSENGER TOWBOAT TOTAL PA351POGER TOWBOAT TOTAL 0 TAMK(R OR DRY CARGO TANKCR AND TAMXCR OR DRY CARGO I TANSCR DRY TUGBOAT I DRY CARGO TUGGOAT SAN FRANCISCO SAY E4TRANCEP CALIF, MOUND 0011ASOUND 10 50 so 49 1 1 4467 2 2 416 41 Is, to 5 4 44 . . . . . . . . . . . . Is 18 4 43 - - - - - - - - - - - a 6 42 - - - - - - - - - - - - 26 26 3 5 41 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 26, 27 9 to 41 13 7 20 16 20 36 39 10 31 at 20 3, sl 36 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 83 119 40 83 123 37 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 SAI 6 30 79 37 3b - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 62 17 99 ;4 2s 79 35 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 69 28 1 98 90 16 to? 34 - - - - - - - - - - - - o - - 110 to 126 167 19 166 33 - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - 172, 30 202 172 36 206 180 41 2al ISO 47 227 Iss 3b 191 174 71 2sl 49 1310 . . . . . . . 202 asi 226 97 323 29 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 216 41 2S9 is? 47 204 6 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166 247 173 sy 230 27 . . . 0 . . . . . . . . & . . 254 38 292 20a so 240 26 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211 35 24b 200 37 216 25 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 210 30 1? 257 111 35 1 sa 261 24 - - - - - - - - - - - - o - 151 -,7 194 119 32 ast 2S - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 105 24 1 130 111 24 144 22 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 93 24 1 a 119 110 24 .2 136 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 19 1 Be 72 19 2 Is 99 20 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 31 b 13 20 156 89 31 12 It 29 172 19 . . . . . 0 . . . . . . . . . so '0 s it 16 41 It s r 1 6s 18 AND LESS- 0 . . . . . . . . . 10? 131 297 151 las 833 141 Its 269 156 94 19S TOTAL . . . . . . . . . . . 21786 IFOOI 312 ils 184 up4se 217as 997 512 176 184 4,4114 380 -123* 122'0 1210 3 Point % % LEGEND ------- San FraWsw v@ssW Point E@@it@ - - - - - - - Traft Scher"S F 1%1% 1. '. Oakland Shoa Guffof I Point Lobos Farafiorm San Francisco 0-5ftWks 270A b. 6-IOmfles 3696 C. 11 - 15 MOM 17VA % d 16+ MAN 200A I % 1.0 I Point San Pedro Pillar Point San Gregorio ftscadero ceek PeKadem Point Pigeon Point Pt. Aft Nuevo S LorenaD Rhw % % Davenport p, M&M 'IN 37 1" CAN by Dom h Fermom 37* two ft*o Nwr .00 Erb'"" SOU0 Moo Landing SN&M mw cwmd Point AREA ENLARGED U& Sur MW Point Sur Point pairs 360 360 CWe Sin Martin Ovet "OdIrm r"m sansl@wn Cwnb& MOM\ 1 1230 1220 121* Safety Fairway (SSF). The proposal is currently on hold as the U.S. Coast Guard responds to comments on the proposal. Some commercial shipping vessels enter Monterey Bay. In 1986, a total of 5 vessels offloaded at either Monterey Harbor or Moss Landing Harbor (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1986). Until 1982, tankers delivered oil products to Pacific Gas and Electric's (PG&E) power generating plant at Moss Landing. The plant burns natural gas as its primary source and has the capability of burning either gas or oil. From 1982 to 1989 the plant returned to burning gas and is now using oil for its fuel source. PG&E uses a permitted marine terminal for'offloading oil from 50,000 DWT tankers. PG&E was denied permission to construct an offshore marine terminal for off-loading oil from 90,000 DWT tankers. oil tanker traffic may increase in the future depending on whether any OCS lease sales occur in the area and whether ii is determined preferable to transport oil by pipeline versus by tanker. However, maintenance and supply vessels for the offshore platforms would cause an increase in small vessel traffic in the area. b. Commercial Fishing Vessels Numerous commercial fishing vessels, including kelp harvesting boats, use the Monterey Bay area and many are based at one of the four harbors in the area. (For a discussion on numbers and types of fishing vessels see above under Fishing). 11-79 c. Research Vessels The numerous marine research facilities in the area conduct frequent surveys and experiments from specially equipped research vessels. Research includes collecting biological samples to communication with submarines and guidance of Remotely Operated Vehicles (ROVs). Research vessels may also conduct seismic surveys of the ocean floor to determine sub-seafloor geologic features. d. Recreational Boating Recreational boating in California is popular in the more sheltered environments of San Francisco Bay and around the Channel Islands of southern California. However, recreational fishing is an important use of the central California area and whale-watching trips are growing in popularity. Also, an annual speed-boat race for charity occurs across the mouth of Monterey Bay with boats reaching speeds of over 100 mph. Charter boats on the way to fishing grounds or nature-viewing areas can also reach speeds in excess of 25 knots. 2. Harbors a. Princeton/Pillar Point Harbor San Mateo County Harbor District operates the Pillar Point Harbor in Princeton. It is the base for a large commercial fishing fleet, particularly salmon fishing vessels from all of California, as well as numerous small recreational boats. The harbor facilities include: 3@9 berths, 60 percent for commercial and 40 percent for recreational vessels; a fuel dock; a 100 ton ice facility; and a new 6 lane sport-fishing boat launch. Three 11-80 commercial fish buyers are based in the port. A fishing pier and Johnson Pier provid e recreational land-based fishing opportunities. Two outer breakwaters built in the 1960s and two more recent inner breakwaters built in 1984 provide excellent protection to the moored vessels. b. Santa Cruz Harbor The City of Santa Cruz established in 1950 a special zone within the City limits for the harbor district, governed by a board of commissioners. Berths exist for 215 commercial fishing vessels and 759 recreational boats. The recreational use of this harbor is very high and it is not unusual to have 30 percent use of the slips during the weekends. c. Moss Landing Harbor The Moss Landing Harbor was created by special legislation in 1947 designating the Moss Landing Harbor District a political subdivision of the State of California (California General Laws �5118). it consists of the harbor entrance, north and south harbors and Elkhorn Slough. The northern harbor is used primarily by recreational boats with 110 berths available. The southern harbor is used primarily by commercial vessels (approximately 2/3) with 488 berths available. The entrance is protected by two parallel jetties approximately 600 feet apart. Recently there is a proposal to extend,the northern harbor by dredging tidal-mudflats to the north of existing berths. d. Monterey Harbor Monterey Harbor has had a long history of development and 11-81 1 .44 LH)Q W, 122* ;LAN'E coo" GRID p W" cafilarnis State Gri.My. is ir;dlcoled by dotted kke at 1090 loot intervs!l- 360 14. 4w IiAmIlls'lellpl. Stu FT LeagTh OUT IIII NOLF Or. OW181911 I 01411T."t PILUI 8 "--ass, 1141111 111LItIll IFE111 Ull -tw4wtC 41JI0101911 1 .0 I-of ;00 0.3 Is a 0.1 1 Is '100 Ilk., 1 1 $2.4. 1' -120 j*$jVfla9 FOR COWAISR.@ tU@-'WjtNf TO VKC*ABOVC INFORRA110" GRIDGES "PIT CL So VT V 41, CL Of F I Pon too" W At 7 In 9.4 36 wo exurdt" OMUM IhW*V of OW harW wth (IMUNIN U41100y behVilsen Iola Noviornber and 0" u in .111slioOmmmWed #wl fmdnem vvMxxd'iocd knowAodge Aprl.'@ do wfpl 10'enter Ow harbor.cluilrV perloft of high gmund SA R z we ... I sw*@L.YftPootDW*awrmaintakwaguordonVHF-FM*Mnrwk 12 (irmo mm).liq (m.8o mmz), and (158.076 MH&) uln 700 GSV*n dW� a W"..., Ao" 48' 1 2 A C"3" ::: I. "4 AI as" It 24 ray 24 21 40 31 31 2. 2 G 4SOC 36" S 31 Z4 31 5 41 (see 4 4 31S .54 hfd 5 SANTA CRUZ -57' is 3 JV Fill, 51 SMALL CRAFT HARBOR Ain, 0, Menlo, 100.411HP Yards c7E 21. 300 Soo 0 100 400 100 50 All. .4 fw&@ 7, so;, 000 W, xr 121 ,4 77@101 Nautical Mile 0 yarts --37 4 Z 5 la2s 1000 31 42 6 92 13 15 MONTEREY HARBOR 2 1 l4. Scale 1:10,000 dip 12 4 7@ SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS 4j 6 1. 94 13 14- AT MEAN LOWER LOW WATER 7j PLANE COORDINATE GRID 5 California State Grid Zone IV is indicated 81 13 13 by dotted,,ticks at 5000 foot intervals, 12' - Kelp 82 12 12 2 4, 7j 12 14 ob., 71 S strs 21 4 52 .0e H0004f, 84 91 a 24 6 10@ a 102 *w 102 10i 92 COLREGS DE A A N 62 LINE 80. 1215 (See 'Yote A) Romp 7 U 74 / 82' 1' 9@ 82 CG or 52 --@ 7 / OCc R 4saw 2CM 7W$' 82 36' 4 6j 71 a HORN 92 xr 51 9i 52 72 7@ 72 Adii 7 xspftla/ @1@age. S. 71 Ado 2i AO' 6 ra 1. 0111110"Ume"T 2' f to Y, ?to. 126 64 4 ($So note A) 7 7 64 63 4.L S A-W 44 61 24 31 41 -acr (6) 6 j 1F3 21 3 31' 32 4 S.M. 24 32 41 4 4j 41 4j 21 3@ 4. 44 P. 21 &V 44 31 Icr ONTERE U 21 21 V 21 14 Ij 7, - AR A! 6 3 60 z KI 121*&r 1.1110000 ST 3r 11 12 13 1 1 1 1 (Montere @y 8685 y Ba 00, 0 U N D " T Md -S;' I IN FATHOMS Nautical Chart'Catalog No. 2. Pamels N. P 1.102.000 47so- 121 47 1. 1". 000 cc 360 36" 491 49' 7 MOSS LANDING HARBOR Scale 1:10.000 SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS AT MEAV LOWER LOW WATER w- PA ISLA" PLANE COORDINATE GRID -X@ California State Grid ZOn* IV Is Indicated by dotted ticks at 4000 foot irrtorvals. lukhorm C3111 WPA 0 ,5,0 oolngm V.I. 330 vk10',NCx-I 4 v"' 0 71 14AGNC. 360 /32 10 51 a,- AIV,U 4C j) 48' 0 30'@ w 63 P", 17 7a ocj t /1"', 23 so, 10 6 lists G 22ft JIM IT ISO 9 38 COLREGS CIEMAR.CArrON LINE 80.12MZM4 OIS A@ ts 5 7' ROMP 32 c1rd y 4. 7. 42 its 32 44 64' it lot -40, IK 10 31 it tiers PA 45 bv ou U red 10.4 12 2s' 25 24' @6 53 48 27 14 36 w 42 AF 2 16 2 3 14 13 30 @30 11 13 13 7; 19 23 54 71 10 0 r7@ 7, @ -""'CO'REGS @I_INE a 2 32 a@ 7 Soo 41v S 21 Nauldcal Mile Yards =30@ so activity since the late 1700s. It was used by English and Russian ships that stopped for supplies and trade while on pelt and whale oil expeditions. It is owned and operated by the City of Monterey and has two wharves and two boat launch ramps. Commercial fishermen use 175 of the 425 available berths at the marina. An additional 150 moorings are available in open water between the breakwater and the two wharves. 3. Dredging Periodic dredging of sediments is required at Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and Monterey harbors to provide access to boaters as well as for safety concerns. 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 and about 50,000 cubic yards of material are removed a year. Monterey harbor only requires minor mai ntenance with removal of approximately 2,000 cubic yards of material (primarily sand) each year. Princeton Harbor does not yet conduct any dredging operations but may need to do so in the future. The entrance way to the Golden Gate within the northern portion of the study area also requires dredging to maintain the ship channel in and out of San Francisco Bay at a project depth of 55 feet. 4. Dredge-Dispos Most dredge material from Monterey and Santa Cruz dredging is composed of clean sand and is currently used for beach nourishment by being pumped directly to beaches east and south of the harbors. 11-82 Two offshore sites are presently being used for dredged material disposal from Moss Landing harbor (Figure xx). 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) or to an appropriate land-based disposal site. A Long-Term Management Study (LTMS) is underway by the EPA and .Corps of Engineers to determine a location for the disposal of 400 million cubic yards-of dredge material from San Fkancisco Bay and its entrance channel over a fifty year period. One of the five sites under consideration is currently used for the disposal of approximately one million cyds./yr. of sand that is dredged from the entrance channel and disposed of at a site approximately two nmi. due south (Figure XX). D. Discharges, Deposits and Non-Dredge Material Dump Sites 1. Point Source Discharges Appendix D provides a detailed breakdown of magnitude and effluent composition of point-source discharges by facility directly into the ocean and in adjacent watersheds. There are eight municipal and two industrial sources of discharges which empty directly into the ocean of the Monterey Bay, area study area (Figure XX): Within the preferred boundary 11-83 380 1230 1220 1210 Point 3r R" UGMD 1. RichmorW-Suraw WWTF N (San Frandsop) Ian Point Bonit@ S 01 h a rid 2- Daly City WWTF Gwy 0 A San Franosco I PJcffla WWTF 't Haff NMI Bay WWTF 2 S. Santa Cruz WWrF 6 WaftOnW110 WWTF 3 7a. PG&E IndurMal 7b. PG&E Indaftl (Eftorn Sbugh) I Point San Pedro & Madb@al Ro*waWw IrduoUl 1 -9 MontwW Maglonal WWTF 10. Madna VAVFF Pillar Point 11. Carmel WWTF 1% ,4 8.2 4 A. San Frarx*w Bay Maki Ship Chwinei Dump Mew al-B.S. Rupowd Dumlaftes for San Gregorio Long-Term Mlanagement Smaw for San ftndRo Bay x C. Mb=LancftDw*&WSF-12 Peradero Creek PeKadero Point D. Ai- LaxMV Dumpsft SF-14 BA X Apprcix Locadw of y Pigeon Point LISS 1AVEFEWDENa Pt. Aflo Nuevo San River Y Dbused Eq*&W Dwriping Area %-,% % Daveril)od Creek %% Santa 5 370 - :@. - Cruz 370 r 6 $%am man ProhMon Bay hi Faftm Two Papm Rr" c ElOwn Sough MOU Uwding 7 D 8 r Pk= & South Mor" UY Rim Prohibition zone 0 r Pt ftnmw & South AM I Mar ENLUGED Pr @." MY Zone Lobw CAMWN" % ftint Us Partington Pdrit Oed 36* Lopw Pdnt 360 7 San me th cw a cnaak Paht 1111416 Mancia San sk"M Cmat % CMdxw \INK \ I 1230 122" 1210 It tiew-an nkettziona 2M Mwnn IM" MnAA ehAft 1MM-- FPA Raiicinn IX 1991: Alf)AA 1-M) alternative #2, there are four municipal dischargers: 1) Santa Cruz Wastewater Treatment Facility; 2) Watsonville Wastewater Treatment Facility; 3) the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency (MRWPCA) consisting of the cities of Castroville, Monterey, Salinas, Seaside and Fort Ord (and Marina by 1992) and the 4) Carmel Sanitary District at Pacific Grove. The two industrial dischargers within the preferred boundary are the 1) Pacific Gas and Electric power plant at Moss Landing, and 2) the National Refractories plant at Moss Landing. Point source wastewater treatment plants and industrial discharges are major sources of pollutants in the northern and central areas (Figure XX). The PG&E plant discharges the vast majority of the total wastewater into the central area although the magnitude of pollutants associated with this discharge is small. The Carmel Sanitary District, and the Monterey regional water sewage system.treat wastes to a secondary level. The Monterey Bay regional water sewage system located to the north of Marina, and managed by the MRWPCA, has been operational since February, 1990. The treatment plant replaces small treatment plants at Monterey-,- Seaside, Fort Ord, Salinas, and Castroville (Marina.will tie into this regional system at a later date, probably in 1992). The outfall associated with the new system receives the collective wastes from the five 'small treatment plants mentioned above. A 40% increase in capacity was planned into this regional system to handle the anticipated regional growth in population through at least 2005. The present population of 544,000 peo ple in Monterey 11-84 Total Wastewater, by Hydrologic Unit and County, Discharged Into Areas Adjacei to the Monterey Bay N ational Marine Sanctuary Study Areas, by Source, circa 19 0@ 300 -000 CL 200 - 000 z 0 .j 105 z 0 81 loo- 56 33 30 13 16 6 is 0 0 0 za 0 0 0 0 -2 *'00-LA 0 0 0 0 Now NASTEWATER DIRECT POWER ' URBAN ' CKPLAM FOREST PAMAE 'RFWATION- LIPSTREAM TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF 'ANDRA" XTURN SOLWES PLANTS DISCHARGE RUNOFF FLOW WASTEWATER SOURCE 0 NORTHERN STUDY AREA 0 CENTRAL STUDY AREA 0 SOUTHERN STUDY AREA Note: Power plants discharge large VOIUM03 of wastewater as a result of cooling water requirements. HowevOt. the mass of pollutants discharged trom power plants is generally small. Source: National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, Office of'OcQan Resource Conservation and Assessment National Ocean Service, Rockville, Mafyland. and Santa Cruz counties is projected to increase to 755,000 by the year 2005 (AMBAG, 1987). The City of Santa Cruz is using two ocean outfall pipelines to dispose of treated sewage The main outfall pipeline is 12,250 feet in length, in about 110 feet of water and one mile from shore. A secondary outfall pipe is used inly during peak wet weather flows. This is the city's original ocean outfall pipe and it is only 2000 feet in- length. The City WWTP is being improved and upgraded to treat sewage to a secondary level and by the Fall of 1990 was 75 percent complete. The City of Watsonville also discharges-primary sewage directly into Monterey Bay. Watsonville recently received a waiver postponing secondary treatment of their sewage. This permit will allow Watsonville to continue discharging primary treated sewage for another 5 years. The PG&E plant discharges primarily cooling water at an elevated temperature and National Refractories discharges seawater with an altered ionic composition after removing magnesium. In addition, numerous dischargers witbLin the watersheds adjacent to the Monterey Bay study area, discharge into rivers and tributaries that eventually flow into the Sanctuary waters- Fbr example, the cities. of Gilroy and Morgan Hill, located outside the coastal counties, have adopted a Long Term Wastewater Management Plan to provide wastewater treatment and disposal capacity to accommodate the projected growth of the two cities. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was challenged 11-85 and after revising the EIR to satisfy the issues raised a decision was reached in March 1991 to certify the EIR. The cities are now proceeding in three phases with the development of the discharge project. The first phase is the design for expansion of the existing plant to a secondary treatment level with nitrogen removal to 10 mg/l. The discharge of 7.1 million gallons per day will be disposed of entirely on land. Construction of the expansion is planned for 1992 and operation in 1994. Throughout these phases the Cities will continue studies and research to assist with plans for discharge to the Pajaro River during the winter months (Ross, pers. comm., April, 1990). All major point-source municipal dischargers into the ocean and adjacent to the Monterey Bay study 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. For example, the City of Santa Cruz performs over $150,000 ocean monitoring annually an d analyzes 100 parameters with set limits on 28. Two desalination projects are proposed for the Monterey Bay areaIto provide an alternative source of freshwater supply to the surrounding communities. Both projects are still in their planning phases and no locations or magnitudes of discharge have yet been determined. 2. Non-Point Source Disc argds Non-point source discharges includes runoff from urban# cropland, forest and pasture and range sources as well as 11-86 irrigation return flow and upstream sources. Non-point source discharges is the major source of pollution to the entire Monterey Bay area (Figure XX). Only natural forest runoff contributes non- point source pollution to the southern portion of the study area and this is negligible when compared to the magnitude of pollutants entering the entire study area. For a detailed breakdown and comparison of pollutant input from point and non-point sources into the different regions of the study area see Appendix D. By far the greatest pesticide loading occurs in Monterey County reflecting the extensive, highly productive agricultural activities of Salinas Valley (Ficjure.XX). Another source of non-point source pollution is the garbage generated and disposed of by ships during their ocean voyages as well as by smaller boats in harbors and marinas. Because of past studies by the National Academy of Sciences and by the U.S. Coast Guard, ports are now required und er Annex V of MARPOL, to provide reception facilities for vessel wastes garbage. Thus "ports of call" receive wastes that were traditionally disposed of in the ocean. 3. Desalination Plant Discharges Desalination plants can be used to purify seawaterf brackish ground water., or treated waste water. With the recent drought in California, coupled with escalating population growth and water delivery problems central coastal areas including Monterey Bayl are 11-87 AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDE USE IN COUNTIES ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY] Marin Totw Pesticides Applied rancisco Pounds per Year 1:1 0 to 14073 E3 14073 to 34690 m El 34590 to 62993 62993 to 561,500 ........... Sam'. 561500 to S623S4 ...... ........... PESTICKW USE By 0OUtfry CIRCA IN7 Morftrey BaY National Manne Sanctuary ft* At" COUNTY Herbicide Inseckide Furgicide Nelmocide TarAL (Lbs!@Mlied) . (Lbs Applied) - (Lbs Applied) . (Lbs Appkd) (Lbe AmMed) MARIN 7,760 0 0 0 7,7W SAN FRANCISCO 0 a 0 0 0 SAN MATEO 4,750 13,41W 2=0 0 20.386 SAN BENITO 34,828 161016 9.796 0 azom SANTA CLARA 23.786 8.126 2,590 0 34= SANTA CRUZ 4,996 27M7 2,415 a 34A" MONTEREY 149,966 321.054 91,334 0 SOZ354 SAN LUIS OBISPO 31,632 24,944 6,770 10 M356 Source: Nadonal C4a$W Pollutant Discharp Invonkq, Olke of Ocean raw Canservalion " Aseswrwit, NaloriW Ocean Servim. RD&Ae. marywd. AUp data prftmtvd by Snw& Envkorm,@n&WAsms&wntDh4Abn. ON= of Ocean Resources Cowrvadon andAssessment. Alstonal Ocean Seryke Rocinoft. Mnq*Lnd considering the construction of desalination facilities. While it is a proven and effective technology that has been widely used in the Middle East and in the Caribbean, the desalination of seawater has not been attempted until now in the continental United States. This has been primarily due to the high costs associated with seawater desalination compared to other sources of drinking water. The United States has over 1000 small plants that desalinate brackish groundwater. Although used principally for industrial uses, many plants provide drinking water, especially in Florida, where ground water must be treated before use. The first sea water desalination plant in the United States was opened by the U.S. Navy on San Nicholas Island in late 1990. A second facility, to be operated by the Southern California Edison, is scheduled to open on Santa Catalina Island this year. The Navy unit will produce fresh water at a cost of $1,625 per acre-foot (AF=325,851 gals.), which is substantially cheaper than the cost of barging water to the island. A number of technologies have been developed for desalination, including vapor compression, ion exchange, electrodialysis, distillation, and reverse osmosis. Two of these technologies, distillation and reverse osmosis (R/0) are being considered for seawater desalination.in California. Plants can be built as separate units or in combination with electricity generating plants, where the waste heat is used for the desalination process. In distillation, water is heated until it is turned into steam and 11-88 the salt and other contaminates are left behind. When the steam is condensed it becomes very pure water, In reverse osmosis, the seawater is passed through a thin plastic membrane with pores so small they only allow water molecules to penetrate. While approximately 65 percent of all desalinated water worldwide is produced by distillation, virtually all of the U.S. plants are based on reverse osmosis, including those on San Nicholas Island and Santa Catalina Island. An emergency plant proposed to be built at Santa Barbara, California in late 1991, will be a reverse osmosis facility. The high costs of reverse osmosis facilities are for the production and maintenance of the sophisticated plastic membranes and for powering the pumps that provide the high pressures necessary to force water through the filters. An advantage of reverse osmosis is that the operation requires about 50 percent less energy than distillation, and the feed water does not have to be heated. Another advantage of the R/O plants is @that they take up less area than distillation plants and can be rapidly assembled in small modular units. The fouling of R/O membranes is the most serious disadvantage, as the plants must be @shut down when they are cleaned or replaced. In the Monterey Bay area, there is one existing industrial desalination operation and several proposals for producing drinking water from desalinated'seawater. Exhaust steam from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company power plant at Moss Landing is used in the mechanical Vapor Compressor Evaporator desalination unit. The 11-89 plant, which was licensed before 1950, produces 480 AF/year (475,000 gals/day) of I ppm product water, which is used in the power plant turbines. The Sterling Hotel/ Conference Center in Sand City was approved by Sand City in 1985 but was denied by the California coastal Commission that same year, in part, because of a discrepancy between the proposed water use and the Land Use Plan's allocation of water. A revised proposal was submitted that included a much lower level of water use, which would still exceed that allowed by LUP, but the excess water would be provided by a desalination plant. The plant would utilize reverse osmosis and would produce 20 AF/year (18,000 gpd). The intake water would be taken from a ground well. The project is still under review by the Coastal Commission. In February 1991, the Monterey Peninsula Water Management Board contracted for a study to investigate seven different sites for the feasibility and costs of a desalination plant. In April 1991, Boyle engineering reported to the board that the most promising location for a desalination plant to serve the Peninsula was the Marina site of the Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency. The second ranked site was the most landing PG&E power plant and the third most promising site was the abandoned Monterey waste water treatment plant across from the Naval Postgraduate School on'a beach owned by the Marina Water District. Although the Marina site appears to be the best location, it would need a new intake pipe from Monterey Bay for feed water. 11-90 Another drawback for the two top-ranked sites is that eight br fifteen miles of connecting line would have to be constructed, respectively, to tie a plant into Cal-Am Water Co's northern most water mains. The site that is ultimately selected for the 3 million gallon/day plant will dictate to a certain extent the technology that is used. The favored Marina Regional plant could probably use reverse osmosis or distillation. The Moss Landing site might be best suited for a hybrid plant combining R/O and distillation. PG&E is doing an independent assessment of the Moss Landing location and is expected to complete a report in late spring. Regardless of the site selected, the District would have to get permits from up to seven different federal agencies, seven state agencies, three county agencies and two city departments. In addition to the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District's proposal, the Marina Water District has contracted for a feasibility study of desalination plants, either inland or along the coast. They propose to build a plant that would produce 1,000 AF/year (0.9 million gpd), which would supply approximately 1/3 of the water needs of the City of Marina. The plant would most likely use reverse osmosis technology. If the plant is built on the coast, the preferred site would be at Marina's waste water treatment plant, located just to. the south of the regional Water Pollution Control plant. The Monterey Bay Aquarium is planning to build a reverse osmosis desalination unit on site to provide water for their 11-91 toilets. The unit would produce a maximum of 48 AF/year (43,000 gpd), but, the average production is estimated to be about 24 AF/year (21,500 gpd). The quality of the water produced would be about 400 ppm, and would cost $1,800/AF. The brine would be mixed with the seawater used in the aquarium before it is discharged. Proponents of Monterra Ranch, a housing subdivision planned alongside the Monterey-Salinas Highway, have also applied to Monterey County for permits to build their own desalination plant. 4. Non-Dredge Material Dump Sites There are three military areas used, (either currently or in the past), for the disposal of explosives and wastes (Figure XX).. First, part of an inactive explosive dumping ground occurs in the northern portion of the study area. Second, also in the northern portion of the study area, lie the remains of the USS INDEPENDENCE. This was a small aircraft carrier used as a target ship during the Bikini Atoll atomic bomb tests in 1947. It was sunk as a target during testing of aerial and undersea weapons off of Central California in 1951. Third, the dunes and adjacent ocean waters off of Fort Ord contain many spent rounds of ammunition fired by the army during practice drills at target ranges on the dunes. Many rounds missed the targets and ended up in the dunes or in the ocean where the steel-jackets of the bullets erode leaving behind a lead core. -Finally, limited studies at the Fort Ord site itself, show both soil and groundwater are contaminated from the storage of hazardous wastes on-site. Groundwater movement, surface water runoff and erosion of the 11-92 dunes provide pathways for the discharges and deposits on-site to enter the central portion of the Sanctuary study area. E. Military Activity Throughout the study area there are numerous areas of military activity representing all branches of the armed forces (Figure XX). There are two military activity areas within Monterey Bay itself. The U.S. Army administers a restricted firing range impact area extending 8,000 yards offshore from its Fort Ord military installation (with more strict limits extending 5,000 yds offshore). 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 pract:ice maneuvers. Minehunting training is conducted by Navy minesweeping ships in this section of Monterey Bay eight times a year 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 are recovered after completion (Capt. Larson, Pers. Comm., August, 1989). on occasion the U.S. Marines practice amphibious landings on the beaches adjacent to these two areas. 11-93 1230 380 122" 1210 V Point 38ii-- LEGEND Point BoInlita, N 0 ; Oakland OPeratingAma GU#Ofd* PointLobos 2 V21 Sj&nwW Submwfne, . I San Frandsw OPemtlng Area Faralonies 2i, I ........... I V3'Subnwyed Subnwtft* OPefatingAma 4. AbvW Cpmra",&W I AnWaj7dAI4vyfte9*WAm Point San Peth 6. San Randm Warning Arw 28S AV-2af) 7. Padft Mlswle ftnge . . . . . . . Pillar Point San Gregono Awadem Owk Pemmdem Point Ageon Point ft AM Nuevo wow Davevort Sanlim 37 %Jug 6 on 3r fty one In pwbo" Salinas fum point AREA Lobos CarmefNwer ENLARGED %WSW - - ---------- A ftdngWA Aft Point 36 36 cap San Martin sm(mon Creek Pakt Fkdras Blarm Cmek . ....... Cambria 123* 122' 121" Figure 20. Military Trairiging Areas In MBINMS Study Area. The northern portion of the study area overlaps with portions, or entire areas, of submerged submarine operating areas. During torpedo practice firing, all vessels are cautioned to keep clear of Naval Target Vessels flying a large red flag from the highest masthead. A Warning Area (W-285) exists to the west of the proposed Sanctuary and overlaps the western boundary of the study area (approximately 992 square nautical miles). It is in frequent use for both air and surface training -- 700 scheduled uses occur per month (Capt. Larson, Pers. Comm., August, 1989). Among specific activities in the area is the expenditure of smoke markers, sonobuoys.and ordnance. 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). Finally, the southern portion of the study area overlaps with a small corner of the Pacific Missile Range. F. 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 thirteen research and/or education programs in the entire study area (Figure zz). The Hopkins Marine Station of Stanford University is located 11-94 123* 122* 121" 380 38* -A Point Reyes LEGEND 1. Aho Nuevo State Resew Z Long Marine Lab Point Bonibta rid 3. Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Point Lobos Research Resew Gulf of the San Francisco 4. Moss Landing Marine Lab Farallones S. Naval Postgraduate School 6. MontoWBayAquaftm ;F AfonMW Bay Aquarium Rewrch i Point San Pedro Institute & Hopkins Afaft M**w 9. NOAA's Center for ocean AMOIS Pillar Point & Pmdkdw 10. Pt Lobos Ecological Reserve 11. Granite Canyon Marine Lab 12. U.C. Landells-Hill Aig Creek Reserve San Gregorio 11 U-s F.W.S. Riesearch StaWn at Pt Piedras fhnm Pescadm Cheei pescadero Point %% Pigeon Point son Rkw Pt Allo Nuevo Soqud "" N1% Davenvort Creek 37* 37 low 2 Moss Ure" 6 Carrnel 9 AM 7 Point ENLUGED 8 UAW ca"I'le(mmer &I* Sur &W 10 POW %K fttieow ftint % xg Ofsk Wpapow 360 360 RI*Wftd 12 C*q so Martin Seimonovsk p"Ple"Mencas I - 13 CAII&II 1230 122* 12le Figuix 21. ROWrCh and E&W.StW FWMW in tW M*UeM Bay Area. in Pacific Grove. The main research effort is in using intertidal organisms.to study cellular and developmental biology, immunology, and neurobiology. Research is also conducted on the ecology of the rocky intertidal zone of the Hopkins Marine Life Refuge located offshore of the laboratory. 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. NOAA's Center for Ocean Analysis and Prediction, located in Monterey, adjacent to numerous State facilities, 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 Loma Prieta earthquake. Their activities are being continued at a temporary location in Salinas. The Laboratories operate the R/V Point Sur for research cruises. The Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve (NERR), managed in partnership between the Federal Government (NOAA's Sanctuaries and Reserves Division) and California's Department of Fish and Game, is one of eighteen such sites in the Nationwide KERR system. Elkhorn Slough NERR is managed to provide a natural 11-95 outdoor laboratory setting that attracts researchers from all .-fields of oceanography an d limnology. Information gained from the research is provided to local, state and Federal decision-makers to assist in the management of the Nation's coastal zone. In addition, trained volunteers as well as CDF&G staff lead interpretive walks through Elkhorn Slough NERR trails on the Reserve showing the diverse habitats and organisms of a productive salt-marsh ecosystem. 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 Afto Nuevo), sea. otters, invertebrates, and plankton. Granite Canyon Marine Laboratory of the California Department of Fish and Game 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 municipa I/ industrial effluents. The Oil Spill Cleanup Agent or Dispersant Toxicity Project is evaluating the toxicity and toxicological properties of oil spill dispersant,. utilizing sensitive marine life forms (Michael Martin, pers. comm., 1989). The Monterey Bay.Aquarium is operated by a non-profit foundation, and not only displays some of the best marine aquarium facilities in the world but also conducts a variety of research through their Research Division. Research is primarily focused on 11-96 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). The University of California Landels-Hill Big creek Reserve in Big Sur, south of Julia Pfeiffer Burns State Park is part of a UNESCO international Biosphere Reserve, and protects and manages the lower portion of the 25 square mile Big Creek watershed. Limited research and educational programs are provided at the facility. The staff is now considering establishment of a permanent ecological refuge analogous to that at Point Lobos or the-, Bodega Marine Laboratory. Finally, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service maintains a small research station at Point Peidras Blancas and conducts frequent surveys of sea otters and seabirds that concentrate at Point Piedras Blancas. 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 11-97 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 Afto 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. The soon to be completed Stanton Center will provide a new major Maritime and History Center in Monterey. The Stanton Center will house priceless historical artifacts, interesting and informative exhibits, history film and heritage education programs -for both children and adults and in general increase the public's awareness of the importance of this Nation's maritime heritage. G. Land Use The majority of land adjacent to the Sanctuary study area is undeveloped forest and range land although large areas are used for @agriculture in the central portion of the study area (Figure XX). The southern portion of the study area is composed entirely of undeveloped range and forest land including the Los Padres National Forest. Major urban 'centers are found in the central portion of the study area at Monterey, Moss Landing and Santa Cruz. To the north, Princeton, Pacifica and portions of San Francisco lie adjacent to the coast. 11-98 LAND USE FOR COASTAL WATERSHEDS, BY COUNTY, ADJACENT TO WATERS CONSIDERED FOR THE MONTEREY BAY NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY 2500- 2000 -00 ui 1500 -00 Lu cc 000 1000- 00 500- ,A 0- uReAN AGRiCULTURE PANGE FOREST WETLANDS NORTHERN AREA CENTRAL AREA SOUTHERN AREA S b Lind D ,cxoce Sued on US. GwbowW SuwY L&WUmUWCs*w DW 88", awA Ign - 'M- WSW L WUm a's Aw NaWnWcowta#P*NuwtDtsdwWktawyCountesdawb@ tmL&woWE"wwwWAs"m"*,DM,*m olficq ol oc9an Rosowws Ccnswvadw &V AusswwtK NagwW OMM Swl"*. Amftft, MOM. LAND USE BY COUNTY AND U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CATALOGUE UNIT ADJACENT TO WATERS CONSIDEREPTOR THE MONTEREY SAY NATIONAL. MARINE SANCTUARY :X. .. .. ........ ....... ...... AREA CATALOGUE UNIT COUNTY URBAN AGRICULTURE RANGE FOREST WETLANDS TOTALS (LAND USE IS IN SQUARE MILES) ....... .. ..... ............ ........ . .......... ............ ................... . . . . ..... ... .......... .............. - . ........ ...... .................. ...... ........ . ....... ...... NORTH 1 805M5 MARIN (1) 6.1 56.7 117.1 11117.1 2.9 TOTAL 6.1 56.7 117.1 117.1 2.9 299.9 18050006 SAN MATEO 16.2 10.1 110.1 11011 0.5 SAN FRANCISCO 11.1 0 0.3 0 0 SANTA CRUZ 0.1 0 0 52 0 . ..... . . TOTAL 27.4 10.1 110.4 106.2 0.5 254.6 SUB-TOTAL 33.5 66.8 227.5 223.3 3.4 554.5 .............................. .................. ..................... ........ ... -X. -X ... ....... ..... ....... ......... CENTRAL I SANTA CRUZ 57.5 6.5 19.2 263.4 o.4 ....... . ... ....... SAN MATEO 0 8.7 9.8 12.3 0.2 TOTAL 57.5 152 29 275.7 0.6 378 ...... ....... 18060002 SANTA CRUZ 13.6 32.7 112.1 16.2 0.3 SAN BENITO (2) 1 96 119 230 0 ........ SANTA CLARA 12.6 63.1 92.3 198.8 0 MONTEREY 2 10.8 1.8 22 0 TOTAL 29.2 202.6 225.2 4472 0.3 904.5 10060011 MONTEREY 35.7 86.1 44.6 46.2 3.1 SAN BENITO (2) 0.8 1.5 6.5 6 0 TOTAL 36.2 87.6 51.1 52.2 3.1 230.2 ....... ...... 19060012 MONTEREY 39 4.9 50.1 206.9 0.7 TOTAL 30 4.9 59.1 206.9 0.7 309.6 ........ 18060005 MONTEREY 27.3 422.3 908.2 834.2 18.2 SAN LUIS OBISPO 24.5 200.6 147.2 455.5 0 SAN BENITO (2) 0 12 0 12 0 TOTAL $1.0 634.9 1055.4 1301.7 18.2 3062 SUB-TOTAL 212.7 945.2 1419.8 2283.7 22.9 4884.3 .... ... . ............... 4... ............ ...... ............. ...... .......... ............ . . . ....... . Xw wax'', . .. ...... ......... ...... SOUTH 1 &)60006 MONTEREY (3) 2.3 1.2 82.9 238.5 0.1 TOTAL 2.3 1.2 82.9 238.5 0.1 325 ........ ..... SUB-TOTAL 2.3 1.2 02.9 238.5 0.1 325 ........ .. ...... ......... . . .... .......... ........ ... . . . .. ............. . .......... GRAND TOTAL 248.5 1013.2 1730.2 2745.5 26.4 5763.8 . .. ...... .... ................. ............ .................. ........... . ................. ... .... . ....... ....... ............ (1) THE MAJORITY OF LAND USE IS ADJACENT TO THE GULF OF THE FARALLONES NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARY. (2) ESTIMATED VALUES. (3) INCLUDES A SMALL PORTION OF SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY/NOTE ALSO A SMALL PORTION IS WITHIN THE CENTRAL AREA. ALL VALUES IN SQUARE MILES DATA OBTAINED FROM NATIONAL OCEAN SERVICE, OFFICE OF OCEAN RESOURCES, CONSERVATION AND ASSESSMENT, STRATEGIC ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT DIVISION Source: Based on U.S. Geolo@l Survey Land Use/Land Cover Data bass Circa 1975 - 1900. Strategic Environmental Assessment Division Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Own Service, Rockville, Maryland. Commercial agriculture is an important activity in the land surrounding the bay primarily within the watersheds draining into the central portion of the study area. Agriculture includes both irrigated and non-irrigated agriculture as well as semi- agricultural land uses (e.g. dairies, and feedlots). Monterey County was once known as "The Salad Bowl of the World" because of the wide variety of vegetables grown there. Monterey 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. 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. H. Coastal DeveloRm-ent The major population centers within the adjacent coastal counties to the study areas are growing steadily (Figure xx). Both commercial and residential unit development is concentrated in the central portion of the study area. Large growth has occurred in places such as Monterey< Marin, Salinas, Santa Cruz, and 11-99 Figure X. Population Density in Coastal Counties, 1960 - 2010 800 700- ... ....... .. 600 2 500- 400- ... . .. 300- .... ...... CL 200 100- 0 1960 1970 1 1980 1988 1990 2000 2010 Year Sanctuary United States E] California Watsonville lcocated along or adjacent to Monterey Bay. Almost 3,800 new homes were constructed every year in Monterey and Santa Cruz counties between 1970 and 1989. Development was greatest in the early 1970s, late 1970s and mid 1980s. Associated with this development are increases in the need for seawalls to protect coastal property and facilities to gain access to the ocean such as docks, piers and jetties. In addition to direct physical changes to the coastline there are the indirect effects of this increased growth in terms of additional discharges and deposits via non-point source surface runoff or via groundwater and additional demands on point source discharges from sewage treatment plants. 1. 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. The area is internationally renowned for its aesthetic beauty and recreational oppor tunities. The recreation industry is worth approximately $641 million/year to San Mateo, Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties (Central Coast Regional Studies Program, Economic Values of the Central Coast, 1989). 1. Tourism Monterey Bay has been a tourist attraction since the late 1800's. About 18 million tourists visit the area annually (AMBAG, 1978). The total number of tourists to Santa Cruz annually -is 2.5 U-100 million (Santa Cruz County Conference and Visitors Council, pers.1 comm, 1989). There were about 1.7 million 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). 2. Coastal Recreation Areas Shoreline and nearshore recreation occurs throughout the bay area, with concentrations from Point Lobos to Santa Cruz Almost all of these sites are managed by the state or local governments. Most of these sites.are recreationalbeach areas and/or marinas providing access to Monterey Bay. The numerous public beaches account for 45 miles of coastline bordering the preferred boundary alternative. The 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 Aho Nuevo State Reserve, the Pacific Grove Marine Garden Fish Refuge, the Hopkins Marine Life Refuge, and the California Sea otter Game Refuge. The Afto Nuevo State Reserve attracts over 14 0,000 visitors annually (Coastal Concern, 1989). 3. Recreational Boating II-101 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 boaters. Recently a para-sailing company has begun to operate out of Santa Cruz. once a year large speed boats participate in a charity race ezceeding speed of 100 mph. 4. "Personal water craft" The use of smaller speed vessels, termed "personal water craft", such as jet-skis or mini-motorboats has begun to@become a highly popular sport. Personal water craft are a relatively new form of water sport and while their popularity is increasing, they are currently operated in small numbers in the Monterey Bay area. In the northern part of the Bay, primarily around Santa Cruz, it is estimated that 12-16 vessels per day are operated on weekends during the summer months (6-month period, with 6-8 vessels operating on weekdays. During the winter only 6 vessels operate on weekends and 1-2 during the weekdays. The vessels are launched and recovered at a launch ramp in the Santa Cruz harbor area. -11-102 In the central portion of the Bay, primarily Moss Landing/Elkhorn Slough area, it is estimated that "dozens per month" operate during the summer. The vessels are launched and recovered at a launch ramp near the Yacht Club in the harbor area and have been seen to travel the length of Elkhorn Slough. In the southern portion of the Bay, there are no estimates of vessel use but they are known to be on the increase. Vessels which are launched and recovered at the Coast Guard Pier launch ramp, are prohibited from the Monterey Marine area. There has been an increase in concern over the use of these vessels in the vicinity of local beaches, where the operators desire to ride the surf and jump waves. An ordinance is being considered to prohibit use of the so-called "thrill craft" in the "Window of the Bay" area of Monterey. 5. Recreational Fishing Recreational fishing is a very popular activity both in Monterey Bay and the exposed coastal areas throughout the entire .study area. Five major types of recreationaI fiabing 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 mack.erel (Table x). The rugged nature of some sections of the coast make shorefishing impossible. Where the shoreline can be reached there 0 is excellent rocky-shore fishing for lingcod, kelp greenling, 11-103 cabezon, surfperch, and rockfishes. Most sandy beaches offer good surf fishing for surfperches and flatfishes (Table x). 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 x 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 x). salmon, lingcod, mackerelf and many varieties of rockfish are the main species caught. 6. Intertidal Collecting 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. 7. Diving The Monterey Bay area is well known for recreational diving. The area from Cannery Row on the Monterey Peninsula to Point Loobos State 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 11-104 Table Major species of Fish Caught from Private or Rental Boats, Beaches, Piers and Jetties (marine Recreational Fisheries statistics Survey, i987). 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 --Fish Caught by Commercial Partyboat Fleet For the Ports t of Mont rey, Moss Landing, and Santa Cruz (California Department o Fish and Game, 1987) species Number of 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 45,461 anglers fishing from 25 boats in 1987. (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. 8. Nature Observation 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 3,000 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. A seaplane operation at the Santa Cruz Municipal wharf provides nature observers opportunities to watch whale migrations from the air as well as provide emergency rescue service when necessary. 9. Surfing 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. Throughout the entire study area there are 4 major sites in South Mateo County (south of Half Moon Bay), 32 in Santa Cruz County, 10 around the Monterey 11-105 peninsula and 6 in Big Sur. Surfing accounts for a major source of revenue to the area (approximately $150 million per year to Santa Cruz alone) and special events such as the six day O'Neil Cold Water Classic ProSurf contributes $ 2.0 million alone. The main surfing season runs from late summer through early spring, although surfing continues year round (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 Mo Nuevo. 11-106 IV. Section:, Existing Resource Protection Regime A. Introduction The Federal agencies with existing primary responsibilities in the Monterey Bay study area 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 existifig primary jurisdiction in the Monterey Bay studyarea are: the Coastal Commission, the State Water Resources Control Board, the Central and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Boards, 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 C. B. 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 11-107 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 and walrus). 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.drea but was recently sighted off central California in the vicinity of the Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary. The USCG, 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 andILiability 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 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 11-108 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 with the provisions of the outer Continental Shelf LandS Act (ocsLA) . These include enforcement of regulations pursuant to the OCSLA (30 C.F.R. Part .2so) 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. 11-109 The United States Department of Defense maintains numerous training areas in the area and routine training missions are frequently conducted by all branches of the armed services. C. 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 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 Statel extending seaward to the, outer limit of the State's jurisdiction, including 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 II-110 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 pa.rk 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 Forest Service for management of the Los Padres National Forest. 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 Resources Agency which is responsible for maintenance of registered sites. 11-112 A-c -ietwATI Ve -5 0 Alternatives Including the Preferred Alternative 0 iii-i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE Section: Boundary Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . 111-6 A. Introduction . . . . . 111-6 B. Boundary Alternative 1 111-7 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-7 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . . 111-7 C. Boundary Alternative 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-8 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-8 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . . 111-8 D. Boundary Alternative 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-9 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-9 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . . 111-9 E. Boundary Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . III-10 F. Boundary Alternative 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1. Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Distinguishing Characteristics . . . . . . . G. Boundary Alternative 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-12 1. Geography . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 111-12 2. Distinguishing Characteristics ... . . . . 111-12 H. Boundary Alternative 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-13 1. Geography . . . . . . . ... 111-13 2. Distinguishing Characteri. tics 111-13 ii. section: Recrulatoa Alternatives . . . . . . . . . 111-14- A. introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-14 B. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities . . . . . . . . 111-15 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . 111-15 a. Existing Regulatory Framework 111-15 b. Impact to Resources . . . . 111-16 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . 111-17 2. Sanctuary Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . III-is a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . III-is b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . o 111-19 c. impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-19 3. Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred) III-19 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . 111-19 b. Impact to Resources . 111-20 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . o 111-21 c. Discharges or Deposits . . 111-22 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . 111-22 a. Existing Regulatory Framework o o o 111-22 (1) Point source Discharges o III-23 (2) Non-Point Source Discharges (NPS) 111-24 (3) Hazardous waste, oil and trash disposal . o o o . . . . . 111-26 (4) Ocean dumping o o. . . . . . . 111-27 b. Impact to Resources . . . o . . . . . 111-27 C. Impact to Uses o . . o 111-29 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) o o o 111-30 111-2 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 111-30 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-31 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-32 (1) Vessels . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-34 (2) Dredge Disposal Activities . . . 111-35 (3) Point Source Discharges . . . . 111-35 (4) Non-Point Source Discharges (NPS) 111-38 D. Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-39 1. Status Quo . . . i . . . . * * * * 111-39 a. Existing Regulatory Framework 111-39 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-39 C. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-40 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . 111-41 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 111-41 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-41 C. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-42 E. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed . . 111-43 1. Status Quo . . . i . . . . . . . . . . . 111-43 a. Existing Regulatory F@amework 111-43 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-43 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-44 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . 111-45 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 111-45 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-45 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-46 F. Taking Marine Mammals# Turtles and Seabirds . . 111-47 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-47 a. Existing Regulatory Framework . . . . 111-47 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-47 C. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-47 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . 111-48 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . ... . . . 111-48 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-48 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-48 G. overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-50 1. Status Quo . - - - * . . . . . . . 111-50 a. Existing iegulaiory Framework 111-50 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-50 c. Impact to Uses . - - - - * * ' III-so 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) - 111-51 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 111-51 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-51 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-52 H. operation of "Personal Water Craft" . . . . . . 111-53 1. Status Quo . - * ' * ' * 111-53 a. Existing Regulatory F@am*ew*or*k* 111-53 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-53 c. Impact to Uses 111-54 2. Sanctuary Alternative (P@efierr;d) 111-54 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 111-54 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-54 c. Impact to Uses . . .. . . . . . . . . . 111-55 111-3 I. Vessel Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-57 1. Status Quo (preferred) . . . . . . . . . . 111-57 a. Existing Regulatory Framework . . . . 111-57 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-57 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-59 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 111-61 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 111-61 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-61 C. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-62 J. Fishing . . . . . . . 111-64 1. Status Quo (Prefer@ed*)* 111-64 a. Existing Regulatory Framework . . . . 111-64 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-64 C. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-69 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . 111-71 a. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . . . 111-71 b. Impact to Resources . . . . . . . . . 111-72 c. Impact to Uses . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-72 Section: Management Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . 111-73 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-73 B. Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-73 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111-73 2. Sanctuary Management Alternative 1 . . . . 111-73 3. Sanctuary Management Alternative 2 (Preferred) 111-74 111-4 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, regulatory and management 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 Part 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 cruo, and (2) the preferred alternative, Sanctuary designation as a complementary measure to existing programs. Boundary, regulatory, and management alternatives are considered in the context of the preferred institutional alternative. 111-5 I. Section: Boundary Alternatives A. Introduction This section describes the seven proposed boundary alternatives for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The study area for the proposed sanctuary (also included as Boundary Alternative 5) encompasses an area of 4,095 square nautical miles. The northern range of the alternatives extends to the Golden Gate National Recreation area in Marin County. The southern range extends to Cambria in San Luis Obispo County. Five of the boundaries extend approximately 46 nautical miles seaward from Moss Landing and approximately 18 nautical miles from the California coast. Depths of over 1,500 fathoms are included in all but one of the alternatives. All of the boundaries include Monterey Bay and its adjacent coastline to the north and the south. They also include state waters between Pigeon Point to the north, and Partington Point to the south. Comprehensive tables follow each boundary description and map, graphically illustrating the resources and human uses contained in each boundary alternative. All boundary alternatives were 'derived based6on: (1) the distribution of living resources and human uses, (2) geological and physical oceanographic parameters, and (3) management logistics which provide for effective resource protection and enforcement, improve research on the Monterey Bay environment, and enhance public awareness and understanding of the resources and uses of the Sanctuary area. 111-6 B. Boundary Alternative 1 1. Geography The boundary extends from the mean high tide level at Pigeon Point on a southwest heading of 2400 to the 50 fathom isobath (Figure Xx). Following this isobath south to a point where it intersects the 3 mile geographic limit drawn from the baseline across Monterey Bay, the boundary then turns south along this limit. Upon reaching the 100 fathom isobath on the Sur platform, the boundary then runs generally to the southeast along the 100 fathom isobath. The boundary then proceeds to the head of Partington Canyon until it rejoins the 3 mile limit. Following the three mile limit until it reaches a point three miles off Partington Point on a heading of 2400, the boundary then proceeds shoreward to the mean high tide level. The land-side boundary follows along the mean high tide level, but Santa Cruz, Moss Landing (except for Elkhorn Slough), and Monterey Harbors are all excluded from this alternative's boundaries. 2. Distinggishing Characteristics This boundary focuses on nearshore coastal resources and uses. Consequently high percentages of kelp, intertidal invertebrates, and sea otters are located here (Table Z). The area contains a high concentration of fissipeds (otters), particularly in the southern portion, a major concentration of pinniped (seal) colonies/rookeries (equal to Alternatives 2,6, and 7), and several cetacean sighting areas. However, feeding areas associated with the offshore canyon are excluded. Deep water fish associated with the offshore canyon are also excluded from this proposed alternative. This alternative encompasses only 11 percent of the canyons (excluding deep sea port-ions) in the studyarea. Water quality stations, protected areas, freshwater input, and kelp beds are the same as in Alternatives 2, 6, and 7. Due to the limited amount of Federal OCS lands encompassed, this boundary alternative contains only 80 billion barrels of oil and 110 billion cubic feet of natural gas (Table X). Lands adjacent to the sanctuary are home to three major ports. Commercial ship traffic is often outside of the proposed boundary alternative due to its limited seaward extent. only two military training areas, adjacent to the coast of Monterey Bay itself, are included. 111-7 Kbrin P1. Rey'n qw 38'- Gut of ft Favdmw C Mila AM') ANN ..... . Santa Clara Sant 37* LIZ, Proposed SanMaty Soundary Son Berifto Pt SW ft*VW Pt Monterey LOW A . - .:: .......... 36* C&SW SAW NAM Pt P**M awrxm San Luis: ............ 0660po . .. . ...... swo %mom 3S'- Pacific Ocean t2r 1210 12V � Boundary Alternative 1 establishes a Sanctuary of 502 square nautical miles � It borders 171 nautical miles of shoreline - Federal and state waters account for 22 percent and 78 percent, respectively, of the proposed Sanctuary Boundary Alternative 1 Summary of Resources Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative 101 U 30 j 11111611 NJ IG 11011011 Existing Protected Areas Parks number of silbs a Includes state historic perks. Refuges 3 paseries, 4 ... Dells TOTAL are for Monw" and Santa Cruz counties. ASSS ASSS vies are also dw4iflled as state parks. Irefuges, or reserves, Biological Invertebrates number of phyla 31 .. ... ..... no. comm. imp. species 10 no. high ConWn. areas- 7 Includes ASSS areas plus Asdomar and PL Sur. Fish number of spades 240 Only boundary without do" waterfish. 96 rockAsh habitat 10 Area has lowest percentage of roafish habitat. 96 squid spawn habitat 36 Tuffl" nwriber of spades 4 .U. Listed Species are not nom y residents at mne. Seabirds number Of spades no. of rockedow4collonies Is 16 NO conicen. at*= FWdpe& nurMisr of kx&Wafs 746 Ini Is narrow zons of coastal waters. nVW (Asu" mdes) M.' Plirinipeft number Of spades 5 i"'I.,@1- Excludes occasionally siranded Guadalupe no. of rookedesvoilorlies 7 .. % high conoon.W988 is Cetweans number of spades 20 Concentration WW ockwas Way who" doohins, % h9h cosicat arm 2n2 ............ PhysicaUChemical UpwoftV Zones rlumbff Onshore of PL &a anid Am Numa. Freshwater Input cubic AM per Water Oulauty Monitorm Stations M Mussupw -rjdWW cm*r*jn which W alien in ho coricentration an 10 n@UW Sour=. Exceedirg CrMeA number Sao" 3111 Kabitate, Canyon squam naudcal nalbs 72 Aftnedw VAIh arnallat Was Of ="Yom Kelp neudW min 105 W*UWVd1, squats miles 23 Historical a"$ reparINA not d Vermad ShWwecM afts 100 MWWs owd fi"Vokifo" SV ordyl PfehislAft 475 am on rounded 10 OW nearest 10 percent * @ IN" WOOD no.-. AMMSWM: ar&M.Wom, eye; ASSS4mu of 00" W01100cill WW*kw"- Boundary Alternative 1 Summary of Human Uses Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative Commercial Fishing Fishing vessels number 75S Includ" Parts of Monterey, Moog landirS and FlocWish thousand do0ars 2,115 Salmon 2,017 Total Value of all Fish 9,831 Vessal TraffkXredglng Corntnercial Shipping vessebyear 2,500 Dredge Dispoeal cubic yam"w 50,000 sho- E=kWu fW*v ves"s and 1 md. cu yft. per "'Ne 00, ancon"pa"' " "'5c to ' Or cubk- yard&@Var 182,000 i.`ii:ii@i@@ii'-.*@ji Dredging yew of CA @ .40 ef and disposed und off of Golden Gate lor vessels heading north from San Francisco Say aroa. Development Residential urift"ar 3,794 The avore" raw of develop ion; 14 o i 197o ard Contrnercial bU*kVz"W 202 19W PbpLAWn davelopmm we greates in Population Wousand pemm SOS convritntles along the coa&L Irickmaw Monterey and Is-ft Cruz Energy/Mining ffAVon barmis W Inchidee. the awne amart of cil and gas fewrcm Natural Clas bOon cubk Ant 110 in Bow4wy Aftmadve 7. Send Mining cubko yards*war 150,000 rm 7= f I Adjacent Land Use Urban square mdm 213 Urban lands we concentrated in populatton content Range 1,420 clustered around Mot buoy fty. Rangelanda, Forest 2.@ brest landa, and agricultural lands are greatest m the Agftft" 945 ........ swiftern portion of ft bourdary alternative. Public ReaeatIon Ocean-Adjacent Areas runbeir 30 Boat Sups 1.511 and arnourit of beach Beach" raiiiiisi Discharges Point Sources Direct ba of wastewater Is E=kadea the PG&E PWAW plant and refractm. ....... ......... Indirect 9 NomPoinlSources bwofWassewaser 175 Research/Education Facilities rkm7mw 11 Excludes ft U.S. Fah ard Wilillife maearch station .::: :..:.: low ft U.C. Landeft4a nNearch feeft. Military ........... .. ... .. ...... Trainirv Areas square nautical mim 50 or#/ rickwes, No Military operations areas in Monism a" bo. am am ntunded to the nearest 10 Percent. Abbreviallons; bgy-billion gWlww per year rnIL cu. Y46-mlion cubic YARW ft-FRIVIOL C. Boundary Alternative 2 1. Geography This proposed boundary, the preferred alternative, includes 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 (Figure XX). The boundary extends 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 3,000 m). Santa Cruz, Moss Landing (except for Elkhorn Slough), and Monterey Harbors are all excluded from the Sanctuary Boundaries. 2. Distinggishing Characteristics Most resource values (i.e., kelp, historical sites, protected areas) are similar to those in Alternatives 1,.6, and 7 (Table X). .However, this alternative contains. higher concentrations of species and greater canyon area than those alternatives-. It also contains over half of all seabird and pinniped rookeries/colonies and cetacean high concentration areas. This boundary alternative encompasses approximately 84% of the canyons within the study area. The submerged lands of Boundary Alternative 2 contain an estimated 110 billion barrels of oil and 150 billion cubic feet of natural gas (Table 1). This boundary extends seaward to a depth of 1,500 fathoms and includes the productive fishing grounds around the Monterey Canyon. Onshore development is concentrated along the coast of Monterey Bay. Pt. Reyes . ..... 38- - GO d 1@lc Of& PaMaNdWo Saida Clara . .... . Sant CrUz 37* - 51014B CAIM Proposed. Sanctuary Boundary Ma" IV son Benno Padvo PE: ................. ............ .......... Nk) tie n ray 36'- ............. .......... ........... .............. Pt Pod ablum . .... ......... . . .. . ... ...... ... ........... .......... ........... San LIA Haifa aly 3S'- Pacific Ocean . .................. ........ ............... ... ......... ........... .............. ............ ............ ......... - , -- ....... .... .... ... 127' 12r 121* 12V - Boundary Alternative 2 establishes a Sanctuary of 2,539 square nautical miles - It borders 182 nautical miles of shoreline - Federal and state waters account for 84 percent and 16 percent, respectively, of the proposed Sanctuary Boundary Alternative 2 Summary of Resources Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative Existing Protected Areas "is, 30 1 .1 _16LN -?oleo "[,a* Parks number Of silps x. Ind Refuges Udes state historic paft. 3 ...... . . %serves 4 TOTAL DiWe 15 ASSS am for man" am Santa Cruz counties, 5 ASSS Win are Woo ckmifled as state parks, rekws, or reserves, Biological Invertebrates number of phyla 31 no. comm. *Mp. Species 19- Kj no. hvh conom ar"s, 7 X Irck9l" ASSS Pka AsHomer Pt. sur. -M.: Fish numbercifspedes 333 % roddish habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 % Squid Spawn. habitat 39 Turd" rk of spades 4 Listed swdea a,. hot no.Wy ym-.,4 rW,4, SeabIrft number of spades 94 no. of rookedestolonjes 14 % h0h concert. arm FbWpeft flumber of kx*ftab 746 ra" Irlaukal moss) GV7 Plrv*po& Manber of sped" 5 ........... ... . --:, ... .. Exckxies 0001fienely G, h Seals, .. .............. no. of nookehevtokfWs 7 % NO coricen. anm Mostly in canoW portlon. ftkxm targe popUatom 0 StWlsir See Uwa and Northern Fur Seale. Cetaceans Monbw of sped" % ho concen, ars" 57 Uncentro0on only indudes Way wWft 4oWwqk ans PhYSICAUChemk-Al Upwaft Zonn nwnbw 2 Fmshwaw input a*c Awparsecorw 1,113 Water Ouaity Mori" Sind" nwnw 75 ExceWing Criteria number stafto 38 CdWis nwax" Inclutles cadmkm whic! is often ffleffiSured in P90 concentration due hD nourd sources, Habitats Canyon Square nauklif nVus Kellp nauftW nWes 105 Wedwxb squ" min 23 Historical ShWorecks number Of S1*@ 109 On *W not W! verMs& 475 10r* am offda Sit" lisp* Vial Vemled am am muntled to tie nearest 10 percent 9low Zone, AbbMinations: ASIRIS-areas of spedal bologto' Wpifiewww, ownrn.-cornmerc .i*; concen.-conceresion. mW-Onportent no.,N Owl .-SPOW"Ma Boundary Alternative 2 Summary of Human Uses Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative 1 -L 0 M 30LIG $0140 MIN 0011001 Commercial Fishing Fishing V is number 755 Rqw--m wrdings at tne Pam of Wo servy, Moss Lancing, and Sam CnaL Plockfish thousand dollars 2,115 @ . . . -n :x SaIrnon 2,017 Total Value of all Fish 9,831 vessel Traff 1WOredging Conwarcial Shipping vesselsyear 3,900 Excludes fislung vessels ard vessels heading nw1h Dredge Dispo" cubic, yard"aar 50,000 korn Son Frimew Bay arim ExdLdes 1 mil. cu yda Dredging cuft)WM%year 182,= Par yew of dredged and disqnsed sand off of GoWen Development Pasklential ufft"ar 3,794 The average rate of developnent bsWeen 1970 aid Commercial buildkV"ear 202 Po"gon"develoornerearegrawastin Population thousand per"M SOS commirwAss, alorv the co"t Includes Monterey and ISarilaCnacountles. Energy/Mining ON nOon barnks 110 Natural Gas billion cubic feet ISO Sand MinirV cubic yardmy" 1 000 Adjacent Land Use Urban square miJas 213 Urban ianda we concentrated in Population centers way say. Faingelarxis.,torest 1,420 clustered around W1on lkwxis. WO agncujiurW krWs are greatest in the Forest 2.04 southern porftn Agriculture 943 of tw &"Wary mernatme Public Recreation L OoearrAdlWent Ar"s number 30 Boat Slips Beaches Miles 45 Discharges Point Sources Direct lify of WWWWarar Exck4w tw PG&E povm Oant ard raftactOrY. @l".................-..@'.-.""""""'I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .a".:--i@@ IndirW Nono-Point Sources Off of waatlw 175 Research/Education Exckada rw UA Fish ard WASIS research sladon Facilities ... arW the U.C. UvIC09111410 Wssmh hic". Military Tn"V Areas squaro nautical Miss 1,015 ftm am rounded 10 OW nearest 10 Percent Aftmations: tigy-Won plons per yew., rML c6L YCIL-fnillon Wbic yoft D. Boundary Alternative 3 1. Geography This alternative is a variation of Alternative 2 with a boundary extension to the south (Figure XX). Specifically, the boundary extends south from the southern boundary of the preferred alternative, along the 500 fathom isobath (1,000 m) to a point due east of Cambria and then shoreward to the mean high tide level at Cambria. 2. Distinguishing Characteristics Boundary Alternative 3 includes the central and southern regions of the study area. Excluding Alternative 5, it includes the highest concentrations of cetaceans, pinnipeds, fissipeds, and the largest fissiped range (Table X). The southern extension of the proposed boundary encompasses the California Sea Otter Refuge and contains major areas of kelp beds (equal to Alternative 5). It also has the second highest percentage of rockfish habitat, number of fish species (both equal to Alternative 4), and on-shore. prehistoric sites. This boundary encompasses approximately 89 percent of the canyons. Because of the proposed alternative's southern extent, adjacent lands contain more forest lands and rangelands than the proposed Alternatives 1, 21 6, and 7 (Table X). It also receives more non-point runoff than those alternatives. The major commercial fishing grounds around Monterey Canyon are included within this proposal. About 120 billion barrels of oil and 190 billion cubic feet of natural gas are estimated to occur in submerged lands in this alternative. 111-9 Morin P1. jq" 38o ...... Fw@ CAN of NW F&WADnw AkWanal Mamw S&-VNY Son rn1a,:: .......... . Santo C a so CRQ 37' - Proposed Sanctuary Boundary San Senito ::@m ptsur Nava Umpt, ray 36 CW so ....... .......... ....... .. sanw ............... Obl"a sum whom .......... 3S'- Pacific Ocean .... .... .... . . ................... ............................. ....... .... ........... ... ............... .. .. .. . ... .. ..... . . . . ... 1zr 1zr 121* 12V � Boundary Alternative 3 establishes a Sanctuary of 3,125 square nautical miles � It borders 279 nautical miles of shoreline - Federal and state waters account for 82 percent and 18 percent, respectively, of the proposed Sanctuary Boundary Alternative 3 Summary of Resources Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comment's Subcategory Boundary Alternative Existing Protected Areas Is Ln nit 1.10 701 Me to 1 1001 Parm number of sites IndudeastatehiabricparU. 3 Ircludes calliamia Sea Otter Gains Refuge. Reserves 5 Oft are for Monterey, San Luis Ob*m and TOTAL 16 Sants. Cma coun ties. ASBS 6 AM sius are visa dassified as state parks, or reser"s. Biological Inveriebrat" number of phyfa 31 no. comm. kv. species 19 ... ........... ... ........... no. high concen. areas kmWss ASSS areas plus Asdornar and Pt. Sur. Fish number Of species 340 ..... ..... % rockfish habitat 72 % squid spown. habitat 51 .... ... . . Turd" numberofspedes, 4 Usled spedes, am not normal ruMm is of the zone. Seabirdi; number Of Species 94 no. of rookedestolories 17 % ho concW7. areas 5V7 . . . . . . . . . . F%alpeft number of JMCNviduals 1,241 a Inckxles highest comoontradon of me otters mew rww (nau ka, Md") 130 No Pt. PA&U awcas (camornia sea Otter Refuge). Pinnipeds number of spedeS 5 Excludes occasionally svwidW Gusidelupe Seeks no. of rookedestoilortiesa % ho concen. arm 79 Cetaceans number Of 2D % JA0 rAJ 'r-I arm 02. C4neenvallon only r4kades Way whales. doWww OWN, g., Physical/Chomical Upwolling Zones number 2 Offghors of PL Sur wW Ana Numo. Freshwater Input cubic ftwpor d 1,167 Water OuaNty MonilorkV Stations number 77 nuesured kubudes; cadn*m whid is often = in hO we don due 10 natural Exceecling CrIWW number sinflons Isourem Habitats Canyon square noutical miss W4 Kelp nmww Miles 201 InCkwes all m"W kelp hOaft- WGIINXIIIII square 0, 23 Historical &Illvwreft number Of amps 114 sh" f sm not all VW PM01*11oft 6 dkhow SW -PC @w4 VW Verded Bar* we rounded Io the nearest 10 PerceM ***M narkW zone Abbreviations: allarn.-WWnalve; ASMweas of Medal W10gical OVAMM. 0'4"Mor'Ant: no"M' Boundary Alternative 3 Summary of Human Uses Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative i0l Sol al 401scia 76 to 101106 Commercial Fishing Ftspreserm kMings at the Pam of Monterey, Fishing Vessels number' 755 Rocklish thousand dollars 2,115 os.a Landing, and SWft Cruz. Landngs are to Salmon 2,017 serne for boundary alternatives 1, 2. 3. 6, and 7. Total Value of all Fish 9,831 Vessel Traffic/Dredging Convnercial shipping vesseftYaar 3,9oo 7= ewludgg UlvV veagais. I:xd idea vessels heading north Dredge Disposal cubic Wft"ar 50,000 born San Fw-cam Say area. ExdWft I mil. par yew of dredged and disposed A" off Of CU. Dredging cubk ywftyear 182,000 yda. 1GOMen Gate. Development Flesidential Ufft"ar 3,704 The everges raw ot develownimis beforw 1970 and Cornrnercial bu*ft"ear 202 jew pqxa*m ww development are greatest in Includes Monterey and Population thousand pefs" aW% the coast. amod swda Cruz counties. Enorgy/Mining 01 millilon barrels 120 Natural Gas Mon cuW Aset go Send Mining cubk yarft"ar 150,000 Adjacent Land Use Loan W4s we concentrated in population centers urban squam flWas 2`15 Iciuatered around Mon" fty. ParveldrW& for" Range and egricAmw knds are greatest in the For" 2,523 Wide. souvwwn portion of "a SIWMWO. Public Recreation Ocean-AdISCOnt Areas rWnbw 43 Boat Slips IAI Beaches lk@ Win at 01schargas Point Sourose The alithism *Nftmw Aft Only a nm@ W"oun'l Direct bw Of Wntowater Is . ..... of poird avow discharges (excludes PG&E 0" and 9 Indimet relracwry). Flunoff korn tonest lands smunt for 0% Non-Poinl sources bwof 190 ..: of mmy-point foul. ResearcWEducation Wckxks a resawch %djoes in area. Facilities nurnber 13 .. . ... Witary Trak" Areas SqU&M nwowl M" 1.030 am am mundw ID *W nearest 10 PWCWIL Aftmiations: bgy-billlon gallons per yov: ML cu. yft-fviW OAC YGFdL E. Boundary Alternative 4 1. Geography This alternative is another variation of Alternative 2, but with a boundary extension to the north (Figure XX). Specifically, the boundary extends north from the northern boundary of the preferred alternative, along the 500 fathom isobath (1,000 m), to the border of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. The northern border of this alternative is then contiguous with the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. The boundary then proceeds generally south along the mean high tide level, across the Golden Gate from Point Bonita to Point Lobos, but excludes Princeton Harbor in Half Moon Bay, until it rejoins the boundary of the preferred Alternative 2 at the northern boundary of Pescadero State Beach. 2. Distinguishing Characteristics Boundary Alternative 4 includes the central and northern regions of the study area,. It contains the second highest percentage of squid spawning habitat and the second widest variety .of fish species (equal to Alternative 3) (Table X). The northern extension adds a high concentration of birds and invertebrates. This proposal also has the greatest number of reserves (excluding Alternative 5), including the Fitzgerald Marine Reserve, which contains a very diverse invertebrate community. This boundary also encompasses the most shipwreck sites and the largest number of canyons (89 percent of those in the study area). This is the only alternative with as many upwelling zones (3) as Alternative 5. It is also ranked second in total number of water quality monitoring stations. Because of its northern extent, it contains over 360 billion barrels of oil and 550 cubic feet of natural gas (second only to Boundary Alternative 5) (Table X). This alternative includes important commercial shipping fairways that enter and exit San Francisco Bay. Lands adjacent to proposed Alternative 4 include four major commercial fishing ports. The heavily populated communities that border the proposed Sanctuary are experiencing rapid commercial and residential development. Non-point runoff from urban lands is highest (excluding Alternative 5) in this area. III-10 .. ...... . .... Nbrin 38'- irlZ @:::::I ib S-CAWY ........ Z nta Clara Cruz 37' - gwft Cna ........... @i.7i@ Proposed Sanctuary Boundary Son Bonito 4W PL 36-- C*W am Mom: ......... .. ... ... ... . Obb" ....... . ..... SNOB women Pacific Ocean 35' - ..... ..... . . ............ . ....... . ... .......... .... ............. .............. ............... . ........................ . ..... ......... .......... .. ... ..... ............... . .. ... ... ....... .......... 12r 12r 121' 12W - Boundary Alternative 4 establishes a Sanctuary of 3,507 square nautical miles - It borders 267 nautical miles of shoreline - Federal and state waters account for 85 percent and 15 percent, respectively, of the proposed Sanctuary Boundary Alternative 4 Summary of Resources Category/ Units Arnount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative Existing Protected Areas i!iaft 3010 01,01MIn Parks number Of silos 77771 Includes State historic peft. Includes San Mateo, 3 OY, and Santa Cruz counties. Moraf lnchx*s twe Fitzgerald Marine Reserve. Reserves 7 TOTAL 18 ASSS .......... AMS ofte are also da"f.*d Ga' state parks, rokmaes. of reserv9s, Biological invertebrates morlber Of phyla 31 . ... . no. =11011 01p. specos ig no. h0h Concen. aroas* IrCked" ASSS plus Asilornar, and PL Sur. .......... Fish number of spades 340 96 mcksaft hawtat 73 96 squid spawn. habitat Turtles number of spades 4 Listed Soecin We not morrnally resideft of zwoe. seabirds number Of spades 94 T no. Of fookedewcolonies 20 96 NO concen. areas Fissipotle rxv"bdw of ftwi&ab 746 r&W (nauftel mdea) 87 .. . ... ..... Exckxl" occasionally wanded Gusdak4oa sews, PiMpeds number of spades 5 no. of rookedowtokrVes a *4 him concen. areas 59 Getaceans number of species 20 56 ho concert. AV" 71 Physic,al/Chornical UpwookV Zones number 3 .............. Olkhore of Ana Nuevo. No Mom Ow. and PL Sur Frestmaller Input cubic AW per second 1,174 . . . . . . . Water Quality Monitairing Slations number CAN" Awa"W rcliudes cad""V% Exceeding Cftft numberstablorts is measured In Pigh concentration due 10 rethuld sourcea, contam second WfttM no of stations. Habitats Canyon square nauftainaw 637 Keip nsuawmAss 105 wellancis square n" 23 j-@- Historical Shipwrecks number of Afts 3W M "diet I ofth". RepatedwWwrifle& Preltil"ork: $31 Un we mumclied 0 ft nearest 10 Percent *votrtin in@@ dal zone itL AL Deraid 0*0 '"M V, OWSM MW-P -ft M P 08; -'rn ft.-Muft; no.-m; *Nwrft Boundary Alternative 4 Summary of Human Uses Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative ,@In 361-1 WIN 70100 ft 1 1001 Commercial Fishing Fishing Vessels number 1,044 R sent3 landings in 1966 at the ports of Monte", we Rockfish thousand dollars ........... 777 mass ll-anding, and senta cra. Landings io, Salmon ...... .... 4,095 Princeton are as of 1 GIN. Total Value of Fish 14,673 Vessel Traffic/Dredging M commercial vessels (excitiding fishing) pass Commercial Shipping vessebyear 9,000 through he aftermtIve. Northern extension indudm l3redg9 DOC" cubic yarftyear 50,000 3 proposed dredge disposal adw Them stes could Dredging cubic yardwyear -182,000 receive up to 8 md. cu. ydL W yew. One &ite used for disposal of I mi. cu. yds. per yew of from GoWen Gate. Development .......... Pasidential uniftyw 6,975 The average rate of development between 1970 and Convmrcw buddOlg&YOW 329 190. Population and development are greatest in Populadon exusandpersons 1,235 along dw coast IrKhxW M&OM, communities Son Matoo. and Senta Cna counties. EnergyMning 01 m4on barrels 360 50 Naft" Gm bAlion cubic feet NO Send Mining cubic yards"M 150.0w Adjacent Land Use Urban qqW9 miles 240 Range 1.166 2,33990 Forest Agriculture . . . . . . . . . . Public Recreation Ocean-Adocent Anm number 92 Boat so" 2.02 P.. Beaches rolimmi mfts 40 Discharges Point Sources f piwt W,4 retracwy 0 moss PG&E pe bof of WMIDWSW 2B Excludes 22 Irdrect ....... Non-PoinlSources bivollFwassillwaor 230 Research/Education Facilities number 11 ft U.& Fah VW Wilidille reamch sation ft U.C. LAndek-M "Noamh beft. Wiftery Training Areas squam nauftal Man am w* munded 10 V* newsat 10 PWAM Abbrawallilcm: bgy-billbon galillons pw year -L cu. ydL -millOn cubic Y6FdL F. Boundary Alternative 5 1. Geography This boundary alternative, also the study area, is a composite of proposals 3 and 4 (Figure XX). The northern terminus of the boundary is located along the southern boundary of the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and runs westward to approximately 123*071W. The boundary then extends south in an arc which generally follows the 500 fathom isobath. At approximately 37*031N, the boundary arcs south to 122*251W, 36*101N, due west of Partington Pt. The boundary again follows the 500 fathom isobath south to 1210411W, 35*331N, due west of Cambria. The boundary then extends shoreward towards the mean high-water line. The landward boundary is defined by the mean high-water line between the Gulf of Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and Cambria, crossing the Golden Gate from Point Bonita to Point Lobos. The harbors of Monterey (excluding Elkhorn Slough), Moss Landing, Princeton, and Santa Cruz are excluded from this alternative. 2. Distinguishing Characteristics Species from 31 of the 33 invertebrate phyla have been found in this region. Within this boundary alternative there are four endangered species of turtles and 94 species of birds occupying 23 rookeries/colonies (Table X). There are also five species of pinnipeds, including rapidly declining populations of Northern Fur Seals and Steller sea Lions, using nine rookeries/colonies. This area also contains 20 species of cetaceans, many endangered. The alternative includes the California Sea Otter Refuge within its southern portion, as well as over 1,000 historical sites, 1,200 cfs ,of freshwater input, and 80 water quality monitoring stations. There are three major areas of upwelling of nutrient-rich waters and corresponding periods of high primary -productivity, along with large areas of kelp, wetlands, and canyons. The area adjacent to this alternative includes over one million people with residential and commercial development mainly along Monterey Bay (Table X). The largest point source discharges also are concentrated along this coastline. The 55 public outdoor recreation sites that are adjacent.to ocean waters in this altezmative provide beach access. In addition, several marinas found in the area provide access to. the Pacific Ocean. MOM 38-- SAU*-Y IV_ Santa Clara salt 37* - soft cma ... ..... ... ........ .... ...... Proposed Lmdft ...... Sanctuary Boundary M-" San Bonk* .......... fteva Pt adL LAPapt.. 36-- C40 SM AAA%, ft PS*M B*VM San Wit -***........ . . . . . . . . . . ..... ..... aim"' saw waam 3S'- Pacific Ocean . ...... .. ... . ........ ....................... ... ......... .... .. ..... ......................... . .......... ......... ........... 12r 12r 12r - Boundary Alternative 5 establishes a Sanctuary of 4,095 square nautical miles - It borders 362 nautical miles of shoreline - Federal and state waters account for 83 percent and 17 percent, respectively, of the proposed Sanctuary Boundary Alternative 5 Summary of Resources Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative 5 I OLM n 1.0 wile 701 N IS 1 1001 Existing Protected Areas Parks number of sites Inch idee state historic Parks. Rekws 3 Reserves Dow are Wwan Io r Montsrelr. San Luis Obispo, San I" TOTAL 20 ....... too. and Santa Cruz counties. .:'N' ASBS AM oil" also classified state Peow refugek Of reserves. swogical Inwiebrates, number of phyla 31 no. comm. iaW. species 19 ........ Concerttrabon areas 0clucle ASSS sites plus ........ .. 9 Asilornar, and Pt. Sur. no. high oancen. araes* ............ Fish number of spades 345 � rockfish habitat 100 � squid *awn. habitat 100 Turdes number of spades 4 Uslod qecos are not rorrnally residents of to zone. Seabirds nurriber of Wades 94 no. of Aies 23 % high concen. amas 100 Hiqkw corocentrailcm in norttwn ard central portions. Fis@ number of OKWidjale 1.241 Kom comentnition in Ow soutwrn porbom . .. .......... rarV (nau *jl miles) 130 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PWmipedo number of species 5 Excludes occasionally stranded Guadalupe Seale, no. of mokedesicobdes 9 % high concen. areas 100 Cataosans numborofspedes 2D . . . . . . . . .. . . . . One-M occur freWily wA boundary; six we on- 100 % highoxwo anm dwqm (e.g. bkwfA r",hurnpbackright CArmw iricludes way whales, dolpftins and Ponx*xm PhysWal/Chernical .... ... worm@ No Moon Bay, VW PIL Sur. UPWO&V Zones number 3 00dwe of Ana Ffestmater input cubc AWPWSSCO#7d Water Otaft Monitatv stag" number indWas cadmium w1ch a i P.- Cift "wasured Exosecling C411ena numbersudwIs 39 measured in ho concentration due to natural swircm Habitats Canyon squam nw*W mom 676 Kelp naudw mum 201 sqtmm orwes Wedencle 23 Historical 0 room" not so Vol Ship Wrecks number Of gifts 311 6 ofthors. Slim P- end vwM@d P shialm lie IWOM @ ft &M Zone Abbreviations: ASSSereas of sPMaJ I)WO01cal *W*kance. co-,caimnarcially: conom-con@n; bv-.Wude'. or43L--WWUM MD'- Boundary Alternative 5 Summary of Human Uses Category/ Units Amount Percent.of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative 5, 101 20 301 -01 0 1 #0 "1 a ialiool Commercial Fishing ........... Fishing Vessels number 1'0" tow atthe ports of Monterey. Rockfish thousand dog&$ 2,481 ... ng, and Santo Cnm Landings faf Lord PrimetAn of$ "of I gas. 4,095 Salmon Total Value of all Fish 14,673 Vessel Traff Ic/Dredging correrWe V (-dWirig fthing) pass Coffirriercial Shipping vesselWyear 9,000 r" aftrnows. Nothei extensionindudes Dredge Disposal cubic yaMWAN 50,000 3 pioposed di dwoosel Ulm Thm Was couid 182,000 cubic yardayear . . . . . . . . rem" up to & mill. cu. ydo, per yew. Orw siw Leo fbr Dredging dismeal of I rrA. cu. ydo, per year of sard from Golden Gate. Development AssidenUal undwyW 6,975 1-71.77 The average rate of devoloprant between I M and Commercial bwilftwyear 329 1 M. Population and dvvftWrwt are great" in Population Umsand POPS" 1 1;09=5 cornimnks along the coost Irx*A" Monterey, Son Mateo, and Santa Cna counties. Energy/Mlnlng ON flWan barr" 370 00 and gas or* cormntrated in the northom Pan Natural Go bd#w cubic Awt 500 . . . . . . . of Ahwm*e 5. Sarid Mining cuft Y&AIWYOW 150.000 Adjacent Land Use urban squam mAos 242 Forest lando accowt br almost orwWf of all Wrxk Range 1,613 to boundary Abirrebw 5. Lkben lands we ad*koarit "On"OrItraled For" 2 a" Coast .620 Agriculture 967 . . . . . . . . . . Public Recreation Oc"n-Adjacent Areas number alternaWe contOm thill ff=t McMdOnAl tyll-opmew eltaboatelipeare BoalSlips 2@= Beach" Ai WN Adw 68 ImWilllow OW. Almilmov WW Santa CAM Discharges Point Sources in Mom OkWI 20 M@i: Esdudn the PG&E powe Oant and Oak Indirect 22 Lardng, PA" dediarg" M ba of am P b1W of WONWINOW 245 Non-Paint Sawoes Research/EducatIon Facillities number 13 all ffm*w me"nhioduadon locilmoo, ,77 Tn"q Ar"s SqU&ro rWUVCNI MAIN 1,350 Bora am iounded to the t 10 poem - Abbreviations: bgy-WW gamone per year nK cu. yftT *Age ya@ G. Boundary-Alternative 6 1. Geography Proposed boundary alternative 6 would begin at Pescadero Point and proceed on a southwesterly heading of 240* out to the seaward limit of state controlled waters (Figure XX). This alternative would then proceed south along the State Water boundary to a point of 2400 off Table Rock, where it then runs on a southwesterly heading of 240* to 360501N latitude. The boundary then proceeds due west along this latitude to a point 46 nmi from Moss Landing. Finally, the boundary moves southward along an arc drawn from Moss Landing, with a radius of 46 nmi, to 360101N latitude and then proceeds due east to Partington Point. 2. Distinguishing Characteristics Boundary Alternative 6 has similar onshore activities as alternatives 1, 2, and 7. It also has similar resource values as Alternatives 1, 2, 7, including the same number of water quality stations, historical sites, protected areas, and kelp beds (Table X). About one-half of the highly concentrated areas of cetaceans -within the study area are relatively equally distributed throughout this boundary. The fissipeds and pinniped rookeries/colonies are found mostly in the southern portion of this alternative. Unlike Boundary Alternative 1, however, it extends much further offshore. Consequently, it includes the major commercial fishing grounds around Monterey Canyon. This boundary was drawn to exclude Federal waters of high oil and gas resource potential and, as a result, less than one billion barrels of oil and only three billion cubic feet of natural gas are estimated to occur in the Federal submerged lands in this alternative (Table X). 111-12 hbrin 38* - Gut d Nw Fw*Vxw AA@MonM S&--Y C.: R fornis .............. PE nta Clara 37* - CrUz . ....... ............ Proposed Sanctuary Boundary sm BWkO Raw PW&4VVftPi: Monterey. 36* - ....................... .... ........... ........... .......... AL AMU a ......... .......... .. 811h Lift. &A* WOM - ....... .. . ...... . ... ... 35* - Pacific Ocean ...... .. ................ . ...... . ...... .. ... . . . ............. I................... . .............. . ............. ......... .. .. . . .......... -xv. .. ............... . .. . .... ......... . 1zr 1zr 121* 12V Boundary Alternative 6 establishes a Sanctuary of 1,506 square nautical miles It borders 182 nautical miles of shoreline Federal and state waters account for 63 percent and 37 percent, respectively, of the proposed Sanctuary Boundary Alternative 6 Summary of Resources Category/ Units Arnount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative Existing Protected Areas I.J 3. 30LIA '50 [40 70 1 so So 1100] Parks number of saps a Ind 777= n. Refuges udes state histooc paft. 3 Reserves ...... - 4 TOTAL D" are lor Monterey and Santa Cruz countkis. ASSS 5 ASSS son also am Weo Cia"fied as state Parks, refixies. or reser4se, Biological .......... Invertebrates number of Phyla 31 no. comm. iirnp. species 19 no hwh corm aws, 7 .... .. IMdUd- ASSS Pkis AsiWw and Pt. Sur. Fish number Of Spedos 333 ...... % rockfth habitat 48 % swid spawn. habitat 33 Turdes number Of spedes 4 LiGIVId SPSCM not n0rmdJY nwdents of ft zone. ... . ..... Seabkft number Of spedos 94 no. of rookehes/colonlies 14 % hO concen. arm 31 FIselpeds number of indftluars 746 raw (nau kal Mdw) 07 PInnIpedB number of specos 5 =tudu occasionally stranded Guatlalupe SaWs. no. of nookedestolorses 7 % NO concen. Atreas 313 Cetaosans nurriber Of species 2D "M % ho C07MA &-aas 49 Physical/ChmIcal Upwoffing Zones numbeir 2 OrMwe of PL Sur and Ano Nueva. Freshwatw Input cubic Am per socond 1,113 ....... Water Quafity Morilotirg Staftne nurnber 75 Cdkwb measured I I cadm*^ w! id is ExceWing Criteria number saffim 30 often measimsd in rqh concentradon due to naboal souMV& Habitat$ Canyon squ" naudew ffdm 411 Ksip naudw md" 105 @i. Wedonds squav md" 23 - - - - - -.... Historlml ShVMVCks number of s6s 109 . . . . . . . ...... SlIn reportsc not d vwftt Preftlork: 475 1 ofkhore; SiM WO 1814 and v ewe am mKinded 10 ft nearest ic PVC)a IWOM h so 2" AbWevedons: ASSSweas of speekil Wobatal svtkerrw =--comi@f; spmn- spew % Boundary Alternative 6 Summary of Human Uses Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative 10 30 3. J-- Commercial Fishing Fishing Vessels numbet 755 %wees, a sindIngs &I ths, ports of Ilillarl", Rockfish thousand dOO&S 2,115 Larmiling. and Santa Cniz. LarxkrW are ft Was; Salmon 2,017 sam for boundary alternatives 1, Z 3, 6, and 7. Total Value of all Fish 9,831 Ves"I Traffic/Dredglng hewiirq north Comercial Shipping vessebyew Excludesi AWrkq vessels and vessels Dredge Disposal cubic yanftYear 50,000 horn San Fmndsco Say anss. Excludes I inil. cu. yds Dredging Cubit Y8AI&YOW -182,000 per ym of dredgisd and disposed mind off of Golden Development Rm*bntiW umft"W 3,794 7= The avierage rate of developinerit boti 1270 and @ D-I Convnem;iW buddingsye& 202 1 M. Popullilliort and 0"000" 4@ CIN U win a"" co"t WIClUdes Monterey and Population thousand Pam" 585 iserrift CnSL Counties. Energy/Mining ON ftillion bairrels contains the low amount of od and W -wv-. Natwal Gas bow cubc fee, 3 SwW Mining cubic yards"ai, 150,000 Adjacent Land Use Urban squaire mdes 213 Urbsin knds are concenvated in population oenten; 1,420 dustered wound Monterey %Y. Aling6ftn" Range b,,W lands, and agrocul" lands are greatest in the ForW 2204 ternallive. 10, awthern Portion Agriculture 945 of he boundary &I Public Recreation Ocean-Adjacent Aron rNA7?bW 39 Boat slips; 1.511 Beachn 46 a Discharges Point Sources Oirvct bw of Wulowaller Represents dsd*(W frOm INCUM "'Alhin carilnsl ma Excludes the PW POINIM 0" Mind felfrocory. 9 No*-PoinlSou"M bwalrWa"Maw 175 i@" Rosearch/Educatlan Ewkdn tw U.& Fish gind WNW - - - ch sW- .......... Facillid" #W LLC. Lodeb4a riessiarch %cft- Military Tralining Aron squ"nWowma" OW4 Sm airs rounded lo the newest 10 pwc@nL AbbMadons: bW-WNW OLIVIS Per Y4W: -L cu, yda.-Ilan cubic Ye#dL H. Boundary Alternative 7 1. Geography This alternative is a variation of Boundary Alternative 1, with a seaward extension over the Monterey Bay Canyon (Figure XX). Boundary Alternative 7 intersects Boundary Alternative 1 at longitude 122*W, then proceeds seaward along the 500 fathom isobath on the northern side of the Monterey Canyon. This alternative then runs due westward along latitude 36*461N to longitude 1220301W, then due south along longitude 1220301W to latitude 36*301N. The boundary then turns eastward to intersect with the 100 fathom isobath off Point Lobos where it turns southward along the state water boundary line to eventually proceed shoreward off Partington Point. 2. Distinguishing Characteristics Most resource values are similar to Alternatives 1, 2, and 6@ It has one of the smallest percentages of rockfish and squid spawning habitats (Table X). It also has the second smallest area of canyon, as it focuses only on the Monterey Canyon. Higher concentrations of fissipeds occur in the southern section of this proposed alternative. Pinnipeds are concentrated in the central area and seabirds are mostly within the northern and central portions. Boundary Alternative 7 was designed to exclude all areas that were included in the Minerals Management Sale Lease Sale 119 (now canceled). It contains 80 billion barrels of oil and about 110 billion cubic feet of natural gas, the same as Boundary Alternative I (Table X). Most measures of human use are also the same as for Alternative 1. 111-13 ix Agarin P'. R;Y. 38* - 1FO GO S -ft-Y & son . .... .... Santa Clara so 37* - crM . .. . . ........ .......... . .. .... ...... ........... PrOPOSed 111MIM go- L&1A*V Sanctuary Soundaty San Bonita .......... ........... . ........... .............. .......... ............ r Y 36* - 1AVW RE, OW 4@ Al'im ............. ............. San U14: ........... SWO WAMM 3S* - PaCific C"O'Cusan ............ ......... ...... .......... I ................ . 12r 12r 1210 1200 � Boundary Alternative 7 establishes a Sanctuary of 844 square nautical miles � It borders 171 nautical miles of shoreline * Federal and state waters account for 54 percent and 46 percent, respectively, of the proposed Sanctuary Boundary Alternative 7 Summary of Resources Category/ Units Amount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative Existing Protected Ar"s loafts number of silos to historic Pa". 3 I'laserves 4 ... . .. ........ TOTAL ....... 1, Date am for Monterey and Santa Cruz counde& ASSS 5 ......... .... ASSS sibe are also classified as state parks, ........ . ... rehiaes, or reseries, Biological Invertebrates numberatphyte 31 no. COMM. JiTIP. species 19 no. high canon. ar"s 7 .......... . . kwWas ASBS OA PL Sur wW Asilarnar. X. FISh number of 33.3 1. :11:: ... ...... % nxkfth habitat 21 3S A MWid WwrL habitat . .......... TWO" nwnbw of specilas 4 LIIIW skood" are, not I "Cy year-rof M, saw& ts, . .. .. .... .......... . . . ........ SQabIrdB nuf"berof 94 no. of 13 96 NO cancan. arew 2=0 Fkalpeft number of kzWiduals 746 nvip (nau" mdes) 87 Pinnipeds MqWW of Species 5 E=kWm occasionally stranded Guedskme SmIL no. 7 96 NO eanwL JrvW 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . sp@ % ho cW=M 27 Physical/Chomical Upwel" Zones number 2 -imme of PL Sur wW Am NLwm Fmshwater Input cubic 6W per Second 1.0" ED Watef Ouaft MWftM*V stakne number 75 C11401ria n"gaur9d Wckxks cadn*M w! id ExceedkV Q@ mffl*w SINUMIS 30 is Often rressured In NO concer*z6on We to naLra; eources, Habitats CAnyon squov nw*W Mies 2" @@M Aftmatw vAth seMW WTW"t area Of CONVIA Kelp 105 WelIffincle Square 0 23 HtWorical ShWwrecka number Of afts 109 SM"ism Mot so vwftd 475 1 O&MM. Sfts pm vwftd nxrdw 10 M"MM 10 P"co, Nvem '"us k%W zone Abbwations: AS63-arm of GPWW WO109" OW"ClIMM. wffm'00"@: 'M4MOeftnt no.-After Boundary Alternative 7 Summary of Human Uses Category/ Units A mount Percent of Total within Comments Subcategory Boundary Alternative 01 ul =I "1 01" 70 SO -II- Commercial Fishing Fishing Vessels number 7% Rape" WrAfMPWftPOftQfM", Rockfish Mousand dollars 2,115 Um LandM and Saft Crur- Salmon 2,017 Total Value of all Fish 9,831 Vessel Traffic/Dredging Comrnercial Shipping vessel&year 3,900 Excludes tshing ve"s ad vessels heading norm ftm rAn Dredge Disposal cubic yard"Oar so, Say mea. Excludes t ffa. cu. 000 Dredging cubic yam"ear 182,000 yw of dred9od aid disposed sand off of Golden 1W Gets. Development 3,794 The ego raw oll develoixTwnt berween IS70 and Rosidential unks"W Convnercial 202 IOM P"aAwn and dwelopmert are grealag in Population iftousand permw 585 cmorriurnIn along tw coast Includee Morterey and Sarm crur counlies. Energy/Mining ON frOw bar" W Coniains &w satrw wr4unt as Boundary AftmIlve 1. Natural Gas Milan cubk foet 110 S" Mining cubic yaids"ar 150,000 Adjacent Land Use Urban square md" 213 Urban Wrick we conoonfrated in populabon oenws Range 1,420 i cluslarod around Monwey Boy. 2264 For" Agriculture 943 Public Recreation Oc*ar,Ad*wl Areas nurnW 36 A"MrAdves I and 7 hris ft faimst Goal Slips 111311 d 00mv4docard wea$ end =004 of bm& Bead*$ Discharges Point Sources Direct boy of Wasw#8W Ewkxlw PG&E pmw plant wW reftec". Indkiect 9 Non-Point Sources bw Of Warlowsw 175 Research/Education Faciliffies number I I .. . ..... Ewludes I* U.& Fish and Wldk N-tch IbWn and Ow U.C.- Landels4`11111 research Military LTn*" Aron Square nwftw m" 146 Bars am rounded I* " rmmt 10 percent Abbwatione: bW-WIW GOMM Per Year; FTdL cu. yft-rrmon cube Mft II. Section: Recmlatory Alternatives A. Introduction Regulatory alternatives governing nine 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 mammalsp turtles and seabirds; overflights; "personal water craft"; vessel traffic; and fishing were evaluated in terms of need and effectiveness for resource protection. 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 environmental consequences of each action and the constraints set by the MPRSA, which states in Section 304(c): 111-14 (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. When the preferred Sanctuary action is either, not to include an activity in these nine categories or, to rely on the status quo to govern the activity (i.e..fishing and vessel traffic),, the activity would continue to be subject to ezisting 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. Each proposed Sanctuary regulation is stated below and described in terms of its impact to resources and uses. The status quo regarding each regulation is also' given in terms of existing laws, regulations and their impacts to the resources and uses of the Monterey Bay area. Table XX --un arizes these potential impacts in comparative form. on Resources and Uses (M) Polefflial Impact to Resources ftvwv Chenn lialkiltalle Existing Primary 190,11 lFbh Turtles llkwift Marine AffU.M Corrion 4111) Marine Protected Produr- krieft. Mural"Is Water C411111rd lilsoulallaw Are" Quasi ......... ..... ......... ...... ... .. ........ .. . ........ .... ....... .......... ...... ............ . . ........ IN and Gall ................... ............ ...... . . .. ........... ............ ... . ....... ............. . ......... . WINIn ..... .... ................ .......... ..... ....... .... . ..... that 9MOV ..... ..... .. .. ... W.X. _z:: ........... . M. ... .. .... y-,'. . ... .. ... ... . . ... ... .... ...........0 ... ..... k.- "blarlr4a 'W' - . ......... ..... .............. .. .. .... ... ... . ... .... ... All"IDn at etc.. tho ........ ....... ....... ..... ............. .. . . NOW, .................... ..... .. ......... .. ........ . . . . . . . .... ...... ...... ............... Marnmall Birds, ... .............. . ......... . . .............. . ............. .................. ... . ......... ........... ............. ....... .......... ........ ............ ... ............ . ............. ... .................. OVI . . . .... . ... .. .. ... ........................ ......... 'M @'M ... . . .... . ..... ........ .............. .... .. .. ... I . .... . .. .. . ...... ........ ........... ....; .................. .... .... ........ .... ........ ... ......... .............. Thrill Craft ............. .. .. ... JOIN--- wl 0 N ............................................................................................................... ... ...................................................... . ......................................... LogwW Potentia Positive Impact Potentia Negativ Impact *' NO (b) Potential Impact to Human Uses ShlWng/ En-gW ni .1 "g Mning WIN a SOWn IK90 lHarbors 10recip Urb@W Oil and Jae" T" Tmftn I*hm IOVMMO Ift fturw4pl. "n" Mn-ftM Fishing Ma&. Manserg DbpftW IndIV811101 Mining craft Via"no (.clown) (DbaC IMWW*o 9wass ROO La'ft -1.... fredging Dev ........ .... ............... 66 ind ............... ........ ....................... . ....... ...... 'Z Gn .M.A W.W .2 .... .. .. n' ........... ............... ....... Dbdw" ..... ...... ..... ...... within .......... 'I'MiN I.X - ............. ............ ...... ...... . . . . . ....... .. . ......... ..... . ............... lhd 11"m .... .. .. ............... .. ......... .. ................ MI-K, ... ..... ........... toriew ... .. ............ ............. ..................... ... ... -iiiii:ii@j . . . . .. . . . . ............ ..... ...... x* ............................. ................ .... ......... After4diDn ..... . ................. i:r I NI..%-..-.I.:-....-.. Selbed ........ ... :::::::::.:::Z -INx, of 40c.. Ihe :p ... . ........ Mii"is' . ....... 0.1 ................ .. . .. ............... ..... ....... .. . ........... ....................... .. . . ...... ... . ...... . .... . ----- ..... ... ........... ...... ... Ov"his ..... ........ ...... . .......... ..... ......... ........... . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ...... ......... 'E' 11-10.@ ..... ..... .......... .............. X: ........... .... .. . ............ .... ........... ............... . ..... .. ..... . MEMO I ... ....... ....... ........... ............. ... . . . ..... .............. ...... ......... ....................... .... ....... . . ....... ....... ........................ . ....... .. . IM" Mcbse B. Oil. Gas and Mineral Activities 1. Status Ouo a. Existing Regulatory Framework Under this alternative the resource protection regime would rely on the Department of the Interior's Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Natural Gas and oil Comprehensive Program 1992-1997, the proposed Sanctuary regulatory and management framework, and existing Federal statutes to provide protection to the Sanctuary's resources. Department of the Interior, M MS, 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, hea1th 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. 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. In addition, all lease sale activities in the OCS would require consistency with the State of Caliiornia Coastal Zone management Plan. The eurrent GGS Gil & Gas 5-Year Leasing Plan ineludes X-Pase Sale jig and is surrently at- III-is the stage of gathering information for the preparation of a DEIG 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 regulations. 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. b. Impact to Resources Future Lease sale Plans in the central California Planning area and associated development may occur close to shore, near sensitive haul-out areas and in highly productive marine waters that are all part of the Monterey Bay ecosystem. 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.. For example, a group of Aho Nuevo Basin tracts off San Mateo county, approximately 10 nmi due west of Afto Nuevo, were scheduled to be included in MMS's Lease Sale'#119 and are known to be of high oil and gas resource potential (Mullins and Nagel, 2982) (Figure XX). Due to the unique nature and environmental sensitivity of areas such as off of Aho Nuevo it seems additional safeguards are necessary to protect the proposed Sanctuary's resources and qualities. Presently, no administrative mechanism exists to permanently set aside such an important area.- For each sale, all tracts not already leased are reconsidered. 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 envirorament. Although many ur=ertaLjntie_s still exist, .experience from recent oil spills shovs massive destruction to all levels of the marine environment from coating of rocks and subsequent loss of encrusting organisms, to fouling of birds, pinnipeds and sea otters resulting in loss of thermoregulatory ability, poisoning from ingestion and death. c. ImRact to Usea Development of the OCS for oil and gas resources will include an increase in the number of offshore platforms. Associated with 111-17 this direct development will be numerous indirect increases in human activities such as increase in vessel traffic, either servicing the platforms or transporting oil (unless pipelines are used to offload the discove red resources), increases in overflights from helicopters, increasing levels of discharges, and increased urban development. It is possible for this potential development to have a negative impact on fishing in the area and on recreational and tourist activities. 2. Sanctuary Alternative I a. Sanctuary Action 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 Director (RD) (Pacific OCS Office) and the SRD in accordance with a pre-established schedule. 111-18 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 RD, in consultation with the SRD, 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 RD and SRD 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, or (2) other appropriate operational restrictions. This regulation would also require that a formal interagency consultation process between the SRD and MMS be established to oversee the monitoring process with the Sanctuary. b. Impact to Resources Many of the impacts discussed above under the Status Quo regime would still apply although particularly sensitive areas would be protected by eliminating development in specific zones around resources most at risk. c, Impact to Uses Increases in human activities associated vith offshore oil and gas development would still occur although at potentially reduced magnitudes. Conversely the predicted negative impacts to fishing' and recreational activities would be reduced. 3. sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred) a. Sanctuary Action Exploring for, developing, or producing oil, gas or minerals is prohibited in the Sanctuary 111-19 b. ImRact-to Resources 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 of the area, 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. only partial protection vould be provided due to the remaining threat .from oil and gas activities outside of the Sanctuary boundaries and from vessel traffic, particularly oil tankers, transiting through and near the Sanctuary. A prohibition on mineral activities within the proposed Sanctuary is necessary to be consistent with the prehibitien regulation on alteration of or construction an the seabed as discussed below. The proposed regulation 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 o f protection to 111-20 environmentally sensitive areas such as off Aho Nuevo. While it is clear that the natural resources and qualities of Monterey Bay are of National significance and value, scientific 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 2,539 square nmi). c. Impact to Uses There is presently no oil and gas development taking place in the study area. Lease Sale 119 has been canceled and no additional Lease Sales activity is proposed up to the year 2000. This prohibition would eliminate all future potential direct and indirect oil and gas industry activities in the area. However, activities such as tourisis and fishing should be beneficially impacted. 111-21 C. Discharges or Deposits 1. Status Ouo a. Existing RegMlatoKy Framework Numerous laws and regulations administered by many local, state and Federal agencies exist governing the contamination of ocean waters by discharges and deposits from a variety of sources, including, but not limited to: 1) discharges from point sources (which require a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit) (e.g power, industrial, desalination and municipal wastewater treatment plants and oil and gas platforms); 2) discharges from non-point sources, (e.g. urban and agricultural runoff); 3) discharges of oil and hazardous substances (e.g. oil from vessel bilges and toxic chemicals) and overboard trash disposal (e.g. discarded fishing nets and plastic trash) and 4) ocean dumping e.g. (dredge material from harbor channels). The primary Federal, state and local laws, policies and plans governing di@--Iharges, include but are not limited to: the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (the "Clean Water Act", CWA); the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA); the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA); the Rivers and Harbors Act; the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, (and MARPOL, Annexes I-V); the Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) including the National Contingency Plan; EPA's Administrative Regulations; the State of California Water Code, including but not limited to the California Porter-Cologne Water 111-22 Quality Act; the Fish and Game Code; the California Harbors and Navigation Code; the California Ocean Plan; the California Enclosed Bays And Estuaries Plan; the Water Quality Control Plan-San Francisco Bay Basin Region (2); the water Quality Control-Plan- Central Coast Basin Region (3). Responsible agencies for implementing appropriate regulations and plans, include but are not limited to, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (IINOAAII), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA$) , the U.S. Corps of Engineers ("COE"), the U.S. Coast Guard (IOUSCGII), the California State Water Resources Control Board ("State Board"), the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region ("Regional Board, Central Coast Region"), the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, ("Regional Board, San Francisco Bay Region"), the California Coastal Commission (11CCCII), and the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments CIAMBAGII). (1) point source DischargAs NPDES permits are required by all dischargers, municipal and industrial, that discharge to "vaters of the Nation". The SWRCB and the RWQCBs are responsible for the protection of the quality of the State's waters through the development of water quality control plans and the issuance of waste discharge orders. Pursuant to section 402 of the CWA and Section 13370 of the California Water Code,. EPA has approved the State's program to issue and enforce NPDES permits to ensure, to the greatest extent possible, that discharges to surface waters do not adversely affect the quality 111-23 and beneficial uses of the such waters. The State issues NPDES permits in accordance with a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the EPA and the State Board. Regional Board staff prepare the permit and the State Board and EPA may comment upon, or object to the issuance of, a permit or the terms and conditions therein. Neither the State Board not the regional Boards adopt or issue an NPDES permit until all objections have been resolved pursuant to 40 CFR 123.44 and the MOA. (2) Non-Point Source Discharges (NPS) EPA has provided the State of California guidance on implementing the provisions of EPA's Antidegradation Policy (40 CFR 131.12) which is applicable to Non-Point Source (NPS) Pollution as well as Point Source Pollution. Specifically, "where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of National and State Parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected" (40 CFR 131.12 (a) (3)). The NPS provisions of the CWA 2 5(j), 208, 303(e) and 319 are subject to the antidegradation policy and EPA is developing additional guidance in this area. AMBAG has prepared a Non-Point Source Pollution Program Manual' pursuant to the CWA 208 studies, with recommendations to guide local governments and other agencies in preparing effective control ordinances and BMPs for erosion and sedimentation, and urban and agricultural runoff, and is continuing to manage studies on non- point source pollution under the CWA 205J. 111-24 The State of California's 319 Non-Point Source Pollution Plan approved by EPA pursuant to the CWA identifies within State coordination for NPS by SWRCB to be with the U.S. Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, U.S. Soil Conservation Service and California Department of Transportation. Under the 319 Plan it is predicted that the Regional Boards will develop policy for NPS from (1) voluntary implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) (such as those enumerated for NPS agricultural and urban issues in the Report to Congress: IINPS Pollution in the United States, Report to Congress, 1984"), (2) Regulatory based encouragement of BXP's, and (3) effluent limitations. The CCC retains permanent jurisdiction and requires a coastal development permit for actions over lands of the coastal zone including the immediate shoreline (tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands) under the provisions of the California Coastal Act (CCA) of 1976 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code 3000- et se .) pursuant to the authority of the CZMA. In addition, the CCC retains appeal jurisdiction for certain types of development in certain areas where a local government has a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP). Several of the CCC policies provide special consideration to the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary including but not limited to, (1) providing special protection to areas and species of special biological or economic significance, and requires that uses of the marine environment shall be carried our in a manner that will maintain biological productivity (CCA, Section 30230)1 (2) limits dredging and filling in coastal waters to situations 111-25 where "there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative" and where is related to specific listed purposes (CCA, Section 30233), (3) authorizes the protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas ."against any significant disruption of habitat values" and against impacts from adjacent development which would "significantly degrade" the area (CCA, Section 30240), (4) considers the secondary impacts resulting from the increase in power production needs for desalination plants (CCA, Section 30253(4). Finally, the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, 1990, P.L. 101-508, Section 6217(g) requires the Administrator.of EPA in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other Federal Agencies, to publish guidance for specifying management measures for sources of NPS in coastal water for each state with an approved coastal zone Management Program; and Section 6217(b) requires the State to provide for implementation, at a minimum, of management measures in conformity with the guidance of (g) and implemented through the State coastal zone management program under the CZMA, and the section 319 program under the CWA to protect coastal waters from non-point source pollution from adjacent coastal land uses, and to protect designated critical areas through additional management measures. (3) Hazardous waste, oil and trash disposal Discharges of oil and chemical waste are regulated under provisions of the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships of 198.0, as amended in 1982 and 1987 (33 U.S.C. �� 1901 &t "e .) and under 111-26 CERCIA, with the Coast Guard designated as the lead agency for implementation of procedures under the National Contingency Plan in coastal and ocean waters. 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. (4) Ocean dumping The COE has permitting authority over dumping of dredged material in coastal and open ocean (section 103 bf the MPRSA) with determination to issue a permit being subject to review and approval by EPA, while section 404 of the CWA controls the actual discharge of dredged or fill material. Under Title I of the MPRSA regulation of ocean dumping provides for special recognition of Nationally significant marine areas, such as marine sanctuaries under Title III. b. Impact to Resourges Although water quality in the nonterey Bay area is considered to be good there is evidence of potential water quality limited segments and there exists an increasing public demand to address the decline in the health and productivity of our Nation's coastal and ocean resources.' It has been recommended by the U. S. Of f ice of Technology Assessment that it is necessary to identify waterbodies needing additional management such as the Monterey Bay area where 111-27 increased population pressure on the coastal zone and associated point and non-point sources of pollution such as toxics and nutrients, threaten the water quality and all resources of the Monterey Bay area without additional deliberate protection. Benthic habitats will continue to be threatened by proposed designation and use of ocean disposal dump sites in the Sanctuary. Water quality is threatened from existing and proposed nutrient and metal loading from sewage treatment plants. Point and non-point sources pollution has also caused the closure of shellfishing beds in the Monterey Bay area and continues to threaten productive coastal habitats such as estuaries and sloughs through eutrophication and toxic loadings of metals, pesiicides and herbicides. Coastal and offshore species of fish, seabirds and marine mammals, particularly the sea otter, are threatened from garbage and disease from contaminated food and contact with pathogenic organisms. Proposed desalination plants in the Monterey Bay area would cause a variety of potential environmental impacts depending on the final location and type of operation. A seawater desalination pl ant requires a coastal groundwater or ocean source of water, a means of disposing of the waste brine, which may require an outfall pipe and a distribution system of the potable product water. operation of a desalination plant causes a complex discharge to the ocean environment from pre-treatment of the feedwater, effluent from pipeline flushing, Reverse osmosis (R/0) membrane cleaning solutions, and the disposal of concentrated brines. 111-28 According to the DEIR for the City of Santa Barbara's Temporary Emergency Desalination Project there are several chemicals used during the desalination process which could pose a hazard to the environment including, chlorine, sulfur dioxide, sodium hydroxide, ferric chloride, carbon dioxide, antiscalent, zinc orthophosphate, and polyelectrolyte. Pretreatment of feedwater involves not only filtering to remove sand and other particulate matter but also addition of chlorine and carbon dioxide for Ph reduction and ferric chloride for coagulation of suspended solids. Frequent (once every three days) filter backwashing and membrane cleaning with alkaline cleaners remove organic fouling. Brine disposal involves discharge of seawater at approximately 1.8 times background seawater salinity. The discharge from the plume, as well as any pipelines may also alter the natural currents-in the area. Air emission would also increase due to the production of energy for use in desalination plants. C, JaRAct to Uses The status quo will continue to provide for increasing urban. and agricultural use adjacent to the Monterey Bay area which in turn will cause additional sources of point source and non-point source pollution. Urban population increases are predicted in the coastal zone of Monterey Bay and agricultural land use is expected to continue at least at current levels under the status quo. The status quo regime for discharges will not negatively impact these 111-29 uses of the Monterey Bay area based on considerations of the cumulative impact of these activities on the resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area ecosystem. Desalination plants not only have the impact of producing freshwater for local communities but may also have the side-effect of disturbing recreational activities in vicinity of the area. In addition proposals to mix the discharge effluent with existing municipal dischargers may cause difficulties with enforcement because the recipient of the desalination discharge will become responsible for the compliance with the regulatory requirements. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a. Sanctuary Action Discharging or depositing, from within the boundaries of the Sanctuary, any material or other substance is prohibited except: (1) fish, fish parts, chumming materials or bait used in or resulting from normal fishing operations in the Sanctuary; (2) biodegradable effluent incidental to vessel use generated by marine sanitation devices appreved by th-e U.S. eeast Guard in accordance with the Clean Water Act Section 312, 42 USC 1322 It geg.; (3) water generated by routine vessel operations (e.g., cooling waterr greywater and deck washdown) excluding bilge pumping; (4) engine exhaust; (5) sinkable training devices and ordinance discharges by the U.S. Military in designated Military operating areas; (6) routine discharges associated with mariculture operations at magnitude, frequency and quality levels existing as of the date of designation; (7) routine discharges associated with mariculture operations after the date of designation provided the mariculture operation is certified by NOAA is accordance with Section 944.10; (8) dredge material disposed of at the designated SF 12 and SF 14 dump sites off of Moss Landing at existing 111-30 magnitudes, qualities and frequencies and provided such disposal is certified by NOAA in accordance with Section 944.9. All new disposal of dredge material within the Sanctuary and designation of new dump sites is prohibited; (9) point source discharges from, including but not limited to, municipal waste water treatment, power, desalination and industrial plants provided such discharge, if existing as of the date of designation, is certified by NOAA in accordance with Section 944.9 and if after the date of designation, is certified by NOAA in accordance with Section 944.10. NOAA encourages existing facilities to decrease their discharge and increase their performance due to the presence of a National Marine Sanctuary. Municipal treatment plants will be required to have at least secondary treatment capabilities and tertiary or greater as appropriate or necessary depending on the risk to Sanctuary resources and qualities. The cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, which currently discharge primarily treated sewage, would therefore be required to upgrade to at least secondary treatment. Discharge by these cities at primary levels of treatment will be allowed ufitil expiration of existing permits. Upon requests for renewal of their permits in accordance with Section 944.9 NOAA will require, as a condition of certification, that the treatment be upgraded to at least secondary levels. (10) Nov discharges from desalination facilities will not be prohibited, but rather will be subject, in. consultation with appropriate local, state and federal regulatory agencies, to NOAR review and approval in accordance with Section 944.10. Discharging or depositing, from beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary, materials or other substances, other than those listed in (1-10) above, that subsequently enter the Sanctuary and injure a Sanctuary resource or Sanctuary quality is prohibited. b. rmpact to Resources The intent of this prohibition is to protect the Sanctuary resources and qualities from the harmful effects of land and sea- generated non-point*and point source pollution, such as but not limited to, trash and oil disposal by vessels and pollutant loading from adjacent urban and rural land use practices. By maintaining the high water quality of the Monterey Bay area 111-31 the organisms responsible for primary productivity at the base of the food chain will be protected. Coastal wetland, slough and estuarine habitats will be protected from the direct affects of pollutant loadings. Benthic biota will be protected especially from smothering and turbidity increases,from.the dumping of dredge material. Fish, seabirds, turtles and marine mammals will be protected from direct negative impacts such as entanglement in discarded trash and infection from degraded water quality and benefit from the indirect affects of protected habitats and enhanced prey abundance. c. Impact to Uses overall the impact of this regulation on human uses as well as the Sanctuaries resources and qualities is expected to be beneficial. No existing human uses will be terminated with designation and in the long-term many activities such as fishing, mariculture and tourism will continue to benefit from the maintenance of the high water quality of the area. .. NOAA will work within the existing process, rather than create a new regulatory review and approval procedure, governing discharge activities in the Monterey Bay NMS area and coastal watersheds. Thus, NOAA intends to minimize any additional administrative burden on those dischargers that are required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge.Elimination System (NPDES) permit or a Waste water Discharge Requirement (WDR) permit for discharges that affect or may affect the Monterey Bay NMS while at the same time ensure the existing process addresses the special concerns of the 111-32 Sanctuary and its resources and qualities. In addition, a close working relationship between the Sanctuary and existing authorities and affected users will necessitate the identification and exchange of information relevant to the parties mutual goals for the maintenance of the area's high water quality and the protection and conservation of natural resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area. NOAA is in the process of developing a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between Federal, State and Local water quality management agencies to determine specific procedures by which the goals of the Sanctuary would be achieved by using the existing discharge permitting process. NOAA intends to work at the earliest stages of the permit application process, such as during the preparation of required environmental impact analyses, with both the relevant discharge authorities and the applicant in an effort to understand and address mutual concerns and accomplish the parties varying objectives. Consistent with the MPRSA primary objective of protecting the Sanctuary and its resources, section 301 (b) (5) of the MPRSA, 1.6 U.S. C. � 1431 (b) (5), the Sanctuary regulations address discharges within the Sanctuary boundary (15 CPR 944.5(a) (2)) as well as those discharges outside of the Sanctuary boundaries which may enter and injure Sanctuary resources and qualities (15 CFR 944.5 (a) (3)). All discharges classified under the CWA as "discharges into the waters of the Nation" are included under the scope of Sanctuary designation 15 CFR 944.5(a)(2)-(3)- 111-33 In accordance with section 304(c)(1) of the MPRSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c)(1), NOAA may regulate existing permits through certification which may include imposition of terms and conditions consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is designated. Regulation of new discharge permits issued after the date of designation will be subject to the review process which may include added terms and conditions or objection to issuance, as necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Any application for an amendment, renewal or extension to an existing discharge permit will be considered as a new discharge permit. Specific impacts to uses of the area that involve discharge into the Sanctuary area are discussed in more detail below. (1) Vessels The impact of this regulation on vessel operations is,,,expected to be minor. oil discharges are presently regulated under the Clean Water Act. Where it pertains to oil discharges, this regulation would increase the penalties for violations. 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 exceptions to this regulation are designed to allow continued use of the Sanctuary by vessels that do not appear to threaten Sanctuary resources and qualities. Thus, 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 specifically exempted from the prohibition. 111-34 (2) Dredge Disposal Activities The regulation would allow, with NOAA certification, existing disposal of dredge material at current magnitudes, quality and frequencies at existing disposal sites off of Moss Landing and only prohibit proposed additional dumping and the disposal of dredge material within the sanctuary. NOAA is consulting with EPA, the State Water Resources Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board and Harbor Masters regarding existing dredge and disposal activities within the vicinity of the proposed Sanctuary. Dredging activities in harbors will not be affected by Sanctuary designation as harbors are not included within the Sanctuary boundaries and maintenance dredging at existing magnitudes and frequencies in the Sanctuary is exempt from the Sanctuary regulations. NOAA can work within the existing regulatory process to ensure that the requirements for ocean dredge disposal at existing sites are in place, enforced and adequate to protect the resources of the Sanctuary. The Sanctuary requirement of certification of existing permits will assure.review for possible impacts without imposing undue burdens, however, the regulation may impose additional costs by requirinq. the use of more expensive methods of dredge disposal or even disposal at alternative sites on land if evidence shows that current dredge disposal activities injure Sanctuary resources and qualities. 3) Pgint Source Discharges Discharges and deposits from point sources into the Sanctuary, pursuant to any permit executed as of the effective date of these 111-35 regulations, 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 as necessary to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated. In consultation with scientific institutions and local, State and regional organizations such as the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments, NOAA will consult with the permittees and the relevant permitting authorities of these activities to determine means of achieving the Sanctuary purposes. If additional constraints 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 and qualities. The requirement of NOAA certification of existing permits for municipal sewage, industrial and power plants 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. New proposals for permits, licenses, or other authorizations after the effective date of Sanctuary designation allowing the discharge of municipal sewage, industrial, power, or desalination effluent will be subject to Sanctuary regulatory prohibitions to ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected from injury. When existing permits are submitted for renewal, and reviewed 111-36 as a new permit, NOAA will evaluate the activity to determine the extent of any negative effects to water quality or natural resources and whether the activity has complied with its permit standards and potentially decreased its discharge and increased its performance due to the presence of a National Marine Sanctuary. Consistent with the antidegradation policy for outstanding national resource waters only new point source dischargers, including desalination activities, that are proven by the discharger to maintain the existing water quality and do not injure Sanctuary resources or qualities would be allowed. In addition, -and consistent with the Clean Water Act the Sanctuary will require at least secondary treatment and preferably tertiary or greater for municipal treatment plants depending on the risk to Sanctuary resources and qualities. The cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville, which currently discharge primarily treated sewage, would therefore be required to upgrade to at least secondary treatment. Discharge by these cities at primary levels of treatment will be allowed until expiration of existing permits. Upon requests for renewal of their permits NOAA will require, as a condition of certification, that the treatment be upgraded to at least secondary levels. Nov discharges from desalination facilities will not be prohibiteds but rather will be subject, in consultation with appropriate locall state and federal regulatory agenciest to NOAA review and approval. This regulation could thus result in additional costs to 111-37 existing and future dischargers if the Sanctuary were to determine that a higher level of treatment or other, more expensive disposal methods were preferable in order to ensure Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. However, the requirement of Sanctuary certification or other approval of permits for point source dischargers will ensure that these potentially harmful activities receive special consideration from the Sanctuary viewpoint. (4) Non-Point Source Discharges (NPS) Land based NPO discharges within watersheds adjacent to the Sanctuary that drain into the Sanctuary would be monitored to ensure the activity is consistent with.the goals of the Sanctuary and that Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. If evidence arises that Sanctuary resources and qualities are threatened, NOAA intends to work with existing regulatory agencies and responsible parties to determine appropriate measures to prevent the threat of injury to Sanctuary resources and qualities. As existing mariculture and aquaculture sites do not seem to pose a threat to sanctuary resources and qualities at current magnitude, quality and frequency of discharge, these activities are exemp t from the regulation and no certification of existing permits is required. However,, to ensure that any new and proposed mariculturo and aquaculturo sites, after the effective date of sanctuary designation, also do not threaten Sanctuary resources and qualities due to discharges into the Sanctuary, they would be regulated by the Sanctuary in accordance with Section 944-10. 111-38 D. Historical Resourc s 1. Status Ouo a. Existing Regulatory Framework Under this alternative any historical resources (as defined by Sanctuary Program and Sanctuary regulations to include, inter alia, archeological, paleontological, or cultural resources) would remain subject only to the existing management regime, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA), 16 U.S.C. 470 -et geq., the Archeological and Historical Preservation Act of 1974, 16 U.S.C. 469 gt "e ., the Abandoned Shipwreck Act (ASA) of 1987, 43 U.S.C. 2101 e ,_t_ &e_g., and the Archeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) , 16 U. S. C. 470aa et ggg. , and, with permits provided by the State Lands Commission for those historic resources in State waters, pursuant to the Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Program of 1989, enacted by the State legislature as Chapter 732, in accordance with the ASA. b. ImRact to Resources Existing regulatory authorities provide some protection for underwater historical or cultural resources. California can register sites as either "points of interest" or "land marks*, and. the latter designation provides some protection to sites in State waters. Proposed guidelines published by the National Park Service (54 FR 13641) would assist the states and kederal agencies in developing legislation and regulations to carry out their management responsibilities regarding shipwrecks in accordance with 111-39 the provisions of the ASA. The NHPA mandates that federal agencies consult with and Advisory Council on Historic Preservation before engaging in any undertaking that could effect historic resources. Consultation with the expertise of this Council provides Federal agencies with an opportunity to ensure their proposed activities are technically adequate and that any plans to salvage historic resources take into account Preservation requirement for the long-term protection of the resources. The State Lands Commission in association with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) can nominate appropriate sites and vessels'for listing on the National Register of Historic Resources. In an agreement with the University of California the SLC has begun a computer inventory of more that 1500 sites in State waters to provide further research on these sites and vessels and to determine their historic significance. However, there would be minimal impact or special recognition and protection to other associated resources and the site's environmental integrity, such as benthic biota and fish communities. c. ImRact to Usen Salvage operations in State waters must also be permitted by the State Lands Commission. Registration on the National Register of Historic Sites provides protection only against Federal and not private activities such as wreck divers and treasure salvors. 111-40 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a. Sanctuary Action Moving, Possessing or injuring, or attempting to move, or injure, a Sanctuary historical resource is prohibited. This prohibition does not apply to accidental moving, possession or injury during normal, routine, fishing operations. b. Impact to Resources Under this alternative, moving, possessing, or injuring or attempting to move, or injure a Sanctuary historical resource would be prohibited without NOAA approval and issuance of a Sanctuary permit. Sanctuary management of historical*resource under the authority of the MPRSA shall be consistent, to the extent practicable, with the Federal archeological progiZan by consulting the Uniform Regulations, ARPA (43 CFR Part 7), the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation (48 FR 44716, Sept. 29, 1983) and other relevant Federal regulations. NOAA also intends to work closely with the CA State Lands Commission and the SHPO regarding approval to move, injure or possess abandoned shipwrecks, title to which is held by the State of California. Any historical resources known to be within the proposed Sanctuary, especially those that are on the National Register listing under the National Historic Preservation Act, would be carefully monitored by Sanctuary staff. In addition,.any activity that could lead to the discovery of historical resources would be carefully monitored. The Sanctuary Manager would try to ensure that adequate information is available regarding the national significance of these resources and appropriate management measures 111-41 are in place. This regulation would apply throughout the Sanctuary in order to protect these valuable resources for research and interpretation. In addition, during its review and approval of a request for a Sanctuary permit NOAA would consider the impacts of the proposed activity on adjacent Sanctuary resources and qualities such as benthic communities and associated fish populations. C. Impact to Uses Human activities that normally "take" a historical resource would also require a Sanctuary permit. Such a permit would only be given under specific circumstances such as for research or education purposes. Where this responsibiIlity overlaps with other state and Federal agencies the Sanctuary would coordinate its review of permit request with the appropriate agency. As only a few uses "take" historical resources, such as Navy and treasure salvors and recreational divers, the impact of this regulation is expected to be minor. 111-42 E. Alteration of or Construction on the Sea bed 1. Status Ouo a. Existing Regulatory Framework Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; Section 404 of the Clean Water Act; the Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act; the Submerged Lands Act; the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act; the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act; and the California Coastal Act. The primary Federal agencies affected include but are not limited to, the U.S. Corps of Engineers and EPA; and the primary state agencies include but are not limited to, the State Lands Commission and the California Coastal Commission (CCC). b. Impact to Resources 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 governinq 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, benthic invertebrates and associated organisms dependant upon these habitat assemblages. For example, desalination, municipal, pover and industrial plant operation can cause seafloor disturbance, increased turbidity and damage to kelp beds during pipeline construction and maintenance. Construction impacts from desalination and municipal 111-43 plants could result in disturbance to seabirds and marine mammals; air pollution emissions; obstruction of views caused by machinery, piping or tall structures; loud noises; disturbance to archaeological and paleontological resources; erosion; non-point source pollution; and disturbance of dune, surf zone and sea floor ecology. The building of harbor breakwaters and piers and jetties can smother benthic habitat and alter current patterns in the immediate vicinity. Finally, sand mining, dredging and dredge disposal activities cause loss of sediment and associated disruptions in benthic communities from erosion of habitat.and smothering of organisms from increased turbidity and particle deposition. Although, the CCC limits dredging and filling in coastal waters to situations where "there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative" and where it is related to specific listed purposes, under the status quo no one agency reviews the impacts of these activities on a cumulative basis or from the holistic perspective of the Sanctuary ecosystem. c. ILaRact to Uses Harbor maintenance activities are predicted to increase, including expansion, and dredging and disposal of material from slips and navigation channels. Sand mining activities are predicted to continue at-least at current rates. The construction of pipelines and outfalls into the ocean is predicted to increase. Continued alteration of the seabed can interfere with public access and recreation and loss of fish habitat and fishing groundso 111-44 Erosion of dunes and beaches from sand mining may not only impact nature viewers and recreationists but may also interfere with long- term coastal development projects in the area. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a. Sanctuary Action Drilling into, dredging or otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary; or constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure, material or other matter on the seabed of the Sanctuary is prohibited, except if any of the above results from: (1) anchoring vessels, (2) normal, routine, fishing operations, (3) installation of navigation aids, (4) maintaining mariculture operations existing as of the effective date of Sanctuary designation, (5) routine harbor maintenance, including dredging of harbor entrance channels; (6) construction of docks and piers; (7) sand mining activities existing as of the date of designation, at current frequencies and magnitudes, provided the activity is certified by the Sanctuary in accordance with Section 944.9. All new sand mining, including requests for renewal of existing activities, within the Sanctuary below mean high water is prohibited.. b. Impact to Resources The intent of this prohibition is to protect the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary from the harmful effects of activities such as, but not limited to, archeological excavations, drilling into the seabed, strip mining, laying of pipelines and outfallso ocean mineral extraction (including but not limited to sand mining), dumping of dredge spoils and offshore commercial development that may.disrupt and/or destroy sensitive marine benthic habitats such an kelp beds, invertebrate populations, fish habitats, and estuaries and sloughs. 111-45 c*- Imr)act to Uses Existing permitted activities that cause alteration of or construction on the seabed, such as maintenance of seawalls and jetties, disposal of dredge material at existing sites at current rates, magnitudes and qualities, would continue but be regulated by the Sanctuary to ensure the activity is consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated in accordance with Section 944.9. New activities such as development of new breakwaters, now applications or requests for offshore commercial development projects such as, but not limited to# artificial reefs, or new mariculture and aquaculture sites would be regulated by the Sanctuary, in consultation with appropriate existing authorities and users, to ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected in accordance with Section 944.10. As harbors are excluded from the Sanctuary boundaries all harbor activities within the exclusion zones would be exempt form the scope of regul-.:ion. In addition, routine harbor maintenance activities beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary are exempted from this regulation. No new dredge disposal or designation of new sites would be allowed in the Sanctuary. Consistent with the first prohibition on oil, gas and mineral activities within the Sanctuary no new sand mining would be allowed in the Sanctuary and requests for permit renewals for sand mining in the surf zone below mean high water would be prohibited. 111-46 F. Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles and SeAbirds 1. Status Ouo a. Existing ReUlatory Framewogk The marine mammal Protection Act, Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 16 U.S.C. S 703-712. Agencies involved include the National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the State Department of Fish and Game. b. ImRact to Resources Under this alternative the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would provide some protection to the marine mammals, turtles and seabirds of the Sanctuary: both prohibit the taking of specific species protected under those Acts. The MBTA codifies a series of conventions between the U.S. Great Britain, Mexico, Japan and the USSR providing complete protection of the migratory birds, and their nests and eggs from hunting, killing, selling and exploitation as defined in 50 CFR 10, 20 and 21. Exploitation of tbLis resource is permitted only via permits. 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. C. Impact to Uses All users of the Monterey Bay area are prohibited from taking any marine mammal or endangered or threatened seabirds and turtles 111-47 unless in possession of a permit. Fishing activities are specifically excluded from the provisions of the MMPA, ESA and MBTA. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a.- Sanctuary Action Taking any marine mammal or turtle or seabird in or above the Sanctuary, except as permitted by regulations promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) is prohibited. b. Impact-to Resources 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, ESA and MBTA. The proposed prohibition would overlap with the MMPA, MBTA and ESA but also extend protection for Sanctuary resources on an environmentally holistic basis. It would include all marine mammals and turtles in the Sanctuary and seabirds in or above the Sanctuary. c. Impact to Uses Other than empowering Sanctuary officials to directly enforce the provisions of the MMPA, ESA and MBTA this regulation should not affect any additional users other than those already regulated. However, upon violation of this Sanctuary regulation the MPRSA (Section 307) allows-NOAA to assess civil penalties as high as $50,000 for each violation. The status quo sets maximum financial penalti,@-a ranging between $2,000 and $25,000 per violation. Thus this regulation may add further deterrence to individuals from 111-48 violating this regulation. In addition, by directing civil penalties back into the Marine Sanctuary Program, a more directed effort can be implemented to protect these valuable natural resources. 111-49 G. overflights 1. Status Ouo a. Existing Regglatory Framework Federal Aviation Administration Regulations FAR 91 et sea. and State Department of Fish and Game regulations for particular sensitive areas. b. Impact to Resources FAR regulations are intended to provide for the safe operation and maintenance of aircraft rather than for protection of the environment. Low level overflights of ecologically sensitive coastal areas are know to cause disturbance and even fatalities of marine resources such as sea otters, pinnipeds and seabirds. Migrating and foraging cetaceans are also known to change their behavior patterns when approached by aircraft flying at low levels. Some protection is provided by the State to areas such as the Aho Nuevo Reserve, Point Lobos Reserve and the California Sea Otter Game Refuge by the Department of Fish and Game with overflight prohibitions below 1000 feet. c. Impact to Uses FAR regulations'require safe operating altitudes and distances and specify that pilots are required to be more than 500 feet over water and higher than 500 feet within 500 feet of shore (FAR 91.119). Seaplane and floatplane operations in water are governed by the Coast Guard maritime regulations and by FAR's when airborne. In addition, FAR regulations address careless and reckless operations, aircraft speeds, minimum altitudes and distances and 111-50 right-of-war rules as well as prohibitions on dropping of objects, alcohol and drugs and operation near other aircraft. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a. Sanctuagy Action Flying motorized aircraft at less than 1000 feet above four designated zones within the Sanctuary is prohibited. Generally the zones are: (1) from mean high tide out to three nautical miles between a line extending from Point Santa Cruz on a southwesterly heading of approximately 2200 and a line extending from 2.0 nmi north of Pescadero Point on a southwesterly heading of 240*; (2) from meanhigh tide out to three nautical miles between a line extending from the Carmel River mouth on a westerly heading of 2700 and a line extending from 2.5 nmi southeast of Partington Point on a southwesterly heading of 2400; (3) from mean high tide and within a five nmi arc drawn from a center point at the end of Moss Landing Pier; and (4) over the waters of Elkhorn Slough east of the highway one bridge to Elkhorn Road. b. ImRact to Resources 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, sea otters 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, over the California Sea otter Refuge and Aho Nuevo, extend this protection to areas north of Santa Cruz and around Afio Nuevo and over sensitive estuarine areas particularly Elkhorn Slough and the mouths of the Pajaro and Salinas Rivers (Figuro XX). 0 111-51 380 1230 122* 1210 Point%,, 380 Reyes LEGEND ......... ... Point Sonita* Amos zoned Iblang lanj Oakland QVWflights; <= ft. h Gulf Of Vw Point Lobos Ferafimm San Frandsco I Point Son Pedro .. ...... Pillar Point San Gregow Pesalciero Creek Poscadero Point Pigeon Point Pt. Ano Nuevo Loreruo Rhw Soquel Davenport Creek 3 0 Sallm 7 cma monew 37* loco Bay ' ftiwo MW amm".Vough Moss Lamkq 50111WRIver caffnel AUA Point Lobo camel mw EMARGED or- ftaff @%w Poist Mi; Cleek 360 Lqm Paht 360 AWbffftck CW& Son Mutn $w%ml ovat point M" Noms em Sm" MIM Ono kmp Sumn S" % 06&td % 1230 122* 121* Figure 32. Areas Zoned ProhMaing Overnkpu Iess om 1,M fL C. Impact to.Uses The prohibition zones were designated in part to minimize impacts to areas where frequent overflights occur less than 1000 feet especially over areas without high concentrations of marine resources. Thus, aircraft landing at or taking off from airports would not be affected and neither would seaplanes landing at or taking off from ocean moorings at Santa Cruz City Wharf and potentially in the future from the Monterey Harbor area. In addition, overflights below 1000 ft within these zones would still be allowed if necessary to respond to an emergency -threatening, life, property or the environment. Aircraft that need to fly below 1000 feet within these zones for research purposes would require a Sanctuary research permit. overflights necessary for law enforcement and national defense purposes within these zones would require consultation with the Sanctuary before the activity commences to ensure the activity is conducted in a way to minimize negative impacts to Sanctuary resources and qualities. 111-52 H. Operation of "Personal Water Craft! 1. Status Ouo a. Existing Regulatory Framework "Personal Water Craft'O means any motorized vessel which is generally less than fifteen feet in length as manufactured, is capable of exceeding a speed of fifteen knots, 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, air boats and hovercraft. Local City ordinances can regulate the operation of thrill craft on a case-by-case basis. In addition, the California Department of Boating and Waterways is responsibie for boating facilities and regulation of such activities. The City of Santa Cruz prohibits the operation of personal watercraft withina Special Use Zone extending 300 yds offshore between the eastern boundary of the City of Santa Cruz and to the Pajaro River, excluding the City of Capitola and except when launching and landing. b. ImRact to Resources The use of personal water 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, damage to mud flats and eelgrass and disturbance due to noise and exhaust to organisms near and on the surface in proximity to the craft. 111-53 C. mpact to Uses Personal water craft operation interferes with the safe use of near shore ocean waters by other recreational users such as surfers, swimmers, recreational fishermen and other water sport users. Under this alternative NOAA will monitor the activities of these "personal water 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 areas. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a. Sanctuary Action operation of personal water craft within the Sanctuary is prohibited except in three designated zones and in designated routes to and from these zones. Generally, the three areas and access routes are: (1) an approximately 3 sq.nmi area off of Santa Cruz Small craft Harbor ramp from 36* 57.41 N along a 100 yd wide access route due south along 122* W to the northern boundary of Zone one (marked by the whistle buoy at 10 fathom curve) bounded by (a) 36* 551 No 122* 021 W; (b) 36* 551 N, 1210 581 W; (c) 36* 56.51 N, 1210 581 W; and (d) 36* 56-51 N, 1220 021 W; (2) an approximately 5 sq.nmi area off of Moss Landing Harbor/Elkhorn Yacht Club Launch Ramp from 36* 48.51 N along a .106 yd wide access route due west along via harbor entrance to the eastern boundary of Zone Two bounded by (a) 360 501 N, 1210 49.31 W; (b) 36* 501 N, 121' 50-81 W; (c) 36* 46o7l N, 1210 50.81 W; (d) 36- 46.70 N, 121- 491 W; (e) 36* 47.81 N, 121* 48.21 W; and (f) 360 48.91 N, 121- 48.20 W; and (3) an approximately 6 sq-nmio off of the U.S. Coast Guard Pier (Monterey Harbor) Launch Ramp from (36* 36.50 N, 121* 53.51 W) along a-100 yd wide access route due north along 122' w to the southern boundary of Zone Three bounded by (a) 360 38.51 N, 121* 55o5i W; (b) 36- 36.91 N, 1210 52.31 W; (c) 360 381 N, 121* 511 W; and (d) 36' 401 N, 121* 54.31 W. b. ImRact to Resources 111-54 This regulation is designed to provide enhanced resource protection by addressing a major gap in the regulatory regime governing activities in the area. operations of personal water craft would be prohibited generally beyond the 10 fathom contour and thus include protection to all State Parks, Reserves, Ecological Reserves, Refuges, Areas of Special Biological Significance, and Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. In addition, areas of high marine mammal and seabird concentrations, kelp forest areas, river mouths, estuaries, lagoons and other similar areas within the Sanctuary would be protected (Figure XX). c. Impact to Uses A zoned approach to the use of personal water craft will still allow this activity to continue albeit only in specified areas. These areas were designated in part to not only maximize resource protection but to minimize conflicts with other uses and provide zones and access to these zones in areas where personal water craft operation has traditionally taken place. This regulation would also reduce conflicts, and thus potentially positively impact, other beneficial uses of the Sanctuary such as surfing, sailing, recreational fishing and diving. operation of personal water craft outside of these zones would be allowed if necessary to respond to an emergency threatening, life, property or the environment. Those craft not included within the definition of "personal 111-55 123* 1220 38 -4 121* Point 38' Reyes LEGEND I. Sam CAR zom Point Bon%itm Oakland Z Afoss L&WIng Zone Guff Of ft Point Lobos J#. Son Francisco I Alommy Zone IItI Point San Pedro .. ..... Pillar Point San Gregorio, Pescadem Cmek Pescadero, Point % Firm Point %% Pt Moo Nuevo R&W (16 0 qL4 Davenport vek 370 Smte CAR 37* am do awwn mouffi do Moss Un&g salinas pim Monterey Carmel PwIt AREA ENLARGED Lobos MW Sur Sur So, A 41 00 abaft* Lqm 110int 360 360 Sm Martin sawm cleat N Cmat %% h PWNM A 123* 122* 1210 Figure3l Arew Zoned for OperAlon of 7hdI Craft (For predse areas see Aftnagwmt Mwa water craft" would be exempt from this regulation (i.e. speed boats greater than 15 feet). However, should the need arise in the ,future, these exempted vessels may need to be regulated by the Sanctuary to address threats to Sanctuary resources and qualities. Such authority would fall under the scope of the Sanctuary Regulation for Vessel Traffic (see below). 111-56 I. Vessel Traffic 1. Status Ouo (Preferred) a. Existing Regulatory Framework oil Pollution Act, 1990 (P.L. 101-380); Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, MARPOL Annex I-V, Ports and Waterways Safety Act, International Convention to Prevent Collisions at Sea, California oil Spill Prevention, Abatement, and Removal Act, 1990, (SB 2040). The primary responsible agencies are, The United States Coast Guard, International Maritime Organization, Department of Fish and Game, State Lands Commission. b. ImRact to Resources Although the area has had a long history of safe vessel traffic there may be a threat to the resources of the Monterey Bay area from possible collisions both between vessels and between vessels and resources of the Sanctuary, disturbances by vessels of resources of the Sanctuary and possible spills of oil and hazardous materials (Figure XX). The probability and magnitude of a spill from all sources of vessel traffic remain uncertain. The U.S. Coast Guard is currently working with the Fish and Wildlife Service on a section 7 consultation regarding possible impacts on endangered species, specifically the Southern Sea otter, from rerouting vessel traffic off the coast of California. once this information in availabl*j NOAA will work with the U.S. Coast Guard an well an other Federal# State and local agencies 111-57 380 1230- 1210 @oint 38* Reyes LEGEND 30 Day Amobability of Conftct F %% Point Bonita N vWth the Sea Otter Range S;Z7a %% I Point Oakland 'IfIth .045-01 Region (S:\Fandsco -01-.05 Region .05, 10 Region >. 10 Region Point San Pedro Sea Otter Range Pillar Point San Gregono Pescadero Creek Pescadem Point PqWn Point Pt Mlo Nuevo Mier Davenpoirt Creek 3 0 Santa 7 . ........... WU.L 0 37 aloft in PWWM Nam NW EfMan Sough Moss Landirg smlinasffiver Mon" Carmel AREA Point ENLARGED Lobos Came! MW UtI1105W)WIr Pointsur 'V XMI Egoom* Lopez Paim 36 36 Cape Son Martin saw= CIS* M Cfs* CMT&W ,@F PO- It 8:'n4ft@- S Lobos @La" SENLAR, VO 1230 122" 1210 Rgum A 3D Day Probability of an Of Spill Contact wlth ft Sea Otter Range - Seasonal Average Mourm Seasonal and annual Vajectory ana"s of strwisted ofl outflow from vesel routes to ensure that all the resources and qualities of the proposed Sanctuary are accounted for in the investigation and that future *plans such as those for rerouting of vessel traffic off the coast of California and other preventative measures, take into account the purposes of the Sanctuary. In addition, NOAA will maintain close communication with the U.S. Coast Guard to evaluate the need for any necessary mitigative measures such as new or improved emergency response plans and equipment or additional studies and plans such as monitoring studies. Action deemed appropriate will be submitted to the international maritime organization for their approval and adoption into international law to ensure that foreign vessels are included within the scope of the regulation. For example, under MARPOL, "Special Areas" are designated with additional protection (in comparison with other open seas) with respect to operational discharges of oil (MARPOL, Annex ), noxious liquid substances (MARr)L, Annex II) and garbage (MARPOL, Annex V). In summary, discharge --quirements in Special Areas designated via the IMO are considerable stricter than discharge requirements in other open sea areas. Also, the IMO can designate "Particularly Sensitive Areas", that meet specific ecological, social, cultural, economic, scientific and educational criteria. In some circumstances, a proposed Particularly Sensitive Area may include a buffer zone and a core area for which particular protection from shipping is sought. In addition to the protection afforded by relevant MARPOL 111-58 Annexes described above for "Special Areas", a Particularly Sensitive Area can include; (1) Areas to be Avoided (which closes an area for ships or certain classes of ships); (2) Routing measures (such as separation zones, precautionary areas, etc.,) and; (3) Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) such as reporting systems, navigation assistance and controlling of traffic. C. ImRact to Uses The term "Commercial Vessel" includes any vessel engaged in the trade of carrying cargo, including but not limited to tankers and other bulk carriers and barges. The scope of this regulation also includes "Non-Commercial Vessels" such as, but not limited tat vessels used in seismic surveys, recreational and commercial fishing boator kelp cutters, research vessels, recreational vessels, including but not limited to speed boats and vessels engaged in the trade of servicing offshore installations. At present only a few, large commercial vessels visit Monterey Bay ports, mainly to dock at Moss Landing. Almost all of the commercial 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. in addition, recent Federal and State legislation (Federal Oil Pollution Act (OPA) and California State Oil Spill Prevention, Abatement, and Removal Act (SD 2040) have focused directly on improving the status quo with regards to environmental protection from commercial vessel traffic (see Appendix C). For example, OPA 111-59 establishes specific provisions for oil pollution liability, penalties and compensation as well as procedures regarding prevention of oil spills and removal of oil in case of an accident. Double bulls are required for most tankers in a phased approach over time as well as regulations regarding vessel communication equipment. In addition, Californials OB 2040 emphasizes preventative measures as well as now response procedures including: expanded oil tanker inspection and safety programst tugboat escorts in hazardous waters and comprehensive oil spill prevention plans for all tankers and terminals. BB 2040 creates a new state oil spill response units mandatory insurance requirements for tankers and an Emergency rund for Clean Up. Non-commercial vessel traffic in usually for specific purposes within the Konterey Bay areas such as research surveys in specific areas or fishing over specific fishing grounds. such activities are regulated based on the special activity conducted rather than the transiting of the vessel through the area. Future regulations and/or actions that could impact vessel traffic may include but are not limited to one or a combination of the following: (1) designation of Areas to be Avoided (i.e. coast- wise vessel traffic be routed outside the boundaries of the sanctuary); (2) designation of Areas of Special Biological significance (ASBS) (i.e..vessels are liable for high financial penalties under international law if they cause injury to resources or qualities in an ASBS); (3) designation of vessel traffic lanes, separation schemes or fairways (i.e. all "large" vessels inbound to 111-60 and outbound from Monterey Bay be restricted to port access route(s)); (4) the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary be designated a "Tanker Exclusions Zone",, (in accordance with OPA, Section 4111(b)(7)); (5) oil barge traffic be prohibited within the Sanctuary; (6) special technical designs be required (i.e. require double hulls, for petroleum and other hazardous substance transport vessels in the Sanctuary); (7) special planning procedures be implemented (i.e. emergency response plans be prepared or acquisition and installation of additional emergency response equipment be initiated); and (3) operational requirements (i.e. minimum number of staff on bridge and vatche6 when entering a port in the Sanctuary). 2. Sanctuary Alternative a. Sanctuary Action Under this alternative, a regulation would be promulgated with designation prohibiting or otherwise regulating operation of vessel traf f ic. Regulation of this activity is included in the Scope of Regulations but the preferred alternative is not to regulate with designation. The preferred alternative, to give NOAA the authority to regulate vessel traffic in the future but to rely on the status quo with designation, will give NOAA the flexibility to work immediately with the U.S. Coast Guard on appropriate courses of action to protect the resources and qualities of Monterey Bay. b. Im2act to Resources Nearshore coastal resources, within three miles of the coast, 111-61 could be protected by creating zones around specially environmentally sensitive areas such as ASBS's, rookeries, colonies, hau lout areas, and estuaries and sloughs. However, offshore resources, such as cetacean, fish and seabird populations, and foraging grounds may not be adequately protected from such coastal buffers. In addition, coastal resources would still be at risk from large spills within the Sanctuary, but outside any proposed zones, that drift onto the coast with onshore currents and winds. c. ImRact to Uses The primary user group affected would be vessel. owners and operators. NOAA's regulations would impact these user groups by potentially causing vessels to travel greater distances around the Sanctuaryl follow specific operation procedures not usually executed and potentially require special equipment installation. Regulation under this alternative would have to distinguish between impacts to commercial vessels versus other types of vessels in the Xonterey Bay area such as recreational (speed boats, yachts)# fishing (recreational and commerciall including kelp cutters), and research (including geophysical surveys),, based on the threats of the vessel type to the resources and qualities of the Xonterey Bay area. Recreational users of the area and commercial fisherman would potentially benefit from such regulations if the action were to reduce the likelihood of spills# groundings and accidents that may injure aesthetic qualities and natural resources of the Sanctuary. 111-62 However, such regulatory action would be taten unilaterally by NOAA without the advise and expertise of the U.S. Coast Guard and would not affect foreign vessel traffic transiting the area in international and territorial seas. For example, USCG current, and proposed regulations address construction standards for vessels as well as officer competency and bridge organization. Given the difficulty in regulating staffing and construction standards for vessels in discrete areas, the on-going USCG study of traffic lanes and proposed regulations, new State and Federal laws, 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. These problems are more effectively dealt with on a nationwide basis in cooperation with the international shipping regulatory regime. 111-63 J. Fishing 1. Status Ouo (Preferred) a. Existing Regulatory Framework California Fish and Game Code, Fishery Management Plans, Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 16 U.S.C. ��. 1801 et jgg- Responsible agencies include, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA), and Department of Fish and Game. b. Impact to Resources Fishing activities are allowed and there are no fishing regulations under � 944.5. As required by Section 304(a)(5) of Title III of the MPRSA, a Pacific Regional Fishery Management Council shall be provided with the opportunity to prepare draft regulations for fishing within the Sanctuary for amendments to include fishing regulations to �-944.5. The Secretary shall prepare fishing regulations in accordance with 15 C.F.R. � 922.31 which implements the requirements for drafting fishing regulations. Such a regulations is directed specifically at fishing activities and vessels. This does not include a regulation that is generally applicable to all types of vessels or activities, even if the general regulation affects fishing vessels and fishing activities. Such general regulations may, however, be drafted to exclude fishing activities and vessels should this be deemed appropriate. In its evaluation of this issue, NOAA considered whether, under the present regulatory structure, sufficient protection for 111-64 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 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 activities are extensive in the Monterey Bay area and the productive fish stocks support an economically very valuable fishery. To ensure continued healthy stocks and minimization of adverse environmental impacts, commercial fisheries are already heavily regulated. Fishing in Monterey Say 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. 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 111-65 approved by the Secretary of Commerce after review by the National marine Fisheries Service. In addition, the CDF&G enforces State regulations for fishing activities (See Appendix C). Recent State initiatives, relevant to certain parts of the Monterey Bay area, include prohibition on the use of drift and set gill nets targeted to specific areas for: (1) taking rockfish and lingcod in less than 40 fathoms (SB 2564); (2) gill and trammel in less than 30 fathoms, and with net size restrictions (AB 2563); (3) prohibitions on the use of gill and trammel nets in ocean waters less than 40 fathoms (SB 40) and 60 fathoms (SB 1462), 30 fathoms (SB 2563); (4) taking of rockfish and lingcod in gill nets in waters less than 100 fathoms or 75 fathoms (depending on area, SB 2122); (5) Proposition 132 (Marine Resources Protection Act) among other issues prohibits the use of gill and trammel nets to take rockfish off of California (whether this applies in Federal waters has yet to be determined by-the PCFMC); and (6) prohibits the use of drift gill nets to take shark and swordfish in waters less ian 12 nautical miles from the mainland shore. (AB 2915) (riqure XX). . in general fishing activity is extensively regulated to not only ensure continuous production of fish stocks for long-term harvest (Tablo XX) 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 6 111-66 1230 122* 1210 380 1 380 Point e- -*N k" LEGMD N SAO and 14V TOW Prohibition an ft use of gill and Point Bonita nd trarnmel net north of, and Inside Gdf ft Point Lobos (shoreward) of this line. San Francisco S.B. 2122 and AB. 2S64 Fara0anes Prohlbtdon on the take of mdrM and ling cod with gin and trarmel noemis Inside of tWs llrw.- S-12S63 Point San Pedro Prchlbitlon on dw take of ail spedes. with gill and trarrunel nets with nwWm larger 1:11an 3 1/2 1 nctm Inside of this .. ...... Piflair Point line. A.12. 2915 Prohltfton an tM Lne of drift gin rwb to take dwwk ancl wwxdfbh inside of San Gmgorio this INW. VWO,c@n Ibld* Rmwm Prowtion ACt of 1 Wo O= f oddid in gin W4 uanTw Pmm*vo Oeek nels In all StW and hd" vmm (O-2W miles ffon *Am) off of CaVam fffectin wrirnedig". Kawwtr. a tWWary iniunctloi Was granted in early April pnp. W(wo-ns aftmywrt m Fed" "Iters PK4 datoranalion by tt* Padfic FWw Son rw pjvw SOqw Pon Creek 370 Santa m Sato wen 37 0400 AWMM low ft*v &W absom SGUO Mcs Lanefin Salirm Rim AREA carld NOW ENLARGED LmbjwAtAr SrAwr POW Creek POW 360 360 ftck Son Matin OWnm San S" AR%, 1230 1220 121" Figum 34. RimritStM RaSVkWM on COMMOrdal n5hing- Table Catch re!;trictions for species of commercial fish in the Mont :ey Bay Area (References are to the Californ-a 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. Al 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).' Salmc 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 lst 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 (58375); albacore and skipjack may be taken at any tiue (J8376 and 8378); white sea bass, barracuda, and yellowtall not less than 28 inches in length may be taken by hook and line at any ti". Mackerel Catch limited until stock is enhanced (�8388.3) California Halibut May be taken at any time (�8391) (certain area restrictions apply - see text). Rockf4sh Numerous restrictions apply (see text for details). 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 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., 1999). The current regulations on this fishery prevent gill-netters from fishing within 30 fathoms and 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 to their fishing activities. The taking of sea otters was specifically excluded from the 5-year interim incidental take exemption for commercial fishing operations and no incidental takes are authorized. The amendments require the National Marine Fisheries service, with NOAA, to establish an exemption, observer, 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 NNFS 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 111-67 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 these amendments on July 1, 1989. Results so far for Category I boats, including all large mesh (611 or greater) halibut nets, indicate that, for the 24 sets observed in the Monterey Bay area (out of 622 total for all of California) from July, 1990 to end of December, 1990, 6 harbor seals, 15 california sea lions and 3 northern elephant seals, were killed (NMFS, pers. Comm. April, 1991). Data on seabird mortality from-this reporting system is collected by the CDF&G. 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 from 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. Finally, 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 111-68 Resources Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March 1990). There is almost no data regarding the effects of roller trawling, or the one to two boat trap-fishery, to resources near and on the bottom such as benthic organisms and habitats (Edward Melvin, pers. comm., March, 1990). However, preliminary estimates from the few boats that roller trawl and trap would indicate very minimal impact (pers. comm., Marine Resources Division, Monterey Bay area, CDF&G, March 1990). The California Department of Fish and Game. has management responsibility for the development of mari- and aquaculture under Section 1700(f) of the California 'Fish and Game.Code. The by-catch of Nereocystis leutkeana is restricted to 5% of the entire load. The reproductive part of the plant is located on the surface and harvest is limited. California Department of Fish and Game manages kelp harvesting and designates specific areas for use. Almost all of the harvesting takes place within a four to five mile area near Point Sur. Currently no studies exist regarding the effects of harvesting this species. C. Imipact to Uses 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, pernitp.or license issued therOUnderp q.g.f regulations promulgated under the California Fish and Game code and regulations implementing Fishery Management Plans promulgated under the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act* If U.S.C. 66 1801 111-69 et However, the status quo would also include four proposed Sanctuary regulations that could potentially indirectly affect fishing activities. Therefore to be consistent with the intent to not regulate normal fishing activities with designation, each regulation of concern specifically exempts normal fishing activities from the scope of these regulations to the extent consistent with existing other State and Federal regulations. The four regulations of concern are: (1) discharges and deposits. Under this regulation fishing vessels may be regulated except for specific discharges intended to exempt normal fishing activities; (2) moving, possessing, or injuring or attempting to move, possess, or injure a Sanctuary historical resource is prohibited, except for accidental moving, possession or injury during normal fishing operations; (3) 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 is prohibited except for normal fishing operations ie. traps and bottom trawls; and (4) taking of marine mammals and seabirds may be regulated except in accordance with and permitted by regulations promulgated under the Marine Mammal Protection Act .(MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Thus each regulation potentially affecting normal fishing activities is specifically designed to exempt fishing activities from the affect of the regulation. Kelp harvesting activities would also be unaffected by the 111-70 regulatory regime. NOAA will work with the CDF&G and kelp harvesting industries if new activities are proposed or increases in current levels to determine the impacts, if any, of the activity on the resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area. At the present time there are many existing regulations and restrictions on fishing activities in the Monterey Bay area that are designed to protect the long-term health of the fisheries as well as other resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area. Therefore NOAA does not believe it necessary to promulgate any "additional regulations with designation. 2. Sanctuary Alternative a. Sanctuary Action Fishing regulations are included in the scope of regulations. Consistent with the provisions of the MPRSA (Section 305(a)(5)) the Sanctuary shall first provide the Pacific Fisheries Regional management council (PFMC) with the opportunity to prepare draft regulations for fisheries within the Sanctuary should the need arise to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities from specific fishing activities. In the future the Sanctuary would work with the fishermen and the local management agencies as well as California Department of Fish and Game and the PFMC to determine any additional management measures that may be necessary to protect the resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area. Such actions would be submitted in draft for public review and comment on any specific measures taken to address threats from fishing to is Sanctuary resources and qualities. 111-71 The Sanctuary shall only prepare fishing regulations if: (1) the PFMC fails to make a determination with respect to the need for fishing regulations; (2) the Secretary of Commerce determines that the PFMC's draft regulations fail to fulfill the purposes of Title III of the MPRSA and goals and objectives of the proposed designation; and (3) the PFMC fails to prepare draft regulations in a timely manner. b. Impact to Resources Actions promulgated under this authority would be targeted at protecting specific resources, qualities and habitats shown to be injured by fishing activities. such injury could include but is not limited to destruction of benthic habitat from bottom trawling, incidental take of marine mammals and seabirds from gill-nets, and evidence of a reduction in fish stock size. c. Impact to Uses Under this alternative NOAA would work with the affected fishing entities to determine the level of impact to their activities. Actions would be taken to minimize negative consequences and burdens while at the same time addressing the threat to Sanctuary resources and qualities. 111-72 III. Section: Management Alternatives A. Introduction Three management alternatives were identified and considered in terms of (1) resource protection, research, and education requirements, and (2) cost-effectiveness. The Management Plan (Part V) includes a detailed discussion of the proposed Sanctuary management regime regarding resource protection, research, education and administration. B. Alternatives 1. Status Ouo Under this alternative protection and management of the proposed Sanctuary area would remain entirely under the existing regime of federal, state and local authorities, and existing research and eduction facilities and programs with no NOAA presence. 2. Sanctuary Management 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 at either Santa Cruz, Moss Landing or Monterey. 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 mana gerl administrative assistant, tesearch coordinator, education coordinator and a joint position of an interpreter/ enforcement 111-73 of f icial. The office would coordinate directly and actively with other 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. 3. Sanctuary Management Alternative 2 (Preferred) 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 Sanctuary Management 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. 111-74 (fo " RQJLANCE@s I 0 Environmental Conseauences Of Alternatives is I 0- IV-1 TABLE OF ENTS PAGE I. Section: Boundary.Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . A. IV-5 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 B. Boundary Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-5 C. Boundary Alternative 2 . . . IV-8 D. Boundary Alternative 3 . . . IV-14 E. Boundary Alternative 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-16 F. Boundary Alternative 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-18 G. Boundary Alternative 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-19 H. Boundary Alternative 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-22 II. Section: Regmlatorv Alternatives . . . . . . . . IV-25 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-25 B. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities . . . . . . . . . IV-27 1. Status Quo . . . . . * * ' * * * ' * - IV-27 a. Consequence of ImpaWt@ Resources . . . IV-27 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-30 2. Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred) . . . . . . . IV-31 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-31 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-33 C. Discharges or Deposits . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . IV-38 1. Status Quo . . . . . . IV-38 a. Consequence of ImpaWt@ Re;ou*rce; IV-38 (1) Discharges from Point Sources IV-38 (2) Discharges from Non-Point Sources (NPS) . . . . . IV-41 (3) Hazardous waste, Lli ;nd* tr;sh* disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-42 (4) Ocean dumping . . . . . . . . . . IV-43 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-44 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . . IV-45 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-45 b. consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-46 D. Historical Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-54 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-54 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-54 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-54 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . . IV-55 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-55 b. consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-56 E. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed . . . IV-58 1. Status Quo . . . . . * * * IV-58 a. consequence of [email protected]*r@es : . . IV-58 b. consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-60 2. sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . . IV-60 a. consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-60 b. consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-61 F. Taking marine Mammalso Turtles and seabirds . . . IV-64 1. Status Quo . . . . . . IV-64 a. Consequence of ImPaWt@ Re;ou'r@e; . . . IV-64 b. Consequence of Impact to .Uses . . . . . IV-66 IV-2 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . . IV-66 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-66 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-66 G. overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-68 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-68 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources IV-68 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses IV-69 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . . IV-69 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources .. . IV-69 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . rV-70 H. operation of "Personal Water Craft" . . . . . . . IV-72 1. Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-72 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources - . - IV-72 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-72 2. Sanctuary-Alternative (Preferred) . . . . . . IV-73 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-73 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-73 I. Vessel Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-74 1. Status Quo (Preferred) . . . . . . . . . . .. IV-74 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-74 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses IV-77 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-79 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-79 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses IV-80 J. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-81 1. Status Quo (Preferred) . . . . . . . . . . . IV-81 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources IV-81 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses IV-81 2. Sanctuary Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-82 a. Consequence of Impact to Resources . . . IV-82 b. Consequence of Impact to Uses . . . . . IV-83 III. Section: Management Alternative Conseggences . . . . IV-84 A. Consequences of Status Quo . . . . . . . . . . . IV-84 1. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . rV-84 2. Research and Education IV-86 B. Consequences of Sanctuary Alteruative I- IV-87 1. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-88 2. Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . �V-88 C. Consequences of Sanctuary Alternative 2 (I>referred) IV-88 6 IV-89- 1. Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-89 2. Research and Education . . . . . . . . . . . IV. Section: Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . IV-93 v. section: Relati .onship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement IV-95 of Long-term Productivity . . . . . . . . . IV-3 PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF ALTERNATIVES In selecting the appropriate, boundary, regulatory and management alternatives for the proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, NOAA evaluated the environmental consequences of their implementation. This section discusses the consequences of the status quo as well as Sanctuary alternatives including those resulting from the preferred alternative. The consequences of the proposed action are discussed in the context of the predicted impacts to the affected activities and existing jurisdictions, if any, for the affected activity and, the predicted impact to.the resources and qualities of the proposed Sanctuary. IV-4 I. Section: Boundary Alternatives A. Introduction The seven boundary alternatives analyzed 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. Tables XX and XX summarize in comparative form the percent of resources and uses encompassed by each boundary alternative relative to the entire study area (also boundary #S). The environmental consequences of each boundary alternativeare discussed in the context of the pkeferred 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. B. BoundaU Alternative I Boundary alternative #1 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 rathe r than the offshore marine environment. Active tectonic and sedimentary processes are incorporated within this boundary alternative, but does not represent all of IV-5 TABLE XX. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES (A) PERCENT RESOURCES ENCOMPASSED Fr:SOURCECATEGORY BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES % Distribution 1 1 3 4 5 6 7 UNIT Protected Areas All Sites ebrates Invert Conen Areas .......... ...... fl- -.... I...... , - -- ... .*. ". - ...I......... ... ................ . . ..... .. Rockfish 10 so 20 Soawnina Habitat Squid 40 40 50 40 SPawning Habiat Seabirds 20 40 20 n Areas .7 of IndMduals Fissipeds Pinnipeds 20 40 mom 40 20 High GorWn Areas Celaceans 20 . . . . . . . . . . so 30 High Conc'n Areas . ................ Canyon Habitat 10 40 ISq. nautical miles Kelp abitat so 50 so so Is-q-. nautical miles Wetland Habitat nautical miles 40 40 40 Historical am 40 1 40 IShipwrecks (B) PERCENT USES ENCOMPASED USE CATEGORY B"DARY ALTERNATIVES % Distribution 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNIT ................ Comm. Fishing Total Fish Vahm Military 0 10 Sqmni. Train'q Areas Vessel Traffic 30 0 40 40 4 Vessels/ Year allon ORWILAdl. Ocean Areas Recre '11 ........... ........ !@Uare Miles Urban Land Use WEEMEN bcs Oil 20 30 30- 20 20 IMIllion Barrels OCS Gas 20 30 30 0 20 81111on Cubic Feet Discharges (PS) 50 so so 50 OGY Winow in Ocean 9GY W\water Dis6har es NIPS Resh/Edn at Facmes Legend 90-100% 80% 70% 60% 0-50% 4 r e 'r i @dn Alternative I Alternative 2 LAlternative 3 Iternalfive 4 Afternative Altemative 6 Alternative 7 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 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 Carmel 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 IV-6 include the best areas for sighting cetaceans from shore (off Point Lobos, Afto Nuevo and Davenport) and includes the important cetacean and seabird feeding areas along the canyon edge. However this alternative does not provide sufficient habitat 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 Aho 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 f ishery and f isheries management issues. Of fshore f isheries, 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) would be well represented, except for any offshore whale watching trips. This alternative would preclude all State offshore oil and gas IV-7 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 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. C. Boundary Alternative 2 Proposed boundary alternative #2, 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, Aho Nuevo, the adjacent continental shelf, slope, and rise as well as certain highly productive shoreline and intertidal areas, such as Pescadero Marsh and Elkhorn Slough, and the deep ocean environments of the Ascension, Monterey Bay, Big Sur and Partington Canyon complexes IV-8 and a portion of the abyssal plain off Monterey. The coastline boundary is contiguous with 12 units, at the California State Park System and Beach System and Ecological 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 major research/education institutions in the region are encompassed within the boundary. The boundary includes Afto Nuevo, the most important rookery and resting area for pinniped species in central and northern California, including the largest breeding population of Stellar sea-lions south of Alaska, as well as many colonie@ of sea birds. The northern boundary would also encompass the official. northern range of the Southern sea otter,, extendinq to 'Pigeon Point. Pescadero Marsh and Creek are iinportant 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 San Francisco Bay and the Elkhorn Slough. Also, the northern boundary is designed to encompass valuable commercial fishing ground s 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 IV-9 sport and commercial salmon fishing within this boundary alternative early in the season. The oil and gas resourcesto the north of the preferred boundary alternative #2 would still be available for leasing. In all areas of the Central California Planning Area 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 IV-10 Subduction Zone. Within this boundary the very active tectonic (fault rupture, earthquakes, landslides) and sedimentary processes (turbidity flows, landslides, littoral drift) of the Monterey Bay region take place. Three major sedimentary cells (Aho 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 boundary is drawn to encompass a shallow sublittorial habitat 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. A recent benthic survey of the area discovered an IV-11 extraordinary, diverse and abundant benthic community on this rocky platform (Cordell Expeditions, 1990). 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 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. However the fishery has been greatly reduced due to a number of possible causes including overfishing in northern Monterey Bay (Dahlstrom and Wild, 1983), changes in ocean currents, increase in parasites that destroy the crab's eggs, and a decrease in water quality from adjacent land uses, leaving a small fishery in the Moss Landing area. To re-establish a fishery for the Santa Cruz region the larvae need to recruit to local waters IV-12 from north of Monterey Bay and produce an adult population that will approach self-maintaining. Wind-driven, coastal upwellinq 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 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. IV-13 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 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. D. Boundary Alternative 3 Boundary alternative #3 is a variation of alternative #2 with a southern extension. All of the resources, uses and management considerations described above for boundary #2 would be incorporated. This discussion only references those additional resources, uses and management considerations incorporated with a southern extension. 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 IV-14 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 additional concentrations of bird, fish and mammal habitat, and particularly offshore concentrations of marine mammals. Around Big Creek, Lopez Point an Grimes Point are unusually dense and diverse populations of encrusting invertebrates, including the hydrocoral, Allopora californica. 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 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. This boundary would also encompass two additional research centers, namely the U.C. Landels-Hill Big Creek Natural Reserve and the U.S. FWS Field Research Station at Point Piedras Blancas. Finally, this southern extension would provide more protection to the C ali*fornia sea otter by encompassing the entire range of the Official California Sea Otter Refuge. Although this third alternative would provide additional IV-15 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 preclude any future Lease Sales in this area. Finally the preferred alternative, Boundary Alternative #2, encompasses similar types of resources and habitats. that are included in this southern extension of boundary Alternative #2. E. Boundary Alternative 4 Boundary alternative #4 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. This alternative is a variation of alternative #2 with a northern extension. All of the resources? uses and management considerations described above for boundary #2 IV-16 would be incorporated. This discussion only references those additional resources, uses and management considerations incorporated with a northern extension. 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 northern extension encompasses additional fish, seabird and marine mammal habitat particularly offshore concentrations of seabirds. This alternative would also encompass the coastal resources of the San Mateo Coast including 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 as well as large numbers of historical and cultural sites particularly shipwrecks off of the Golden Gate. Although this fourth alternative would provide a jurisdictional. link betveen 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 and dredging activities. Additional areas within this northern area are also being considered for future disposal of dredge material IV-17 and potentially, highly productive oil and gas reserves would be encompassed. Extensive military activity occurs in this area especially during submarine training operations. Finally, this area is heavily impacted by both point source and non-point source pollution, primarily from the urbanized areas of northern coastal San Mateo County and San Francisco County. overall this northern extension is not included as part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary regime due to: (1) the lack of any additional, special concentrations of resources and qualities, (2) a minimal increase in the public benefit derived from the extension, (3) a potentially large negative impact to present and potential users of the area and, (4) the increase in size of the Sanctuary would decrease its manageability and increase costs required for adequate enforcement, surveillance, education and research. F. Boundaa Alternative 5 Boundary alternative #.5, the study area, includes all of the resources uses and management considerations discussed above for boundary*#2 as well as both the extensions south and north described for alternatives #3 and #4 respectively. This alternative represents a total combination of all the different public comments and resource information gathered during the scoping process, preparation of the DEIS/MP and public hearings. only a couple of commenters suggested that the alternatives include an even larger boundary extending from.the -0 IV-18 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 disadvantages associated with boundaries 3 and #4 would still apply including the: 1) adequacy of the existing management regimes (particularly to the south), 2) the few public benefits to be derived and potentially large negative impacts (particularly to the north), 3) the lack of additional resources and qualities needing protection and the unwieldiness of the extensions from a management perspective and 4) the cost from operational considerations. G. Boundary Alternative 6 Boundary alternative #6 is based on -excluding areas offered by no canceled 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 ex-Lease Sale area (Figure XX). This area has geological characteristics that may have resulted in the generation and accumulation of commercial volumes of hydrocarbons (Mullins and Nagel, 1982). Economically IV-19 recoverable hydrocarbon resources could possibly exist and, under 0 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). Numerou s 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 NOAA1s mandate under the MPRSA to identify special areas of the'mAr ine environment of special National significance due to their resource or human-use values and provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and Is IV-20 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 distinct and complex bathymetry, current patterns and ocean structure induce upwelling of 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 Aho 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 altered, IV-21 (c) The threat of oil spills (50% probability of 0.69 estimated mean number of spills of greater than 1000 barrels from activities directly associated with oil and gas activities in the central California OCS Planning area) and the discharges (estimated 302,000 barrels of muds and cuttings and 225 million barrels of formation waters), despite MMS controls, would certainly affect Sanctuary resources and qualities due to south flowing current and minimal amount of time for chemical and physical weathering processes. Due to the mandate of the MPRSA to protect Nationally significant natural resources and qualities from an ecosystem perspective and the reality of the threat to these resources in the Monterey Bay area, NOAA is proposing to eliminate concern for any adverse environmental impacts that may occur in the Sanctuary from oil and gas activities by prohibiting these activities within the proposed Sanctuary boundary (Alternative #2). H. Boundary Alternative 7 Boundary alternative #7 is also based on excluding areas offered by ex-Lease Sale 119 for development of hydrocarbon resources. Like boundary alternative #6 this scenario would exclude all of ex-Lease Sale 119 as well as additional areas adjacent to ex-Lease Sale 119 and all the area south of Monterey Canyon exclusive of state waters. This alternative makes the economically recoverable hydrocarbon resources that possibly exist in these areas potentially available for future development. IV-22 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 boundary alternative V. this boundary alternative would leave the Monterey Bay area vulnerable to oil spills, blowouts, noise and visual disturbances, and pollution from aquatic discharges. Specifically, there would be no buffer for Afto Nuevo or fishing grounds in the canyons to the north of Nonterey Bay, there would be no buffer for Point Sur or f ishing grounds in Partington Canyon to the south of Monterey Bay and signif icant 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 upwolling, @-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 substantially altered and the threat of oil spills and drilling discharges would be extended to exceptionally pristine ocean IV-23 environments south of Monterey canyon. 0 0 .0 IV-24 II. Section: Regulatory Alternatives A. Introduction This section analyses the environmental consequences of the nine activities included within the scope of the Sanctuary regulations. For each activity there is an analysis of the impact of a specific Sanctuary regulatory alternative compared with the status quo alternative, to natural resources and to human uses, including identification of the preferred Sanctuary action. Table XX, summarizes the overall environmental consequences of all regulations for each of the seven proposed Sanctuary .boundaries. This comparative analysis is based in part on: (1) a quantitative understanding of the resources and uses encompassed within each boundary (see Tables XX and XX) and; (2) a qualitative assessment of the predicted impact to the human uses and resources and qualities within each boundary from all Sanctuary regulations considered together (i.e. cumulative impact) as well as under the status quo. overall, the proposed regulations and designation are intended to: (1) improve resource protection by instituting new regulatory measures and by supplementing present surveillance and enforcement actions; (2) minimize negative impacts to human uses, particularly to those deemed consistent with the purposes of the Sanctuary and; (3) provide for a manageable area including such factors as its size, its ability to be defined as a discrete ecological unit, its accessibility, and its suitability for monitoring and enforcement activities. - IV-25 Table . ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES OF REGULATIONS BY SANCTUARY BOUNDARY @(A) Predicted Cumulative impact to Selected Resources Under Status Quo Resource Boundary Alternatives Category 1 2 3 1 4 5 6 7 UNIT Protected Areas 0 E:1 0 0 All sites Invertebrates F7 1:1 High Conc'n kans Rockfish I Spawninq Habitat Squid Spawning Habitat Seabirds El E:1 9] E@] Hiqh Conc' Areas Fissipeds [:1 0 1:1 # of Individuals Pinnipeds 1:1 [__1 Ej High Conc'n Areas Cataceans E:1 F-1 I E:1 71 1 1 High Conc'n Areas Canyon Habitat ISQ. Nautical Miles Kelp Habitat E] F7 E Sq. Nautical Miles Wetland Habitat E::] E__1 E E@i E@i E] SQ. Nautical Miles Historical 0 L 0 0 0 OL,01 0 # of Shipwrecks (B) Predicted Cumulative Impact to Selected Users Under Status Quo Boundary Alternatives Use Category 1 2 3 4 5 1 6 7 UNIT Comm. Fishing [::] El ffJ ff@J 7@ [::] Total Fish Value Military __ El F7 [:1 71 ID D - Sq. . Mi. Training Area Vessel Traffic 0 0 0 0 0 Vessels/Year Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 # Ocean Adjacent Areas Urban Land Use 0 0 0 (@@) 0 0 -Square Miles OCS Oil 0 G G) 0 0 0 0 Million Barrels OCS Gas 0 @9) 9@ 0 0 0 0 Billion Cubic Feet Discharge (PS) 0 0 BGY Wastewater to Ocean Dis&arge (NPS) 0 0 0 0 0 1BGY Wastewater Research/Educ'n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1# of Facilities -0 0 (9 LEGEND HC-111 MEDIUM LOW Minimal LOW MEDIUM HGH Negative REGULATORYIMPACT positive 5 Alternative 1 Alternafive 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternafive 6 Alternative 7 Table . Continued. A Predicted Cumulative Impact to Selected ResourcOS from Sanctuary Regulations RESOURCE - BOUNDARY ALTERNATIVES CATEGORY 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNrr Protected eas 0 All Sites 7_7 Invertabr tes @,_)_Hiqh Conen Areas Rockfish Spawning Habitat Squid Spawning Habitat Seabirds High Conc'n Areas Fissipeds 0 # of Individuals- Pinnipeds High Conc'n Ajeas Cataceans High Conc'n Areas Canyon Habitat f Sq. Nautical Miles Kelp Habitat Sq. Nautical Miles Wetland Habitat Sq. Nautical Miles Historical L of Shipwrecks (D) Predicted Cumuladve impact to Selected Users from Sanctuary Regulations Bound ry Alternatives Use Category 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UW Comm. Fishing 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 al Fish Value Military E] El 1:1 q. N. Mi. Trairting Area Vessel Traffic E@@ I = Ivessels/Year Recreation # Ocean Ad'acent Areas Urban Land Use Square Miles OCS Oil Million Barrels OCS Gas 1 1131111on Cubic Feet Wastewater to Ocean Discharges (PS) Discharges IMPS1 F-1 i 8GY Wastewater Research/Edu n f# of Facilities Abbreviations Conen - Concentration, Sq. Square, Sq.N.Ml. Square Nautical Miles, PS- Point Source, NPS Non-Point Source, EdLen Education, BGY Billion Gallons Year. Y Areasff tes a@ -Tat 'S It is important to note that as NOAA promulgates these regulations the Agency must work within the constraints of Title III of the MPRSA. Specifically, section 304(c) provides that NOAA cannot terminate valid leases, 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. IV-26 B. Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities 1. Status Quo a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources 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-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 ancr gas regulatory regime. However, it is still 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. Sanctuary uses, resources and qualities are at risk from the 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 IV-27 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. Table 13 summarizes the known threats to marine resources and qualities which result from offshore oil and gas activities. Estimates of the magnitudes of these threats (where possible) is given below. 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 IV-28 Table 10. 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/Catastro2hic Events ELcRloration seismic Noise, Sub-surface noise, Profiling "startle effect" Concussion Drilling Siltation, Turbidity increase Boat Traffic Sub-surface noise and propeller hits OReration offshore facilities Platforms Intrusion well head Leakage/seepage Blow-out Sup2ort Supply boats sub-surface noise and propeller hits Aircraft Noise in the air TransRort Pipelines Leakage Rupture Pumping buoys Leakage Barges/Tankers Bilge oil intrusion collision or grounding Clean-uR oil on water Intrusion skimmers Burn-off Pollution--air Chemicals Toxicity of Chemical Pollution--water Grounded oil Dispersants; Disturbance to Pollution--sediments Booms sensitive bird and Habitat destruct ion Straw namma2 populations on Chemicals beaches and haul-out Presence of crew areas and equipment estimated. In addition to oil spills 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). 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. 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). 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, 19S3) Bowever# more recent research (EPA, 1985) has shown significant benthic impacts from platform discharges up to two miles from drilling sites. 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. oil and gas platforms, rig, and related activities produce both a visual intrusion on the scenic qualities of the area's IV-29 seascape and disturbances due to construction activities and to the 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 Afto Nuevo, although the likelihood of this occurring has not been scientifically substantiated. b. Consecruence of ImRact to Uses Oil and gas industry development in the area would potentially increase with the production of oil and gas for the Nation's energy needs. The necessary infrastructure for such development would involve coastal development and urbanization to provide support facilities for the offshore platforms. Such an increase in use may also have the indirect affect of displacing traditional uses such as fishing over areas used by the platforms and sightseeing that would be interrupted by the aesthetic disturbance of the platforms. IV-30 2. Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred) a. 'Consecruence of Impact to Resources 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. Table 14 describes how NOAA's proposed Sanctuary provisions will help mitigate the impacts of offshore oil and gas activities. Although there are stipulations on oil and gas leases imposed by MMS in environmentally sensitive areas, and MMS regulations (30 CFR Part 250) address 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 is necessary to achieve formal acknowledgment, and more coordinated long-term stewardship, of the region's significant offshore resources. The proposed development of the OCS to the north of Monterey Bay poses concern due to thhe southward flowing current for much of the year, and the close juxtaposition of the breeding and resting habitat at Afto Nuevo. The predominantly northward flow in coastal areas south of Point Sur may also move the spilled oil into the Sanctuary from future exploration in the Santa Maria Basin. The proposed prohibition on oil, gas and mineral activities in the Sanctuary establishes this area as a buffer within the Sanctuary between possible oil spills occurring outside the 0 Sanctuary as a result of any future proposed lease sales in the IV-31 Table 11. 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 32 Units of State Park, Beach, Reserves and Refuges and the proposed Sanctuary itself. --Reduces potential air pollution. Central California Planning Area 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). The existence of a buffer zone within the Sanctuary 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 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'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. 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 sublethaleffects from low-level exposure to these wastes discharged. While discharges outside the boundary may reach the proposed Sanctuary, their impacts will be minimized by dispersion and dilution. Further, discharges or deposits from beyond the boundaries of the Sanctuary that subsequently enter the IV-32 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 under Discharges). Prohibition of hydrocarbon activities will enhance the offshore area's aesthetic wilderness qualities as well as those of the adjacent mainland coastal region due to the benefit of reducing discharge of pollutants to the atmosphere. 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. The prohibition of oil and gas activities within the Sanctuary pursuant to future leases would reduce the potenti ally 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. b. consequence of Impact to Uses NOAA's proposed prohibition of future oil and gas exploration IV-33 and development within the Sanctuary boundaries would lessen the noise and human activity in coastal and offshore waters. It would also decrease the need for additional supply boats to enter the nearshore waters and overflights of helicopters that incidentally approach nesting or resting marine mammals or marine birds. 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 resourcest 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 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 acou stical 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. This regulation will however, eliminate any use of the area by IV-34 the oil and gas industry. 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 and 930 billion cubic feet of gas (Cooke and Dellagiarino, in press). 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. It is estimated (Personal Communication, MMS, July, 1991) that the portion of the Central California Planning Area included in the preferred Sanctuary boundary has a conditional "resource potential of 110 million barrels of oil and 150 billion cubic feet of gas with an estimated net economic value of 280 to 370 million dollars, as of 1989. 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 IV-35 mitigation costs. Oil development costs and expected returns per, investment are considered confidential information by the oil 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. 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 f ields 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 in the Central California Planning Area and other factors which may make recovery more or less economically feasible, such as increases IV-36 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 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, oil and gas resources to the north of the proposed Sanctuary, that are part of future Lease Sales within the Central California Planning Area, would still be available. IV-37 C. Discharges or Deposits 1. Status Ouo a. Conseguence of Impact to Resources The consequences of the status quo impacts to resources and qualities results in a combination of the discharges and deposits that form the background or ambient water quality in the Monterey Bay area. The overall result oe the status quo is that with increasing human uses in the ocean and adjacent watersheds discharges and deposits into the proposed Sanctuary can be predicted to increase thus further threatening the resources and qualities of the area, particularly in the coastal zone, and human uses such as fishing and recreation that depend upon high water quality. (1) Dischagges from Point Sources The CWA furnishes some protection to marine resources from the harmful effects of effluent discharges, however, it 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. Several Bay communities now discharge waste (partially treated) directly into ocean waters, portions of which are designated as State Areas of special Biological Significance IV-38 (ASBS). The City of Watsonville has received for a waiver of secondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act (Section 301(h)). 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 sufficient to render ocean dischatges environmentally safe.. For example, a number of discrete areas along the coast of the Bay area are known to have high levels of specific contamirtants,. Local land point-source (eg. municipal and industrial dischargers) and non- point source discharges (eg. urban runoff and agricultural practices, much of which is upstream within the watersheds draining into Monterey Bay) 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 IV-39 also the exact nature of the environmental consequences of the discharges and any potential health threats to humans and the environment. One of the ecological consequences of desalination operations is that marine organisms with broad salinity tolerances are expected to predominate in the immediate vicinity of the discharge plume. In addition, certain trace elements, depending on the pH and oceanographic conditions will concentrate in the surface layer above the plume and prove to be toxic to plankton, fish eggs and larvae. There is also the possibility that concentrations of these chemicals could be wind or current driven into the intertidal zone, causing problems for other organisms. The intake of water from the ocean for desalination plants will result in impingement and entrainment of marine species. The intake and discharge may also affect marine resources by altering shoreline currents and increasing turbidity, causing sedimentation and consequent smothering of biota, or lowering light levels with consequent impacts to kelp. The high salt concentrations of the discharge and its fluctuations may kill organisms near the outfall that can not tolerate high salinity or fluctuations beyond its range. Discharges would be more dense than seawater and could sink to the bottom causing adverse impacts to benthic communities. Mixing the brine discharge with sewage discharge may cause the sewage contaminants to aggregate in particles of different sizes that they would otherwise. Smaller particles would interfere with IV-40 light penetration and reduce primary productivity and larger particles could be attractive to marine organisms and bioaccumulate through the food chain. It can also be assumed that increasing population demands on the Monterey Bay coast will further degrade water quality in the future. The continued decline in wetland and slough habitat, beach closures for recreational users, decline in fish catches and the closure of shellfishing beds all indicate impacts to resources and qualities of the ocean environment indicative of a decline in water quality from many different sources. There is no single agency that reviews the discharges from an ecosystem or habitat perspective. (2) Discharges from Non-Point Sources (NPS) Actual field and laboratory analyses done by the State on water quality monitoring, reports for the Monterey Bay drainage area, "values in mollusk tissues for pesticides and other toxicant --- suggest that the continuing release from soil to runoff of various insecticides and other aqricultural by-,:products remains a potential threat to the aquatic and marine habitats of the Monterey Bay area". (Cal. State Mussel Watch data from 86-87, Water @uality Monitoring Report No. 88-3, Division of Water Quality/SWRCB, July 1988.) 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 California Air Resources Board monitors ambient air quality as well as EPA and the Department of IV-41 the Interior for Federal OCS activities. (3) Hazardous waste, oil and trash disposal There is 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. 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). 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. 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- biodegradable plastic or metal objects and thus protect marine animals and seabirds- in -the Sanctuary f rom ingesting these wastes while foraging, or becoming entangled in them, possibly leading to illness or death. In addition, the international agreement (Annex IV-42 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). An opportunity exists to help attain the goals of the APPS through the Sanctuary regulations prohibiting discharges and deposits. 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. Discharges resulting from military activities in the area, such as smoke markers, sonubuoys and ordnance,are slight and do not appear to pose a threat to the resources and qualities of the proposed Sanctuary. In addition, DOD vessels are directed to be equipped with oil-water separators and that the water effluent from these devices be limited to 20 parts per million (PPM) oil within 12 nxi from land or 100 PPM beyond 12 nmi from land. The oil portion is retained on board, for shore disposal. (4) ocean dumRing 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, the requIations urwder Title I of the MPRSA prohibit ocean disposal of dredged material which proves to be toxic to the organisms of the disposal site. 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 IV-43 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 significantly harm the benthic community in the area (COE, 1975). However, in the case of Monterey Canyon the continuous natural disturbance at the Canyon head (the location of the existing disposal sites in the proposed Sanctuary) 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. b. Conseqpence of impact to Uses Most regulatory decisions pertaining to dischargers are made on a case-by-case basis with the primary intent of facilitating the use rather than protecting the environment. Use of the Monterey Bay area for discharges is considered as an alternative without any special consideration of the area's nationally significant resources and qualities. Human uses that cause such discharge are not discouraged or caused to decrease. Therefore, from the perspective of the Sanctuary certain gaps remain in the regulatory framework, For example, 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 IV-44 consideration; nevertheless, such regulations do not guarantee that EPA will prohibit the disposal of waste in the area based on threats to Sanctuary resources and qualities. Desalination activities may not only provide freshwater but with associated impacts to marine resources the activities may also impact commercial or recreational fishing activities, intertidal nature viewing, and public access and recreation. New desalination plants could also lead directly to new development projects, and a resulting increase in population migration to coastal areas. Desalination projects that occur on a case-by-case basis development could occur in the proximity of each plant which may interfere with regional consideration of cumulative impacts to the coast and adjacent ocean environments. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources The proposed regulations prohibiting discharge or deposit of materials or other substances without WOA& approval complements the existing regulatory system, vmId enhance the area's overall recreational and aesthetic appeal, maintain the present good water quality in the Sanctuary, and help protect Sanctuary resources@ By maintaining high water quality in the Monterey Bay area and regulating discharge activities from an ecosystem-wide perspective the impact of this regulation is predicted to protect the resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary above that of the status quo. IV-45 As the Sanctuary will not be terminating any existing uses that discharge into the Sanctuary it is only possible to predict that the Sanctuary will have a positive impact by restricting and potentially prohibiting future uses that threaten the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. For example, it is possi ble to state that the prohibition on oil and gas activities resulted in an elimination of an estimated 302,000 barrels of muds and cuttings and 225 million barrels of formation waters that would have been discharged during the lifetime of potential OCS development off central California. Without specific information on magnitudes, qualities and frequencies of future disposal activities and an estimate of the corresponding threats to the environment no accurate analysis can be determined on the exact beneficial consequences of this Sanctuary regulation to the resources and uses of the Monterey Bay area. b. Consecruence of Imi@act to Uses The impact of this regulation is expected to be beneficial to the users of the Monterey Bay area. 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 and will not only protect the areas resources and qualities but uses such as aquaculture, research institutions, aquariums, fishing and recreation and tourism that depend upon high water quality and uncontaminated background seawater supplies. Another positive effect of the regulations will be that by IV-46 working within the existing regulatory process NOAA can provide and coordinate data from existing studies that can be used to make better informed management decisions by all agencies including the Sanctuary. For example, DDT and its degradation products have been 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 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. Finally, users of the.monterey Bay area for :&ischarges and deposits will not be prohibited from conducting their activities with designation. 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. IV-47 NOAA will also review applications for non-preexisting permits and other authorizations (and applicants must provide timely notice 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 to ensure Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. 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. 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. 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. Procedures to ensure efficient administration of NOAA certification and other approval processes are laid out in theproposed Sanctuary regulations and the details are being refined in cons ultation with other agencies through an MOA. @ In general, NOAA intends to work with existing authorities to IV-48 formalize the consultative and management role of the Sanctuary and increase Federal, State and local cooperative efforts to achieve the agencies mutual goals. For example, the requirement of NOAA cer-tification 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. 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 S,anctuary.regulations. The Director would then impose on the exercise of the KPDES 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 and qualities such as finfish and shellfish populations to municipal discharge effluents. Such discharges would remain subject to all IV-49 prohibitions, restrictions and conditions imposed by any other authority of competent jurisdiction. The requirement of secondary discharge is only expected to have a minimal impact as only the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville are currently discharging at primary levels. The City of Santa Cruz has already been required to up grade to secondary treatment by 1992. The City of Watsonville has only just received a 301H permit, thus it will have five years to install the necessary equipment to upgrade to secondary before its permit will need to be renewed. 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 tertiary treatment as appropriate or necessary depending on the threat to Sanctuary resources and qualities, for point source pollution, such as municipal sewage discharge. 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 Waste Discharge Requirement (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 IV-so 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. Use of designated ocean disposal sites, SF-12 and SF-14, under existing 404 permits would continue but would have to be modified upon Sanctuary designation to take into account the more stringent evaluation requirements under section 404 which classifies Sanctuary areas as "special aquatic sites" rather that a "waters of the U.S." classification as currently used under the MPRSA. NOAA, in cooperation with Moss Landing Harbor District the Central Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA will review and monitor these activities and recommend modifications to existing permits if there is evidence that such activities injure or threaten Sanctuary resources and qualities. 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. 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 S anta Cruz may be legally dumped at any ocean disposal site in the area under Title 1. The Sanctuary requirement of certification will assure review 'for-possible impacts without imposing %@ndue burdens. Any proposed dumping of dredge spoils will be reviewed for the IV-51 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. 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. In addition, the COE and EPA are investigating a new ocean disposal site off of the Golden Gate and NOAA recomme.nds pursuing only those study sites either beyond 12 nmi from the western boundaries of the MBNMS and GFNMS Sanctuaries or,within 12 nautical miles only if data can show that there are no detectable concentrations above norm al ambient values, of any waste within 12 nautical miles of either national marine sanctuary. IV-52 NOAA will specifically work with EPA regarding the designation of new sites under Title I, Section 102 of the MPRSA (near] to the sanctuary and specifically the issuance of section 404 permits between the two GFNMS and MBNMS Sanctuaries to avoid possible negative impacts to either GFNMS or MBNMS. Consultation with EPA regarding the designation of any new ocean disposal site (near] to the Sanctuary will undertake to determine if there "is identifiable progressive movement or accumulation, in detectable concentrations above normal ambient values, of any waste within 12 nautical miles of any shoreline [or] marine sanctuary designated under Title III of the MPRSA,11 (40 CFR 228.10(c)(1)(i)). If the effects of the activities at the disposal site are determined to be categorized in Impact Category I then the required Impact Analysis, generated by EPA, maybe used by EPA and NOAA as a basis for modifying the disposal site's use, including withdrawal of its designation. The effects of the discharges from desalination will depend on the particular constituents of the discharges and the conditions of the ocean area where the discharges will occur. Impacts to marine resources need to be studied both in the field and laboratory. Particular studies would he focused at the location of the outfall including dilution studies, inventory of organisms in the area. and pre- and post-operational monitoring. Finally, the Sanctuary would investigate all of the proposed desalination activities on a cumulative basis with regards to their combined impact on the 'entire Sanctuary ecosystem. IV-53 D. Historical Resources 1. Status Quo a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources Many cultural and historical resources are known to exist in the area but few have been specifically examined and protected, particularly verification of sites and significance of shipwrecks. 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. To date, surveys of the study area's submerged lands for historic resources have been limited. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), 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. b. Consequence of ImRact to Uses current activities will continue under the status quo without any special protection to historical to sites beyond state waters and to the ecological impacts of taking historical resources throughout the Sanctuary. There would be no special requirements for private sector users such as treasure salvors and recreational divers or public sector agencies such as the Navy, to consider the IV-54 historic and ecological consequences of their impact from a Sanctuary perspective. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferredl a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources This regulation is aimed at protecting historical resources (as defined in the program regulations, this term includes cultural, archeological and paleontological resources) from damage and/or removal. 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. NOAA will thus be able to ensure that all parties affecting historical resource s within the Sanctuary conduct their activities in a systematic fashion according-to recognized archeological procedures, that the activity is conducted consistent with the NHPA and finally that the proposed user consult with the California State Historic Preservation Officer. As part of the Sanctuary mariageltent regime NO&A intends to research the number and type of historical resources within the boundaries of the Sanctuary. This 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, IV-55 cultures, and human activities and events. Thus any inundated 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. 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. b. Consequence of ImRact to Uses The proposed regulation should not significantly affect existing activities within the Sanctuary.. However, new coastal de velopment activities such as desalination and discharge outfall construction will need to consider the proximity of historic resources to their propos ed activity to avoid potential injury to these valuable resources. Users such as Navy salvage operations, IV-56 recreational divers and treasure salvors will have to receive a Sanctuary permit if their proposed activity would violate the Sanctuary regulation. NOAA can also impose penalties of up to $50,000/day for infractions of this regulation to enforce NOAA's responsibility for the proper management of historic artifacts. This prohibition does not apply to accidental moving, possession or injury during normal fishing operations. IV-57 E. Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed 1. Status Ouo a.- Conseauence of Impact to Resources Loss of resources, habitats and degradation of water quality will continue with the predicted increase in activities that involve alteration and construction of the seabed. Sand mining in the area is causing loss of benthic habitat and erosion of the seabed (Evaluation of.Request for Renewal of Permits for the Monterey Sand Company by Kendell and Bitterman, 1988). 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). Erosion of the beach has oc curred in the vicinity of this mining IV-58 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 adequate 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 Riveris 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. The limited dredging and disposal activities at current frequencies, magnitudes and quality in the proposed Sanctuary area do not appear to pose a significant threat to -the resources of the area. Disposal of clean sand dredge material on beaches assists- with beach replenishment projects. Disposal at the head of the Monterey canyon does not appear to significantly injure benthic invertebrate populations due to the resilience of these communities to natural seabed disturbances (see analysis for dredge disposal consequences of impacts under status quo for discharges and IV-59 deposits). However, new disposal at sites other than the head of the canyon is likely to cause an increase in turbidity and destruction of benthic communities. b. Consequence of Impact to Uses 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. once again the regulatory regimes responsible for these uses may not take into account the ecosystem perspective or sensitivity of area resources and qualities. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferredl a. Consequence of Impact to Resources over the short and long term, human intrusion upon marine IV-60 wildlife, along with potentially adverse impacts on their food supplies, e.g., benthic and pelagic fish resources, will be minimized by regulating activities that alter the seabed and Sanctuary habitats. Dredge and dredge disposal activities are not extensive within the preferred alternative's proposed Sanctuary boundaries (see Part II, Section 2); nevertheless, unrestricted alteration of, construction 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. b. Conseggence of Impact to-Uses overall there is expected to be a positive i3apact to the users of the Monterey Bay area. No activities are proposed to be terminated with designation and only new sand mining and ocean dredge disposal will be prohibited with Sanctuary designation.- However, there are no new proposed designations for disposal sites, and dredge disposal within the proposed Sanctuary area. Sand mining can continue-until expiration of current permits. After expiration of existing permits sand mining activities will still be allowed pursuant to other state and federal regulations in areas IV-61 above mean high tide. Thus no severe economic impacts upon commercial firms are expected. Harbors are excluded from the boundaries of the Sanctuary and these special areas and uses would continue to be managed by the status quo and not be impacted by the Sanctuary. Beyond the harbor exclusion zones, dredging at current rates and magnitudes would be allowed for navigational projects, such as dredging of navigation channels and installation of navigation aids. The regulation of projects for docks and piers in the nearshore area will remain the responsibility of the existing regulatory authorities. The regulation prohibits persons from placing objects on the seabed, such as but not limited to artificial reefs, new mariculture operations, pipelines and outfalls unless relevant permits are reviewed and approved by NOAA. 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 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 activities exempted from this regulation wi 11 be monitored by the Sanctuary manager, based on information supplied by the EPA, IV-62 COE, the State Lands Commission 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. IV-63 F. Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles and Seabirds 1. Status Ouo a. Consequence of Impact to Resources 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, turtles 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. Howeverl the potential threats to marine mammals and endangered species range from direct injuries to a specific animal or-population to indirect or cumulative degradation of their habitats. Neither the MMPA nor the ESA fully prevent such degradation of habitats. Section 7(a) of the ESA IV-64 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 agencies, 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 GFNKS 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. Howeverf Title III of the MPRSA has never been implemented in the Monterey Bay area. Also, while the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and IV-65 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 and seriously threaten resources, the lack of suitable management authority to intervene could allow undesirable environmental impacts to the seabirds, marine mammals and turtles of the area. b. Consecruence of Impact to Uses Currently the status quo strictly enforces the taking of .marine mammals and seabirds under relevant legislation. Fishing activities that potentially take marine mammals and seabirds are required to have observers on board to monitor the extent of the mortality. Researchers studying marine mammals are required under the MMPA to obtain a permit for their activities. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred) a. Conseauence of ImRact to Resources The proposed regulation would overlap the MMPA, MBTA 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 and turtles in the Sanctuary and seabirds in or above the Sanctuary. b. Conseguence of Impact to Uses NoAA enforcement officials would be able to consider taking IV-66 cases in the Sanctuary along the same lines that they now consi der them under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 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 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 as well as National and local fishery organization (e.g., the PCFFA) 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 an dead seab irds 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. IV-67 G. overflights 1. Status Ouo a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources There have been reports of low-flying aircraft (below 10001 AGL) in areas of Monterey Bay which have startled bird populations and caused stampedes of marine mammals. There are a number of small, private airfields in the Monterey Bay area and often small planes can be observed flying along the coastline. Low helicopter overflights have also bee'n known to cause the drowning of sea otter pups as parents desert the young when disturbed by the noise and downdraft of the helicopter's roter blades. Low aircraft overflights (below 1000 feet) have been observed regularly to disturb bird and mammal communities in the neighboring Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. 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 of these particular areas from visual and acoustical disturbances from aircraft but are limited in their offshore extent. In addi tion, although the Federal Aviation Administration charts and NOWS 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 Aho Nuevo and Point Lobos state Reserves and the California Sea otter Game Refuge other sensitive areas to the north of the Refuge at Carmel Bay are not IV-68 protected. Persistent low altitude overflights can severely disrupt various marine mammal and seabird behavior patterns, particularly those of breeding and nesting. b. Conseguence of Imnact to Uses Currently only a few commercial charter airplanes are providing opportunities to view marine mammals and seabirds from the air but these uses can be expected to increase. A seaplane operation based out of Santa Cruz provides a service for visitors who wish to observe Monterey Bay from the air. Small private planes often fly low along the coast to view the coastal environment and this use can also be expected to increase with the growing population in the area. Any potential OCS leasing would involve an increase in air traffic from helicopter overflights servicing offshore platforms from coastal support facilities.. 2. Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)- a. Consecuence of Impact to Resources This prohibition is intended to protect marine birds and mammals from the disturbance and harassment of low-flying aircraft. For example, seabirds congregated near the shoreline., pinniped haul-out areas, and sea otters among the kelp beds are all primarily concentratdd'within these three zones. in particular, adjacent water areas where marine animals forage would receive additional protection from potentially IV-69 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 areas where marine wildlife harassment is likely. 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. Marine mammals and birds are highly susceptible to disturbance from low-flying aircraft. 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. b. Consecruence of Impact to Uses 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 if beyond three miles of mean high water. over the prohibited zones private planes will still be able to enjoy general scenic and whale observation opportunities, albeit from altitudes of 1000 feet (305 m) or above. NOAA has received no reports of low-level military overflights IV-70 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 provided for in Article 5 of the draft Designation Document. 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 .prohibited zones at these low altitudes, this regulation should pose no burden on commercial carriers. Helicopters servicing offshore oil and gas platforms vould be required to fly, over 10001 if passing over the prohibition zones. However, as oil and gas development is pro.hibited within the Sanctuary the consequences of this regulation to this type of overflight is expected to be minimal. Aircraft that need to fly below 1000 feet within these zones for research purposes would require a Sanctuary research permit. which would be processed expeditiously to ensure that while Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected there would only be a minimal administrative burden on the applicant. IV-71 H. Or)eration of "Personal Water Craftif 1. Status Ouo' a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources The high density of inshore flora and fauna and vulnerability of these resources to personal water craft warrants protection from this activity. Personal water craft are capable of travelling at speeds which allow insufficient time for some marine species to avoid the vessels. For example, in August, 1990, a jet skier reportedly ran over sea otters near the Coast Guard Pier in Monterey Harbor. officials found at least one injured otter immediately afterwards. The likelihood is great for such events to occur again in the future. These risks may also apply to harbor seals, sea lions, sea turtles, some fish species an marine birds. b. Consequence of Impact to Uses Personal water 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 r.-If the area, including recreational water-sports, warrants a long-term perspective on the management of uses of the proposed Sanctuary. In addition, there is growing awareness of conflicts with other user groups of the area that has recently resulted in the promulgation of specific regulations intended to minimize these conflicts. The State of Haw aii has already proposed regulations that would permit operation of personal water craft only in specified areas, in part to avoid injury to neighboring marine mammals. If IV-72 the use of personal water craft were to increase, and/or other uses or resources of the sanctuary were threatened by personal water craft, then the Sanctuary manager will investigate the issue in coordination with the affected parties and propose possible management and/or regulatory measures. 2. Sanctuag:y Alternative (Preferred) a. Consecruence of-ImRact to Resources This regulation is intended to reduce negative impacts of this activity on coastal populations of marine mammals and seabirds that are especially vulnerable to disturbance and injury from this activity. Zoning of this activity away from the-kelp beds and estuaries of the area will prevent conflicts with sea otters and fragile estuarine communities. b. Consecruence of Impact to Uses overall the impact of this regulation should be beneficial to users of the area. Many conflicts that currently .arise from interf erence between personal water craft operators and other recreationists will be avoided by moving the personal water craft beyond the areas of other recreational activities. Personal water craft operators will still be able to participate in this activity within areas close to areas traditionally used and near to coastal access points. IV-73 I. Vessel Traffic 1. Status Ouo (Preferred) a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources Most intentional discharges of oil from vessels (and some 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. Disturbance from vessels could result in flight or other changes in behavior. Repeated disturbances may cause mammals to temporarily or permanently abandon an area. Trash disposal can cause injury to marine resources from ingestion and entanglement. 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 C for details of these restrictions). However, the threat to coastal and marine resources and qualities from vessel traffic appears to be most severe from large oil tanker and barge spills. 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 environment. Recently there were three such tanker IV-74 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 tan ker 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 im 1,9844 thP- 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 IV-75 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 (GFUMS). 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, _;'ection 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 Nationa. 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 IV-76 AD California coast killing an estimated 9,817 seabirds within the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. b. Conseauence of Impact to Uses Given the expected increases in vessel traffic, and the potential for vessel accidents and oil spills and the risks of vessels entering nearshore waters and disturbing marine bird and mammal populations, threats to Sanctuary resources and qualities seems likely to increase. Although it is impossible to eliminate all probability of such accidents the U.S. Coast Guard is working on proposals to reduce vessel accidents off the shore of.California by creating Vessel Traffic Separation Schemes (TSS), an internationally recognized routing measure that separates vessels into opposing streams of traffic through the establishment of traffic lanes; and Shipping Safety Fairways (SSF) , where no fixed structures are permitted. Such schemes have to be approved by the International Maritime organization before they take effect. Once in place adherence to the traffic lanes by vessels is entirely voluntary. The U.S. Coast Guard was examining extending the existing San Francisco TSS an additional 28 nmi to the south-southeast along the coast to a point approximately due vest 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 syst em followed current traffic patterns along the coast. Pillar Point was the nearest area of the coast to the IV-77 amended shipping lanes (about 5 nmi). Point Sur was approximately 8 nmi away, while Aho 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. 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. Local vessel traffic will probably increase considerably with the development of the tracts to be leased in the Central California OCS due to servicing requirements and transportation of produced oil. Many of those vessels may be capable of navigating quite near to Aho Nuevo and other offshore areas. Environmental cons equences 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-. Generally speaking, few large vessels transiting the study area's customary lanes and adjacent ocean waters have occasion to IV-78 enter Monterey Bay. The only exception is oil tankers, originating primarily at San Francisco Bay refineries, which utilize- the Bay for nearshore oft-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 USCG I s 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. .2. Sanctupa@ Alternative a. Consecuence of ImRact to Resources Instead of promulgating a regulation that may not adequately protect Sanctuary resources and qualities NOAA prefers to immediately work with the U.S. Coast Guard to determine an effective action that will provide the greatest possibility ot preventing injury to Sanctuary resources and qualities. In the meantime, Sanctuary resources and qualities will continue to be at risk from this no action alternative with the potential consequences already described above under the Status IV-79 QUO. b. Conseauence of Impact to Uses Without detailed consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard it is difficult to calculate the impact to U.S. vessels affected by a Sanctuary regulation. Immediate NOAA action would effectively only apply to U.S. Flag vessels and would not affect foreign vessels as the action would not have gone through the IMO. However, immediate action, of any kind, would alleviate some of the public concern that the Sanctuary is vulnerable to vessel traffic impacts to natural resources. Potentially, such NOA.A action would also have a positive impact to other recreational and fishing user groups. IV-80 J. Fishing 1. Status Ouo (Preferred) a. Consecruence of Impact to Resources What little 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 now prohibited from fishing in nearshore areas with high concentrations of marine mammals and seabirds, thus helping-minimize any incidental taking of these species. b. Consequence of Impact to Uses Fisheries in general have benefitted from Sanctuary status at other Sanctuaries in the National Program due to the protection provided to the industry and fish stocks from the negative impacts of ocean dumping, offshore oil and gas development, seabed mining and water pollution. Fishing activities are also predicted to benefit from designation of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary. 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 prcmulqated 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 1t-- 29-9. 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 IV-81 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 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. Finally, as part of the Sanctuary research and management regime, NOAA will consider supporting periodic monitqring of the effects of trawling and gillnetting on the Sanctuary resources and qualities. NOAA will also consider the possibility of making funds available 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. 2. Sanctuary Alternative' a. Conse auence of Impact to Resources Sanctuary regulations at the time of designation would be intended to protect identified resources at risk from the threat of IV-82 fishing.activities. As such regulations would require extensive consultation with affected parties and agencies, no major threat has yet been identified, and recent state legislation appears to address many of the potential threats such as from gill nets and roller trawling, there does not appear to be any major benefit to the environment with promulgation of regulations affecting fishing activities with designation. b. Consegmence of Impact to Uses Sanctuary regulations would add another set of restrictions an the currently heavily regulated fishing industry. Many boats have already been required to move further offshore from.ecologically sensitive areas and additional area closures would add to this burden. Potential user groups that would benefit from fishing regulations would involve recreationists and nature watchers if the regulations result in more abundant and healthy fish, seabird and marine mammal populations. IV-83 III. Section: Manaaement Alternative Conseguences A. Consecruences of Status Ouo Presently, numerous Federal, State, and various other regional and local government agencies are vested with some regulatory authority over specific resources and human activities. 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 effective, the system under-emphasizes the national significance and preservation priorities warranted by this unique marine environment. Finally, the formal designation of a Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, requires providing a concerted management focus on coordination of existing regulatory arrangements to ensure long-term protection of the exceptional diversity of marine resources in the region. 1. 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 IV-84 Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. No boats patrol all ocean waters f rom 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 Mo 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. 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 und er CDF&G authority, CDP&R assumed on-site management responsibility. Pursuant to this mandate, CDP&R staff IV-85 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 Afto Nuevo and Point Lobos Reserves, but, due to personnel shortages, the CDP&R has assumed .primary management responsibility herd 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. 2. 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 IV-86 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 information 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 enthus-Lasts 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. B. Consequences of Sanctuary Alternative 1. 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 IV-87 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. 1. Enforcement Gradually NOAA, would provide an enhanced enforcement regime by providing additional boats, personnel and equipment for on the water and surveillance and enforcement. See the Management Plan for possible additional enforcement measures provided by the Sanctuary. 2., Research and Education Research and education programs should benefit from Sanctuary designation with the implementation of NOAA programs and assistance with coordination. See the Management Plan for possible areas where the Sanctuary could positively impact existing programs. C. Consecruences of Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred) 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 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 IV-88 increase the budget of the Sanctuary as all of these personnel will be required for effective management in the future. I. 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 ofFish 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. 2. Rgsearch and Education The impacts resulting from implementation of the research and education program 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 IV-89 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 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. Effort's 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 IV-90 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 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 areals resources. This would be a valuable tool in coordinating research efforts and IV-91 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 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). IV-92 IV. Section: 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 advekse 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, petmits, approvals, other authorizations or rights authorizing the conduct of a prohibited activity, and for notifying 140AA 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 st rict guidelines for reviewing applications in IV-93 as brief a time as possible. 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". IV-94 V. section: Relationship Between Short-term Uses of the Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement of Lons-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. IV-95 f6WA-6 - PLAA1 /I - 0 Manag Lgm-ent Plan - 9 I 0 V-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS RAGE I. S-ection Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-3 II. Section: Resource Protection . . . V-8 A. Introduction . . . . . . . V-8 B. Goals o o o V-9 C. Sanctuary Regulations . . . . V-10 1. Emergencies . . . . . . . . . . . . V-12 2. Defense or Law Enforcement Activities V-12 D. Contingency Plans . . . o . . . . . . . . . . V-14 1. Existing Capabilities . . . o . . . V-14 2. Sanctuary Action . . . . . . . . . V-17 E. Compatible Use of the Sanctuary . . . . . . . V-20 F. Surveillance and Enforcement . . . . . . . . V-21 1. Sanctuary Action and Coordination with Existing Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . V-21 2. Public Education and Information V-23 3. Planning and Coordination . . . . . V-24 III. Section: Research . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . o . . V-25 A. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. V-25 B. Goals . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . o . . . V-27 C. Framework for Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-28 1. Baseline Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-29 2. Monitoring . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . V-32 3. Predictive Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-35 D. Selection and Management of Research Projects . . V-37 1. Preparing an Annual Plan . . . . . . . . . . V-37 2. Monitoring Progress o . o - - o . . . . V-38 3. Information Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . V-38 IV. Section Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-39 A. Introduction . . . . . o o . . . . . . . V-39 B. Goals . . . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . V-39 C. Educational Opportunities . o . . . . . . . . . . V-40 D. Educational Programs . o . . . . . . o . . . V-42 1. Site visitor Programs . . . . . . o . . . . . V-42 2. Information Center Programs . . . . . o o - - V-43 3. outreach Programs . . . . . . . . o . . . . . V-46 V. section: Administration . . . . . . . o . o . . . V-48 A. Introduction . . . . o . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-48 1. sanctuaries and Reserves Division . . . o o - V-48, 2. Sanctuary Advisory Committee o . o . . . V-49 3. Federal Agencies . . o - - - ... o . . . . . V-50 4. state, regional and local agencies . . . . . V-51 B. Resource Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-53 C. Research . .. .. . . . . . . . . . o - - o - - * * o V-56 D. Education . . . . . . . . . o . . . . . . . * * * V-57 E. General Administration . . . o . . . . . . . . . . V-58 F. Staffing Levels . . . . . . o . . . . . . . . . * V-61 G. Headquarters and Visitor Center Facilities o . . . V-61 v-2 Part V: LUA ILT % - IMI'V V i. section Introduction The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, as amended, and its implementing regulations (15 CFR Part 922) require that a management plan be prepared for each proposed Sanctuary. Once the Sanctuary is designated, the plan will be implemented. The management plan focuses on Sanctuary goals and objectives, management responsibilities and guidelines for the resource protection, research, education and administration programs. The plan establishes an administrative framework in recognition of the need for cooperation and coordination to ensure effective management. The Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (SRD), 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. 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. V-3 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. 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. Sanctuary 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 to determine resources most in need of management would take place with California Departments of Fish and Game and Parks and Recreation, State Water Quality Resources Board, 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. A Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC) will be created by the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division to assist the Sanctuary Manager in policy making. The Committee will consist of appointed representatives of government agencies, research and education groups, and commercial and environmental interests. V-4 During the Public Comment period on the DEIS/Mpg NOAA received many requests from Government agencies, environmental organizations# municipalities, research and education groups and private industries as well as individual members of the public requesting participation in the SAC. One of the top priorities for the Sanctuary Manager will be to assist with the creation of the SAC according to the procedures and guidelines required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). All groups and individuals will have an opportunity to assist in the development of the SAC via the procedures specified in FACIL and its implementing regulations (see Appendix A). It is intended that the SAC will create subc-ommittees to assist in developing programs in research, education, resource protection and administration for the Sanctuary. Thus the SAC will play a key role in determining what the management priorities should be, and coordinating Sanctuary actions with those of other agencies. I 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 resourc .es, providing policy advice to other agencies working in the Proposed Sanctuary area, and making presentations to V-5 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. SRD 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 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 f ecting the existing protection priorities and balanced approach re 1 the multiple use character of the area. implementation of this plan will require cooperation and coordination among many federal, V-6 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 in"itiatives will generally fall into four basic programs: Resource Protection, Research, Education and Administration. The remainder of this section describes goals, guidelines and initiatives for each progran. V-7 II. Section: Resource Protection A. Introduction 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) statement of Sanctuary resource protection goals; (2) promulgation of Sanctuary regulations, including procedures for working with existing regulatory authorities in cases of overlapping jurisdiction; (3) contingency planning and emergency response; (4) encouraging -compatible use of the Sanctuary; and (5) surveillance and enforcement, including coordination of policies and procedures among the agencies sharing responsibility for resource protection and enforcement of Sanctuary regulations in addition to those already in place. V-8 B. Goals The highest priority management goal for the XBNKS is the protection of its marine environment, resources and qualities. Many of the activities that affect the KBNMS marine environment are presen tly governed by existing State and Federal regulations under the jurisdiction of many different agencies. when this occurs, a National Marine Sanctuary may serve the function of coordinatinq the activities of these management and regulatory agencies by specifically taking steps 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 (M.cr., monitoring and emergency-response programs); Develop an effective and coordinated program for the enforcement of Sanctuary regulations; Enforce Sanctuary regulations in addition to other regulations already in place; Promote public awareness of, and voluntary compliance with, Sanctuary regulations and objectives, through education and interpretive programs stressing resource sensitivity and vise 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 thd.appropriate management agency incorporates research results and scientific data into effective resource protection strategies; Reduce threats to Sanctuary resources. V-9 C. Sanctuarv Rgaglations A summary of the existing regulatory regime in the area of the proposed MBNMS and the proposed Sanctuary regulations are included in Part III of the EIS. The proposed Designation Document (Appendix B) 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 eight 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; marine mammals and seabirds; overflights and "personal water craft". Vessel traffic may be regulated in the future after SRD has consulted with the U.S. Coast Guard regarding threats to Sanctuary resources and qualities from vessel traffic and appropriate means of reducing those threats. Fishing is also included in the scope of regulations. The Pacific Fisheries Xanagement Council would have the first opportunity to draft any regulation affecting fishery activities. However, any of the prohibited activities other than: (1) exploring fore developing, or producing oil, gas or minerals in the Sanctuary, (2) discharge of primary treated savage after expiration of permits existing as of the date of designation, (3) sand-mining below mean-high water after expiration of permits existing of the V-10 date of designation, and (4) disposal of dredge material other than at existing sites at current frequencies, magnitudes and quality; could be conducted lawfully it: 1) Necessary for national defense or law enforcement; 2) necessary to respond to an emergency threatening life, property, or the environment; or 3) pursuant to: (a) a National Marine Sanctuary permit issued under section 944.9; or authorized by a Special Use permit issued under Section 310 of the Act. (b) a certification by the Director of the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management under section 944.10 of a valid lease, permit, license, or other authorization issued by any Federal authority of competent jurisdiction and in existence on (or conducted pursuant to any valid right of subsistence use or access in existence on) the effective date of this designation, subject 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. (c) The activity is authorized by a valid 'lease, permit, license, approval 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 or designee was notified of the application in accordance with the requirements of section 944.11, the applicant complies with the requirements of section 944.11, the Director or designee notifies the applicant and authorizing agency that he or she does not object 0 to issuance of the authorization, and the applicant complies with V-11 any terms and conditions the Director or designee deems necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. The prohibitions would apply to United States-flag vessels, 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. 1. 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. 2. Defense or Law Enforcement Activities The Sanctuary prohibitions, except for the prohibition on oil, gas and mineral activities, do not apply to activities being ' carried out by the Department of Defense as of the effective date of Sanctuary designation. Nonetheless, all activities carried out by the Department of .Defense shall be carried out so as to minimize any adverse impact on'Sanctuary resources and qualities. The exemption from prohibitions of addlitonal activities having the V-12 potential for significant impacts carried out by the Depateunrt of Defense shall be determined in consultation between the Director or designee and the Department of Defense. If it is determined that an activity may be carried out, such consultation shall include a determination of how it shall be carried out.so as to minimize any adverse impact on Sanctuary resources and qualities. In the event of threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a Sanctaury resource or quality resulting from an untoward incident, including but not limited to spill and groundings, caused by a component of the Department of Defense, th ecognizant component will promptly coordinate with the Director or designee for the purpose of taking appropriate actions to respond to and mitigate the harm and, if possible, restore or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality. V-13 D. Contingency Plans 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. 1. Existing CaRabilities 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 V-14 appropriate Federal and state agencies. Assistance is also possible from private groups and industry. All of the relevant public,and private aq ies, 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 vith portabie 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 necessaxy additional personnel, boats and equipment fro& the Monterey Cbast Guard station, if necessary (Carl Walker personal communication after discussion with Dan Bishop, May 4, 1989), although it vill take longer for the USCQ to also bring the necessary equipment. Recently a group of local boat operators including, fishermen and researchers have organized themselves to begin determining their capabilities during.an ocean emergency. The group, the Professional Mariners Response Organization, intends to conduct a V-15 small-scale emergency response drill using only a fev boats (5) during October 1991 to determine the effectiveness of their equipment and the best means of providing assistance during a real emergency response (Lee Bradford, perse comm. June, 1991), The U.S. Navy has a Contingency Planning Guide (Draft, 1987) that details the oil spill response equipment, operating personnel and spill response 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 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 prevention control techniques rests with management of each member company. However, the services, equipment and personnel of each cooperative are available V-16 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 Martin. 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 plane located in Oakland and spray dispersants on the spill from the air. This type of .dispersant action needs approval*from the Coast Guard (Rick Willett, personal communication, May 18, 1989). Recent State (SB 2040) and Federal legislation (Oil Pollution Act) specifically address numerous additional response, as well as preventative, measures regarding vessel oil spills (see Appendix C for details regarding this legislation). 2. Sanctuary Agtion overall the Nonterey Day USCQ and the PG&E response capabilities only seen adequate for immediate response and for minor to moderate events. 8A86d an their recent iavolvownt in the Exxon Valdes spillp staff from the Nonterey Bay Aquarium have concluded that the current Nonterey Bay contingency plan for oil spill removal and wildlife recovery in inadequate (Julie Vackard, personal communication, X&Y It 1989)- One- of the f irst management actions of the Sanctuary will be V-17 to run an emergency response exercise for an oil spill in the sanctuary boundaries. The intent of this exercise will be not only to test the adequacy of existing plans and the availability and effectiveness of the equipment allocated but also to provide an opportunity for existing emergency response agencies and personnel to work with the Sanctuary and to define each others roles and responsibilites. 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. Sanctuary personnel will work with the USCG during the preparation of this plan to identify those areas where the Sanctuary can a si:t and supplement necessary actions as well as take the lead in a:ea of Sanctuary expertize. The Sanctuary program is preparing a National Plan with additional site specific planar such as for Xonterey Bay, that will recognize the need for ongoing training and importance of appropriate equipment on hand in the event of a large-scale emergency that will require long-term response and clean-up capabilities. 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 V-18 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 the 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. The plan will specificy the role of the Sanctuary and with which action items it has lead responsibility versus providing assistance when requested by another lead agency. An SRD-level contingency and emergency-response plan has been prepared for the Channel Island and Key Largo National Marine sanctuaries. A similar plan for the proposed XBMS will be created that will: 0 Describe emergency-response procedures and coordination requirements for SRD and Sanctuary staff; 0 Provide a geographic information system depicting resources at risk; 0 outline procedures for emergency research; and o 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 ef forts will be closely coordinated with similar efforts to protect the Elkhorn Slough KERR. V-19 E. Compatible Use of the Sanctugry Encouraging the private and public uses of the Sanctuary, not prohibited pursuant to other authorities, in ways that are compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, is an important aspect of the resource program. Thus the Sanctuary will: 1. Encourage the public who use the Sanctuary to respect sensitive Sanctuary resources and qualities. 2. Provide relevant information about Sanctuary regulations and use policies; 3. Collaborate with public and private organizations in promoting compatible use of the Sanctuary; and 4. Monitor and assess the levels of use to identify and control potential degradation of resources and minimize potential user conflicts. 5. Monitor commercial and recreational activities in the Sanctuary and encourage other agencies to do so to detect areas of particular management concern; 6. Collect and publicize information on commercial and recreational activities in the Sanctuary; 7. Consulting with other agencies on policies and proposals for the management of activities which may affect protection of Sanctuary resources; and 8. 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 under research (Section III). The development of materials is discussed under education (Section IV). V-20 F. Surveil]-ance and j_nforcement 1. Sanctuary Action and-C-o-ordination with Existin_q Agencies A primary feature of the resource protection proqram 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 Narine Fisheries Service and the National Park service. Since the proposed Sanctuary would Include both state and Federal waters# clog* coordination between state and Federal authorities would be required. To achieve this abjectiv* the sanctuary envisions a cooperative agreement where Federal Sanctuary officers are deputized to enforce azinting State regulations and State enfocement officers are deputized to enforce Sanctuary regulations. ill officers would report directly to the Sanctuary manager and work full-tigie on Sanctuary man agesent Issues. This mutual deputization mould fOStOC & Glaze Mrki" relationalhip between the State and the sanctuary as well as assist in increasing mutual goals of enhanced resource protection. Boats for both State and Federal officers would be made available by the Sanctuary to patrol the sanctuary for not only education and enforcement purposes but also to increase the visibility of the sanctuary and the publics awareness of the V-21 sanctuaryts presence. A radio transmitter would be established from the local Sanctuary headquarters using a 100 Watt VRP transmitter to create coordinated network of enforcement personnel to assist with rapid response to diving or boating accidents or an oil spill response. Due to the geographic limits on the range of the transmitter to boats (30 mile max.) and from boat-to-boat (15 mile maz.) and the large six* of the proposed-Sanctuary# repeaters would have to be established an towers along the coast to enable long-range communication. A dedicated frequency for Sanctuary operations would be made available using using the ezisting dedicated frequency bands for government use. The Sanctuary also intends to take advantage on either a regular basis or an an ad hoc basisp depending on availability, of NOAA aircraft that fly over the Sanctuary area that could provide additional assistance during enforcement actions or emergency responses. Aerial surveys could also be arranged for research purposes as well as assist in concentrating on-water actions to specific locations. 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. V-22 Sanctuary designation would have the effect of broadening USCG enforcement responsibilities to include the enforcement of Sanctuary regulations. Neither NOAL nor the USCG has the resources to conduct systematic surveillance and enforcement operations to ensure compliance with Sanctuary regulations. However, both the 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 aperatiors 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. 2. Public Education and Information Because the most effective enforcement is prevention, the V-23 Sanctuary education program will make every effort to inform users of the need to use the Sanctuary environment wisely. The focus of the first year of the education program will bbe to inform the public about the existance of the Sanctuary, its purpose and intent, its areal coverage and the National significance of its resources and qualities. Much of this effort will involve the 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. 3. 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. V-24 III. section: Research A. Introduction 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. Afio Nuevo Island and Afic 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. Thirteen marine research/education institutions are found in the study area, eleven of which are in the proposed Sanctuary boundaries. The eleven encompassed by the boundaries are the Afic Nuevo State Reserve; State University of California's Institute of Marine Sciences at Long Marine Laboratory at Santa Cruz; Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve, (NOAA and CDF&G) ; San Jose State University's Moss Landing Marine Laboratories; Stanford University's, Hopkins Marine Station; the Center for ocean Analysis and Prediction (NOAA); the Naval Postgraduate Marine Laboratory; Pt. Lobos Ecological Reserve; Granite Canyon Marine Laboratory (CDF&G) ; the Monterey Bay Aquarius Is research division; and the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute (Incorporated May, 1987). The University of California's Landels-Hill Big Creek Reserve in Big Sur and the FWS research station at Pt. Piedras Blancas, are both south of, and thus excluded from# the preferred boundary. V-25 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. COAP/NOAA in Monterey has already made significant progress in supporting research efforts in the area and in disseminating information from numeours data sources. A growing education program at COAP is also able to inform the general. public and user groups of Monterey Bay about the relevance of the data to their -day-to-day activities as well as increase their awareness of the significance of the bay's resources and qualities. specific applied research needs would include geophysical seismic OCS research, fisheries management issues, coastal land-use planning, environmental toxicology, water and solid waste studies all focused on the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. 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 V-26 limited but long term logistical and financial support for research studies consistent with the qoals of the Sanctuary program. specific priority research needs for the Sanctuary will be identified and approved by SRD 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 effective solutions to management problems. Research funded by the SRD 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 procesies 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. B. Goals The purpose of Sanctuary research activit@ies is to improve understanding of the Monterey Bay environuieut, 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 facilit .ies of the Elkhorn V-27 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; Incorporate research results into the interpretive/education program in a format useful for the general public; 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; Initiate a monitoring program to assess environmental changes as they occur due to natural and human processes; Identify the range of effects on the environment that would result from predicted changes in human activity or natural phenomena; Encourage information exchange among all the organizations and agencies undertaking management-related research in the Sanctuary to promote more informed management. Evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the research program and its integration with resource protection and education objectives. Framework for Researc 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; V-28 monitoring to document changes in environmental.quality, in ecology, and in human activity; and Predictive studies to assess the causes and effects of environmental and ecological changes. Each of these categories is described 'in more detail below: 1. 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 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 mesocoss scale is essential before one can undertake predictive studies of hunan activities on the marine environment. Studies into the transport of dUA;Ch&x9es and materials from sources to sinks throughout thp vater Colmn axe uaK:eszaxy 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 possib .le regulatory measures that will reduce the impacts and costs Of these human activities on the environment and society. V-29 Basic physical oceanographic studies should focus on interchange of water masses between Bay and open ocean, local circulation within the Bay, and upwelling processes. To accomplish the goal of understanding regional circulation the Sanctuary could assist with the development and dissemination of information from existing monitoring stations such as NOAA tide guages, current meters, thermistor chains and satellites such as the NOAA polar orbiting satellites with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiomenter instrument which can image sea surface temperature. 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 effects such as sea temperature rise from El Nifto events or from human activities such as degradation of water quality via pollutants. For example, a fishery stock as sessment could be instituted to determine the species composition and abundance of the fish population of Monterey Bay. The data collected in this study would serve to document the Say's value as a fishery habitat and provide the basis for estimating the effects, if any, of increased fishing intensity, climatic change, V-30 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, bult there are still many gaps in our knowledge of Monterey Bay ecology,, specif ica-Ily -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, mIti-institutIOMI, integrative 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 V-31 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's 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 remc:e sensing survey and archeological assessment to locate and evaluate the extent to which historical and cultural resources are based in the Sanctuary. These baseline cultural and historical resource studies will pr6vide the fundamental information necessary for developing a cultural and historical resource management strategy and education/ interpretation program for the Sanctuary. The recently constructed Stanton Center will provide a new maritime museum and history center in Monterey. It will provide separate exhibit areas, a workshop for ship building and restoration and a research library. Coordination with this institution will enhance the publics awareness as well as the efforts of the Sanctuary to protect and research important historical and cultural resources. 2. Monitoring Effective management requires a data base more comprehensive than simply the number of plants, animals, and geologic, physical V-32 and chemical elements within the Sanctuary. It requires an understanding of long-term chaziges to the sicatus, of the resources and their environment. Monitoring provides such understanding. Monitoring data indicative of the relative health of resources can be used to detect ecological chanqes 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 maqnitude 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 sever overflows, etc.) and rhOn-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 V-33 investigation and monitoring. For example studies could be implemented to monitor the ef fects of (1) commercial vessel traf f ic 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 Mo 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, management and educational purposes. Status and trends of contaminants in Monterey Bay is presently underway with the NOAA and State Water Resource Control Board Mussel Watch Programs. Howeverf 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 planktonf algae, fisheries, invertebrates, mammals, and birds. Recently a monitoring program has been initiated by Minerals Management service (MMS) for V-34 hydrocarbon activities in Southern California (MKS, 1988). A similar study should be considered if future Lease Sales are considered in the central California area. Coastal stations, as well as offshore data buoys maintained by NOAA and MMS, presently measure wind, sea level, temperature, and other air and sea parameters. Data from these sites can be used for research, management, enforcement and rescue programs.. However, continuous monitoring and rapid dissemination of information is essential to permit a timely and effective response by personnel to constantly changing environmental conditions and threats. 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 establisbment 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 th e monitoring program will carefully address the issue of vhat to do with the data and how to apply the findinO for basic sciience as well as academic, education and applied management purposes- 3. Predictive Studies In addition to, baseline research and monitoring, the Sanctuary research program will continue studies, as needed, to analyze the causes and consequences of ecosystem changes, and predict their effects on new and more intense human activity in the area. Unlike V-35 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 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 Aft 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 Aft Nuevo and; (2) the importance of the Monterey Bay fish stocks in sustaining the Steller sea lion population. Other areas of predicitve studies include the development of adequate circulation models that would be used for pollutant tracking, emergency response procedures, stock management etc. Development of realistic computer models, when updated with direct environmental measurements, could assist directly with all of the managment issues mentioned above. V-36 D. Selection and Management of Research Projects To ensure that projects considered for funding by the SRD are directed to the resolution of Sanctuary management issues and concerns, the Sanctuary Manager, the SAC and the SRD, will follow procedures developed by the SRD, 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 vith the research and monitoring program at the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve. 1. P eparing 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. SRD is currently preparing the steps involved for the annual planning process and the announcement of requests for proposals. 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 research permits from other agencies. V-37 2. 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. SRD funded researchers will be required to submit progress reports and final reports to the SRD and Sanctuary Manager 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 SRD. Outstanding project reports will.be published by the SRD in its Technical Report Series. 3. Information To complement directly funded research, the SRD will encourage research funded from other -sources particularly where it supports Sanctuary management objectives. In this regard, the SRD will make available to other agencies and private institutions current Sanctuary resource data obtained from past and ongoing research projects. V-38 IV. Section Education A. Introduction Sanctuary designation could provide local governments, businesses, citizen groups, farmers, fishermen, tourists and existing institutions, information and techniques to protect the natural environment of 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. Such efforts,are. intended to also encourage volunatary compliance with the Sanctuary as well as other existing regulations designed to protect the Monterey Bay area. 13,. Goals 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 t1m meet this 9G&1 are to: 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; 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, V-39 complementary to the Sanctuary program; Collaboration with Sanctuary management staff in extension and outreach programs, and participation in other volunteer programs; Incorporate research results into the interpretive/education program in a format useful for the general public; and Create public awareness of the entire Nation-wide Sanctuary Program, its purposes and intent and the role of the Monterey Bay NMS as part of a larger system. C. Educational Opportunities opportunities for interpreting the MBNMS fall into two broad categories: 1) 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; and 2) interested groups not visiting either location but who desire to learn more about the Sanctuary's resources and qualities. Below is a description of the educational programs that the Sanctuary will develop to maximize these opportnities. For example, the diversity of :.abitats and communities, the un ique Monterey Canyon, and the overlap of human uses of the resou rces 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,' community colleges, 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 V-40 addition to local residents and agencies. The Monterey Bay Aquarium in monterey, the AAo Nuevo facilities, and the Elkhorn Slough NE11R, as vell as other State and private educational facilities such as Point Lobos, Point Lobos 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 educatimal and intexpretive 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, sportdivinq, whalevatchinq, surfing and sportfishing. Big Basin, Natural Bridges State Park, IFew grightan Beach, Wass Landing State Beach, 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, coastal and estuarine ecology education. Finally, Santa Cruz Pier and Harbor, Capitola Wharf, manresa/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 V-41 educational displays would provide visitors, 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 regulations. D. Educational Programs Education for the MBNMS will consist of three distinct sub- programs: 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 againj however# that many of these programs will be carried out in coordination with programs already sponsored by.existing interpretative programs. 1. 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, harbor seals, sea otters, V-42 porpoises and Grey whales as well as the large flocks of seabirds that f eed 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 in the sanctuary and the rich ecological communities lying beneath its waters. on-site education pXovided 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 recreational users 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. 2. Information Center Prggrams 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 V-43 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 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 its The Environmental Studies Internship Program is involved in the Aho Nuevo docent program which trains guides. CDP&R has a popular program providing guided walks to observe the pinnipeds and all other aspects of the natural history of the reserve. Emphasis is on the growth of the elephant seal population, and pinniped ecology. An improved visitor center is being planned and the area attracts approximately 140,000 visitors/year. California Sea Otter Game Refuge (Central Coast of California): At present the Refuge does not have an educational program dedicated to the California Sea Otter. California State Park System: The State parks, beaches, historical parks and reserves 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. Carmel Bay Ecolggical Reserve: This area is used by researchers# sport-fishermen and sport divers. V-44 Elkhorn Slough National Eat---uarine Research Reserve: on-site management provided by CDF&G which shares overall management responsibility with NOAA (Sanctuaries and Reserves Division). The site and visitor center provide visitors with numerous marine and esturarine interpretetive exhibits. Docent guided tours of the site are available year-round and the Elkhorn Slough Foundation faciliates the use of the site as an outdoor research laboratory as part of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System. Hopkins Marine Life Refuge (Pacific Grovel.: This area is primarily used by researchers. Long Marine Laboratories AMarium and Museum (Santa Cruz): Presents program and docent led tours of research facilities. 0 Monterey Bay Aquarium: Presents programs dealing with all facets of the proposed Sanctuary environment. The goal of the aquarium is to "stimulate interest, increase knowledge and promote stewardship of Monterey Bay and the world's ocean environment through .innovative exhibits, public education and scientific research". Based on the theme of babitats, of gvnterey Ilay, the Aquarium exhibit program offers visitors a first-hand look into the world of these diverse undersea communities. On-site school, outreach and teacher education programs provide information to approximately loo,000 school children and 1,300 teachers per year. moss Landing Marine Laboratories: Holds an open house each year to present ongoing research. In addition, programs are offered to school groups. Natural History Museum in Santa cruz: Provides visitors with V-45 information on the marine environment. The Environmental Studies Internship Program at UCSC provides coordination of many of the site's programs. Natural Bridges State Park: Provides tide pool tours to school groups. Pacific Grove Marine Gardens Fish Refuge: Primarily used for recreation, especially diving. Pacific Grove Natural History Museu : Provides visitors with information on the marine environment. 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. Santa Cruz Port District: Provides interpretive educational programs with approximately 50 tours/year and programs are to be expanded. 3. Outreach Prggrams Finally, the MBNMS educational program will try to reach groups in the coastal region of California and elsewhere who have an interest in Monterey Say and related areas, but are not apt to visit the area. This project entails identifying these groups and making educational materials and presentations available to them. These programs will be carried out in conjunction with similar local programs to provide off-site education. Where possible, they will involve close cooperation with environmental study groups such as the Sierra Club, Center for Marine Conservation, Amercian V-46 Cetacean Society (National and the 14onterey Bay Chapter), 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 stronq enough, a slide presentation or mobile exhibit may be developed for the use of &@hools and private groups. V-47 V. Section: Administration A. Introduction This section of the management plan describes the administrative 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 four functions: resource protection, research, education, and administration. 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 SRD is responsible for the overall management of the proposed MBNMS. The SRD 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. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division The National Marine Sanctuary Program is managed by the SRD. 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 SRD develops a general budget, setting out expenditures for program development, operating costs, and staffing. Funding V-48 priorities will be reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect evolving conditions in the proposed MBNMS and National Marine Sanctuary Program priorities and requirements. The SRD also establishes policies and procedures in response to specific issues in each Sanctuary. Detailed SRD 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 SRD. In this capacity, the Manager represents the SRD and is the primary spokesperson for the MBNKS. The Sanctuary's headquarters will be located in the Monterey 84y req!xm. 1@is 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 managesent, progran because Sanctuaries are to be .managed for research and education as well as for resource protection. In addition, sevp-ral 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 sanctuaries and Reserves Division will determine the structure, composition and functions of the SAC in accordance with V-49 the procedures specified by the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (Appendix A). All interested groups and agencies will be consulted to ensure that the SAC takes all interests into account and that the committee is 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 V-50 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 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 propmsed Sanctuary area. in general NOAK will work closely within the existimg 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 Boardt the State Lands Commissiono the Air Resources Board and the Historical V-51 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 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, Santa Cruz and 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 notices of activities that may affect the proposed Sanctuary. For example, the AMBAG Regional Metropolitan clearinghouse for activities of regional significance would serve to assist in establishing increased local government involvement with the proposed Sanctuary. V-52 B. Resource Protection: Roles and Responsibilities 1. Sanctuaries gnd Reserves Division (a) Approves priorities for funding for resource protection and monitors and maintains a record of research activities within the Sanctuary; (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 aind local agencies and with public and private organizations as well. 2. Sanctuary Manage (a) Recommends to the SRD priorities for allocating funds annually to resource protection, considering the advice of the SAC to ensure consistency with Sanctuary regulations and provide adequate resource protection; (b) Assists in the coordination of surveillance and enforcement activities by providing liaison with the Federal, state, regional and local agencies; (c) Reports regularly to the SRD on surveillance and enforcement activities, violations, and emergencies; (d) Provides information for use in traLaing Sanctuary enforcement officials; (e) Monitors and evaluates research activities Vithin the Sanctuary, and the adequacy of emergency-response plans and procedures in the Sanctuary; (f) Maintains a record of research activities within the Sanctuary, an'd 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 SRD. V-53 3. SanctuaM@ Advisory Co ittee (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; (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, threatened or otherwise depleted 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; V-54 (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 objectives for 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 U.S. Forest 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; (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 ComiSsiOn (,SLC) has jurisdiction over all state ovned lands and submerged lanft. SLC has adopted regulations for the protection &M u of public trust lands in the coastal zone,* (k) State Water Resource control Board (SWRCB) and the ni ne 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 @ational Ambient Air Quality Standards and delegated their implementation to local Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs); and V-55 California Historical Resources Commission is the State agenc responsible for the preservation of representative and uniquey archaeological, paleontological, and historical sites in the land and water areas of the state. (n) AMBAG is a council of governments with volunteer membership includes membership from Monterey and Santa Cruz counties, 15 cities and Fort Ord, representing the collective interest of the region for the protection of Monterey Bay and its unique coastal and marine resources. C. Research: Roles and ResRonsibilities 1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (a) Reviews annual Sanctuary Research Plan's (SRP's) for each Sanctuary; (b) Prepares an annual National Research Plan (NRP) and budget, based on the SRP's of individual Sanctuaries and in accordance with priorities determined at the National level; (c) Sets dates for procurement based on the NRP; (d) Administers interagency agreements for cooperative funding for reseach; (e) Reviews all interim and final research reports submitted by the Sanctuary Manager; and (f) Issues permits 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 and prepares assessments of research needs and priorities based on management requirements and research continuity; (b) Develops and implements the Sanctuary Research Plan (SRP); (c) Reviews research.documents and progress reports submitted by contractors; (d) coordinates research and monitoring activities in the Sanctuary in cooperation with the SRD# the SAC and other interested agencies or parties; and (e) Coordinates and oversees the on-site process for reviewing, V-56 recommending for approval, monitoring and research proposals and permit requests, considering the views of the sRD, Sanctuary Advisory Committee, concerned individuals and interest groups and submits recommendations to SRD on the issuance of Sanctuary research permits. 3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee (a) Advises the Sanctuary Manager on review of research proposals, interim, and final reports; (b) Advises the Sanctuary Manager on approval of proposals for research in the Sanctuary; (c) Advises the Research Coordinator and the Sanctuary Manager on priority research needs; and (d) Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the issuance of research permits. D. Education: Roles and Responsibilities 1. Sanctuaries and Reserves Division (a) Reviews and approves the list of annual priorities for education and the annual education budget prepared by the Sanctuary Manager; (b) Reviews and approves design proposals for all educational facilities; (c) Reviews all educational materials prepared for the Sanctuary; (d) Evaluates progress toward accomplishing objectives for education and adjusts long-term priorities accordingly; and (e) Issues Sanctuary education permfts, considering the recommendations of the Sanctuary Hanager, to ensure compliance with Sanctuary regulations and provide additional technical review where necessary. 2. Sanctuary Manager (a) Recommends annually to the SRD a list of priorities and an annual budget for education; (b) Prepares and circulates as required Requests For Proposals (RFP) for educational projects; (c) Supervises the design and production of educational materials and facilities for the Sanctuary; V-57 (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; and (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 and submits recommendations to SRD, on the issuance of Sanctuary education permits, considering the recommendations of the SAC; and oversees permitted education activities. 3. Sanctuary Advisory Committee (a) Advises the Sanctuary Manager, in raising public awareness of the Sanctuary and advises on the development of a local constituency by means of brochures, presentations, structured events articles for publication, and other activities consistent with the management plan; (b) Advises the Sanctuary Manager on how to establish and operate combined MBNMS-Elkhorn Slough NERR information and education facilities to increase public awareness and appreciation of the resources of the Sanctuary; and (c) Advises the Sanctuary Manager on the issuance of education permits. E. General Administration: Roles an_d Responsibilities 1. sanctuaries and Reserves Division (a)' Ensures that the sanctuary is operated in a manner consistent with established National program policies and with applicable National and international laws and provides guidance to the Sanctuary Manager; (b) Identifies, analyzes, and resolves Sanctuary management problems and issues; (c) Formulates comprehensive, long-term management plans for the Sanctuary and revises the management plan as necessary; (d) Directs and assists the Sanctuary Manager in the implementation of the management plan; te (e) Coordinates Sanctuary management with other Federal.and Sta V-58 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 Sanctuary regulations if the activity will have only negligible, short-term adverse effects on Sanctuary resources or Sanctuary qualities and 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; 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 OCRK, 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 terns and conditions, through OCRM, deemed necessary to protect the SanctuarY resources and qualities on applications for leases, licesumsF permits, approvals, or otber author izaltions for Obi-P-Cts t1* issuancP- Of. such authorizations), considering the- ations of the Sanctuary Namqer, to conduct & prohibited activity. 2. Sanctuarr Manaa9r (a) Coordinates on-site efforts of all parties involved in Sanctuary activities, including State, Federal, local and regional agen.c.iest Elkhorn Slough NERR and the public; (b) Reviews the management plan periodically and recommends changes to the SRD as needed; (c) Assists the SRD in preparing the annual budget for the Sanctuary; V-59 (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 SRD 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. 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. Sanctua 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 SRD on criteria and terms and conditions for National marine Sanctuary permitse certifications and applications of leases, V-60 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. Specialists in the fields of water quality and existing discharge permit procedures will also be necessary to assist with Sanctuary management of discharges into the proposed Sanctuary. Sanctuary staff will work closely with the USCG, NMFS and other State and 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. Head=arters and Visito r Center Faci.11ties Sanctuary headquarters and administrative offices will be established at a suitable location within the Monterey Bay region. Areas being considered include the Cities of Nonterey, Noss Landing and Santa Cruz. V-61 0 List of Preparers and Acknowledgments I I 0 9 VI-1 PART VI: LIST OF PREPARERS TO BE COMPLETED 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 and final 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. Ms. Vicki Nickols - Program Specialist ..... Responsible for Volume II Response to Comments. Mr. John McCleod ORCA/SEA: Dan Basta, Tom Culliton, Lisa Vollganeau, Mitch ????. Acknowledcments 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, Ole Varmer, Mark Raflich 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 Say 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. Colvin, M. Croom, W. Doyle, R. Felty, H. Greene, K. Gray, K. Greenbergf D. Haifley, J. Heimlich-Boran, P. Jagger, H. Kolb, J. Martin, M. Martin, A- Matthews, E. Melvin, LT. J. Morris, J. Nybakken, J. Oliver, N. Papadakis, W. Pierce, J. Rote, R. Saunders, S. Shane, M. Silberstein, J. Sobel, B. Stewart, L. Strnad, R. Tyler, K. Van Velsor, S. Webster, J. Wieland. VI-2 Lis t of Agencies, Organizations.-and Persons Receiving Copies vil-i PART VII: 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 Representatives 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 VII-2 California State Government and Agencies Air Resources Board Business, Transportation and Housing k9ency 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 Natignal and Local Interest Grog-p-s American Association of Port Authorities American Bureau of Shipping American Cetacean Society 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 central California Diving Council Central Coast OCS Regional Studies Program chevron U.S.A.j Inc. cities Service Company Coastal Advocates Coast Alliance Conservation Foundation continental Oil Company The cousteau Society cZM Newsletter Defenders of Wildlife Edison Electric Institute El Paso Natural Gas Company. VII-3 National and Local GrouRs (continued) Environmental Policy Center Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. Environmental Law Institute 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 League of Woman Voters 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 Sierra Club Stinson Beach Village Association Tomales Bay Association The Whale Center Underwater Society of America Union Oil Company water Pollution Control Federation Wilderness Society World wildlife Fund-U.S. VII-4 0 References 0 0 VIII-1 PART VIII: 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 Shelf", 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 Wha-I-es 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. Beardsley, R.C-j C.E. Dorman, C.A. Friehe, L.K. Rosenfeld and C.D. Winant. 1987. Local atmospheric forcing during the Coastal ocean Dynamics Experiment- 1.A description of the marine boundary layer and atmospheric conditions over a northern California upwelling region. Journal of geophysical Rsearch. 92:91467-1488. VIII-2 Beck, R.H. 1910. Water Birds of the Vicinity of Point Pinos, California. Proceedings of California Academy of Sciences, 4th Ser., 3:57-72. Bigelow, H* B. and K. Leslie. 1930. Rec 'onnaissance of the waters and plankton of Monterey Bay. bulletin of the Museum of Comparaive Zoology, Havard College. 70:427-581. Boesch, D.F., et al. 1973. Oil Spill and the Marine Environment Bolin, R.L. and D.P. Abbott. 1963. Studies on the marine climate and phytoplankton of the central coastal area of California, 1954- 1960. California cooperative Oceanic Fisheries investigations Progress Report, IX 1 July 1060 to 30 June 1962. Marine Research Committee, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA pp.23-45. 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, Ninerals Management service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior. OCS Study MKS 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 Landinq Marine Laboratories Tech. Pub. 89-1. Briggs, J.C. 1979. Marine Zoogeogwaphy. 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.M. 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. VIII-3 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 Brink, K. H. 1987. Coastal ocean physical processes. Contributions in Oceanograpy, U.S. National Report 1983-1986. American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC. pp. 204-216. Broenkow, W.W. and W.M. Smethie, Jr. 1978. Surface circulation and replacement of water in Monterey Bay, Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science. 6:583-603. Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 1980. Final Environmental Impact Statement, OCS Lease Sale No. 53, Vol. 1. 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 ZaRrora silenus, 1896 in Monterey Bay, California. California Fish and Game, 61 (1): 60-62. Cailliet, 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. 19so. California Atlas of Coastal Resources. California Department of'Fish and Game. 1990. Evaluation of capabilities to Respond to Large Oil Spills in California Marine Waters. Prepared by S.L. Ross, Environmental Researach LTD. 320 pp. VIII-4 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. Carter, H.R., Jaques, D.L., McMe-sney, G.J., Parker, K.W. 1990. Breeding Populations if Seabirds on the Northern and Central California Coasts in 1989 and 1990. Draft report for MMS, POCS and DOI. 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. Center for Marine Studies University California Santa Cruz, Marine Mammal and Seabirds of Central and Northern California 1980- 1983. MMS Contract#14-120001-29090. Central Coast Regional Studies Program Technical Review Panel, 1990. Comments on the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan. Eentral Coast OCS Regional Studies Program. January 1989. Offobore 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. Chelton, D.B. 1984. Seasonal variability -of alongshore geostrophic .velocity off Central California. jourinal of Coeophysical 'Research 89:3473-3486. Chelton, D.B. R.L. Bernstein. A. Bratkovich, and P.M. Kosro. 1988. Poleward flow off central California during the spring and summer of 1981 and 1984. Journal of Geophysical Research. 93:10604-10620. 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. VIII-5 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. Cooke, L.W., and Dellagiarino, G. In press. Estimates of undiscovered oil and gas resources for the Outer Continental Shelf as of January 1987: U.S. Minerals Management Service OCS Report MMS 89-0090. Dahlstrom and Wild. 1983. Fish. Bull. Vol. 172. Dodimead, A.J., F. Favorite and T. Hirano. 1963. Salmon of the North Pacific ocean, part II. Review of the oceanography of the sub- Arctic Pacific region. International North Pacific Fisheries communication Bulletin. 13. 195pp. VIII-6 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. Ecological Consulting Inc., 1990. Atlas of Marine resources for Central California, Central Coast Regional Studies Proqram,.San Francisco, CA. Ecomar, Inc. 1981. Final oceanographic studies report (November, 1979 to December, 1980), Volume 1. For J.M. Montgomery Consulting Engineers, Inc. 273pp. Engineering Science, Inc. 1978. Facilities plan for north Monterey County, draft oceanographic pre-design report. 1. Engineering Science, Inc., Berkeley, CA. Environmental Protection Agency. 1985. Assessment of Environmental Fate and Effects of Discharges from Offshore Oil and Gas Operations. EPA 440/-4-85/00@. Estes, J.A. and J.F. Palmisano. 1974. Sea Otters: -Their Role in Structuring Nearshore Communities. Science 185:1058-1060. Farrell, T.M. D. Bracher and j. Roughgarden. 1990. Cross-shelf transport causes recruitsent to intertidal populations in central California. LinKmology and oceanography. In press. 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. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Final Environmental Impact Statement, Translocation of Southern Sea Otters. 89.pp. VIII-7 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). 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 Vogelae-re, 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, KY. pp.399-409- Gordon, B.L. 1977. Monterey Bay Area: Natural History and Cultural Imprints. Boxwood Press, Pacific Grove, CA. 321p. VIII-8 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. 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. Halliwell, G.R., Jr. and J.S. Allen. 1987. The large-scale coastal wind field along the west coast of North America. Journal of Geophysical Research. 92:1861-1884. 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 alauca 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. PAwtely Sensed Chlorophyll and Temperature Distributions Off Central California and Their Potential Relations to Commercial Fish Catches. M.A. Thesis, 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. VIII-9 Heimlich-Boran, J.R. 1988. Marine Resources and Human Activities in the Monterey Bay Area. Center for Environmental Education, April 1988. Hickey, B.M. 1979. The California Current system-hypotheses and facts. Progress in Oceanography. 8:191-279. 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. 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 and Oil 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. Lander, R.J. and P.A. Lockridge. 1989. United Tsunamis (Including United States Possessions) 1690-19898. National Geophysical Data center, Boulder, CO. 265pp. 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. VIII-10 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 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. Lynn, R.J. and J.J. Simpson. 1987. The California Current System: the seasonal variability of its physical characteristics. Journal of Geophysical Research 92:12947-12966. Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey for Northern'and Central California, Quartely Report No. 30, October to December, 1986. California Department of Fish and Ga-Me, 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 Reavy 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 Say,. 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. VIII-11 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. Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1983. Final Environmental Impact Statement. Gulf of Mexico. PrOROsed OCS oil and Gas Lease Offereings, Central Gulf of Mexico (ARril, 1984). Western Gulf of Mexico (July, 1984). Metairie, LA. Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1984. Final Environmental ImRact Statement, OCS Sale No. 90. Minerals Management Service, Atlantic OCS Region, Vienna, Va. Minerals Management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986. PrOROsed 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 ImRact Statement. Minerals Management Service, Washington, D.C. Minerals management Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 1986a. Draft Environmental ImRact Statement, PrOROsed 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 ReRort 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 Agricultuime, Food for Thought. 1988. VIII-12 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. NOAA. 1983. National Marine Sanctuary Site Evaluations. Recommendations and Final Reports. Prepared by, Chelsea International Corporat-ion 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/PEM. 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-Envirormgnt. National Academic Press. Washington, D.C. cited in MMS, 1984. Nelson, C.S. 1977. wind stress and wind stress curl over the California Current, NOAA Tech. Rep. NKFS-SSRF-714- 89pp. Noble, M. and G. Gelfembaum. 1990. A pilot StUdY Of currents and suspended sediment in the.Galf Of the ftraLII@Ones- USGS Open- file Report,. In PlreParatlOn- Nybakkeen, J-9. 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 VIII-13 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. 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. Phytoplanktorf. 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. Robson, A.J. 1990. Circulation of California Undercurrent near Monterey in May 1989. Thesis. Naval postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Rosenberg, S. 1987. Diving and snorkeling Guide to Northern California and the Monterey Peninsula. Pisces Books, New York. VIII-14 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 Qlacialis) in the Eastern North Pacific South of 50*N and East of 1800W. 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. Seymour, R.J., D. Castel and J.0. Thomas. 1990. Coastal Data Information Program. Fourteenth Annual Report, January 1989 Through December 1989. Scripps Institution of Oceanography Reference No. 90-5. 209pp. Schwing, F.B., D.M. Husby and D.E. Tracy. 1990a. Mesocale response of coastal waters off central California to wind events following the spring 1989 transition: analysis of CTS surveys and KVHRR imagery. Sumitted to CALCOFI Reports series. Schwing, F.B., J.G. Morton and C.H. Pilskal-ft. 1.990a Eartbquake and bay: response of xontAm'ey BaY to the roma Prieta earthquake. Transactions, American Geophysical Union. 71:250-251. Shaw, S.B. 1972. DDT Residues in Eight California Karine Fishes. Calif. Fish & Game 58(l):22-26. Shea, R.E. and W.W. Broenkow. 1982. The role of internal tides in the nutrient enrichment of Monterey Bay, California. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science. 15:57-66. Shepard, F.P. and R.F.'Dill. 1966. Submarine canyons and Other Sea Valleys. Rand McNally & Co., Chicagop IL. Shepard, F.P., R. Revelle and R.S. Deitz. 1939. ocean-bottom currents off the California coast. Science. 89:488-489. VIII-15 Simpson, J.J., C.J. Koblinsky, J. Pelaez, L.R. Haury and D Wiesenhahn. 1986. Temperature-plant pigment-optical relations in a recurrent offshore mesoscale eddy near Point Conception, California. Journal of Geophysical Research. 91:12919-12936. 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. Strub, P.T., J.S. Allen, A. Huyer, and R.L. Smith. 1987. Seasonal cycles of currents, temperatures, winds, and.sea level over the northeast Pacific continental shelf: 350 to 480N. Journal of Geophysical Research. 92:1507-1@26. Sowls, A.L., A.R. Degange, J.W. Nelson and G.S. Lester. 1990. Catalog of California Seabird colonies. Fish and Wildlife Service Publication FWS/OBSA-80/37, U.S. Department of Interior. Tracy, D.E. 1990. Surface circulation of Monterey Bay.Using AVHRR Satellite Imagery. Thesis. Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA. Traganza, E.D. J.C. Conrad and L.C. Breaker. 1981. Satellite observations of a cyclonic upwelling system and giant plume in the California Current. In: F.A. Richards (Ed). Coastal Upwelling. American Geophysical Union. Washington, DC. pp. 228- 241. VIII-16 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 ReRqrt - Tank Vessel Puerto Rican ExRlosion and Oil-pollution Incident. San Francisco CA-31 October 1984. Marine Safety Office SAn Francisco Bay, San Francisco. 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. 19so. yinal Environmental Impact Statment on Proposed Five-Year MS Oil and Gass Lease Sale schedule March 1980-February 1985i 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. VIII-17 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. 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. Zemba, J. and C.A. Friehe. 1987. The marine boundary layer jet in the Coastal Ocean Dynamics Experiment. Journal of Geophysical Research. 92:1489-1496. VIII-18 Appew>(cx-s 0 APPENDIX A: FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT AND REGULATIONS 0 I* Federal Advisory Committee Act and Regulations 0 0 0 . A2 Federal Advisory Committee Act Public Law 92-463 92nd Congress, H. R. 4383 October 6, 1972 An Act To authorizes the establishment of a system governing the creation and oper- ation of advisory committees in the executive branch of the Federal Gov- ernment, and for other purposes. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representations of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act may Federal Advi- he cited as the "Federal Advisory Committee Act". sery Committee Act. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES Sec. 2. (a) The Congress finds that there are numerous committees, boards, commissions, councils, and similar groups which have been established to advise officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government and that they are frequently a useful and beneficial means of furnishing expert advice, ideas, and diverse opin- ions to the Federal Government. (b) The Congress further finds and declares that- (1) the need for many existing advisory committees has not been adaquately reviewed; (2) new advisory committees should be established only when they are determined to be essential and their number should be kept to the minimum necessary; (3) advisory committees should be terminated when they are no longer carrying out the purposes for which they were estab- lished; (4) standards and uniform procedures should govern the estab- lishment, operation, administration, and duration of advisory committees; (5) the Congress and the public should be kept informed with respect to the number, purpose, membership, activities, and cost of advisory committees; and (6) the function of advisory committees should be advisory only, and that all matters under their consideration should be determined, in accordance with law, by the official, agency, or officer involved. DEFINITIONS Sec. 4. For the purpose of this Act - (1) The term "Director" means the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. (2) The term "advisory committee" means any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof (hereafter in this paragraph referred to as "committee"), which is - (A) established by statute or reorganization plan, or (B) established or utilized by the Presdient, or (c) established or utilized by one or more agencies, in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations for the President or one or more agencies of officeers of the Federal Gov- ernment, except that such term excludes (i) the Advisory Com- mission on Intergovernmental Relations, (ii) the Commimdon on Government Procurment, and (iii)any committee which is com- posed wholly of full-time officers or employed of the Federal Government. Federal Advisory Committee Act - continued 86 STAT. 771 Pub. Law 92-463 - 2 - October 6, 1972 (3) The term "agnecy" has the same meaning as in section 351 (1) of title 5, United States Code. (4) The term "Presidential advisory committees" means an advisory committee which advises the President. AFFLICABILITY Sec. 4. (a) The provisions of this Act or of any rule, order, or regu- lation promulgated under this Act shall apply to each advisory com- mittee except to the extent that any Act of Congress establishing any such advisory committee specifically provides otherwise. Restrictions. (b)Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to any advisory committee established or utilized by - (1) the Central Intelligence Agency; or (2) the Federal Reserve System. (c) Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to any local civic group whom primary function is that of rendering a public service with respect to a Federal program, or any State or local committee, council, board, commission, or similar group established to advise or make recommendations to State or local officials or agencies. RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTES Review. Sec. 5. (a) In the exercise of its legislative review function, each standing committee of the Sanate and the House of Representatives shall make a continuing review of the activities of each advisory com- mittee under its jurisdiction to determine whether such advisory committee should be abolished or merged with any other advisory committee, whether the responsibilities of such advisory committee should be reviewed, and whether such advisory committee performs a necessary function not already being performed. Each such standing committee shal take appropriate action to obtain the enactment of legislation necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection. Guidelines. (b) In considering legislation establishing, or authorizing the establishment of any advisory committee, each standing committee of the Senate and of the House of Representatives shall determine, and report such determination to the Senate or to the House of Representa- tives, as the case may be, whether the functions of the proposed advisory committee are being or could be performed by one or more agencies or by an advisory committee already in existance, or by enlarging the mandate of an existing advisory committee. Any such legislation shall - (1) contain a clearly defined purpose for the advisory committees; (2) require the membership of the advisory committee to be fairly balanced in terms of the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee; (3) contain appropriate provisions to assure that the advice and recommendations of the advisory committees will not be inap- propriately influenced by the appointing authority or by any special interest, but will instead be the result of the advisory committee's independent judgment; (4) contain provisions dealing with authorization of appro- priations, the date for submission of reports (if any), the dura- tion of the advisory committees, and the publication of reports and other materials, to the extent that the standing committee determines the provisions of section 10 of this Act to be inade- quato; and Federal Advisory Committee Act - Continued October 6, 1972 - 3 - Pub. Law 92 - 463 86 STAT. 772 (5) contain provisions which will assure that the advisory committee will have adequate staff (either supplied by an agency or employed by it), will be provided adequate quarters, and will have funds available to meet its other necessary expenses. (c) To the extent they are applicable, the guidelines set out in sub- section (b) of this section shall be followed by the President, agency heads, or other Federal officials in creating an advisory committee. RES[PMSONO;OTOES PF TJE [RESODEMT SEC. 6. (a) The President may delegate responsability for evaluating and taking section, where appropriate, with respect to all public recom- mendations made to him by Presidential advisory committees. (b) Within one year after a Presidential advisory committee has Report to submitted a public report to the President, the President or his dele- Congress. gate shall make a report to the Congress stating either his proposals for action or his reasons for inaction, with respect to the recommen- dations contained in the public report. (c) The President shall, not later than March 31 of each calendar Annual report year (after the year in which this Act is enacted), make an annual is Congress. report to the Congress on the Activities, status, and changes in the composition of advisory committees in existance during the preceding calendar year. The report shall contain the name of every advisory committee, the date of and authority for its creating, its termination date or the date it is to make a report, its functions, a ference to the reports it has submitted, a statement of whether it is an ad hoc or continuing body, the dates of its meetings, the neames and occupa- tions of its current members, and the total estimated annual cost to the United States to fund, service, supply, and maintain such commit- tee. Such report shall include a list of those advisory committees abolished by the President, and in the case of advisory committees established by statute a list of those advisory committees which the President recommends be abolished together with his reasons therefor. The President shall exclude from this report any information which in his judgment, should be withheld for reaons of national secuirty, and he shall include in such report a statement that such information is excluded. RESPOONSIBILITIES OF THE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET Sec. 7. (a) The Director shall establish and maintain within the Office of Management and Budget a Committee Managment Secre- tariat, which shall be responsible for all matters relating to advisory committees. (b) The Director shall, immediatley after the enactment of this Act, institute a comprehensive review of the activities and responsi- bilities of each advisory committee to determine- (1) whether such committee is carrying out its purpose; (2) whether, consistent with the provisions of applicable statutes, the responsibilities assigned to it should be revised; (3) whether it should be merged with other advisory commit- tees; or (4) whether is should be abolished. The Director may from time to time request such information as he deems necessary to carry out his functions under this subactions. Upon the completion of the Director's review he shall make recommendations to the President and to either the agency head or the Congress with respect to action he believes should be taken. Thereafter, the Director shall carry out a similar review annually. Agency heads shall cooperate with the Director in making the reviews required by this subaction. Federal Advisory Committee Act - continued Pub. Law 92 - 463 -4- October 6, 1972 86 STAT. 773 Performance (c) The Director shall prescribe administrative guidelines and man- agement controls applicable to advisory committees, and, to the maxi- mum extent feasible, provide advice, assistance, and guidance to advisory committees to improve their performance. In carrying out his functions under this subsection, the Director shall consider the recom- mandations of each agency head with respect to means of improving the performance of advisory committees whose duties are related to such agency. Uniform pay (d)(1) The Director, after study and consultation with the Civil Service Commission, shall establish guidelines with respect to uniform fair rates of pay for comparable services of members, staffs, and con- sultants of advisory committees in a manner which gives appropriate recognition to the responsibilities and qualifications required and other relevant factors. Such regulations shall provide that - (A) no member of any advisory committee or of the staff of any advisory committee shall receive compensation at a rate in excess of the rate specified for GS-18 of the General Schedule under section 5332 of title 3, United States Code; and Travel expenses. (B) such members, while engaged in the performance of their duties away from their homes or regular places of business, may be allowed travel expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsis- 50 Stat. 4991 tence, as authorized by section 5703 of title 5, United States Code, 83 State. 190. for persons employed intermittently in the Government services. (2) Nothing in this subsection shall prevent - (A) an individual who (without regard to his service with an advisory committee) is a full-time employee of the United States, or (B) an individual who immediately before his service with an advisory committee was such an employee, from receiving compensation at the rate at which he otherwise would be compensated (or was compensated) as a full-time employee of the United States. Expense recom- (a) The Director shall include in budget recommendations a sum- mary of the amounts he deems necessary for the expenses of advisory committees, including the expenses for publication of reports where appropriate. RESPONSIBILITIES OF AGENCY HEADS Sec. 8 (a) Each agency head shall establish uniform administrative guidelines and management controls for advisory committees estab- lished by that agency, which shall be consistent with directives of the Director under section 7 and section 10. Each agency shall maintain systematic information on the nature, functions, and operations of each advisory committee within its jurisdiction. Advisory Com- (b) The head of each agency which has an advisory committee shall mittee Manage- designate an Advisory Committee Management Officer who shall - ment Control (1) exercise control and supervision over the establishment, Offier, desig- procedures and accomplishments of advisory committees estab- nation. lished by that agency; (2) assemble and maintain the reports, records, and other papers of any such committee during its existence; and (3) carry out, on behalf of that agency, the provisions of sec- tion 552 of title 5. United States Code, with respect to such reports, records, and other papers. ESTABLISHMENT AND PURPOSE OF ADVISORY COMMITTEES Sec. 9. (a) No advisory committee shall be established unless such establishment is - (1)specifically authorized by statute or by the President: or Federal Advisory Committee Act - continued October 6, 1972 - 5 - Pub. Law 92 - 463 STAT. 774 (2) determined as a matter of formal record, by the head of the Publication in agency involved after consultation with the Director, with timely Federal Register. notice published in the Federal Register, to be in the public inter- est in connection with the performance of duties imposed on that agency by law. (b) Unless otherwise specifically provided by statue or Presidential directive, advisory committees shall be utilized solely for advisory functions. Determinations of action to be taken and policy to be expressed with respect to matters upon which an advisory committee reports or makes recommendations shall be made solely by the Presi- dent or an officer of the Federal Government. (c) No advisory committee shall meet or take any action until an Charter, advisory committee charter has been filed with (1) the Director, in the filing, case of Presidential advisory committees, or (2) with the head of the agency to who any advisory committee reports and with the standing committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives having legislative jurisdicition of such agency. Such charter shall contain the Contents, following information: (A) the committee's official designation; (B) the committee's objectives and the scope of its activity; (C) the period of time necessary for the committee to carry out its purposes; (D) the agency or official to whom the committee reports; (E) the agency responsible for providing the necessary support for the committee; (F) a description of the duties for which the committee is responsible, and, if such duties are not solely advisory, a specifica- tion of the authority for such functions; (G) the estimated annual operating costs in dollars and man- years for such committee; (H) the estimated number and frequency of committee meetings; (I) the committee's termination date, if less than two years from the date of the committee's establishment; and (J) the date the charter is filed. A copy of any such charter shall also be furnished to the Library of Copy. Congress. ADVISORY COMMITTEE Sec. 10 (a)(1) Each advisory committee meeting shall be open to Meetings. the public. (2) Exempt when the President determines otherwise for reasons of national security, timely notice of each such meeting shall be published in the Federal Register, and the Director shall prescribe regulations to Federal Register. provide for other types of public notice to insure that all interested Regulations. persons are notified of such meeting prior thereto. (3) Interested persons shall be permitted to attend, appear before, or file statements with any advisory committee, subject to such reason- able rules or regulations as the Director may prescribe. (b) Subject to section 558 of title 5, United States Code, the records, State. 54. reports, transcripts, minutes, appendixes, working papers, drafts, studies, agenda, or other documents which were made available to or prepared for or by each advisory committee shall be available for public inspection and copying at a single location in the office of the advisory committee or the agency to which the advisory committee reports until the advisory committee ceases to exist. (e) Detailed minutes of each meeting of each advisory committees Minutes shall be kept and shall contain a record of the persons permant, a com- plete and accurate description of matters descussed and concludions reached, and copies of all reports received, issued, or approved by the Federal Advisory Committee Act - continued Pub. Law 92-463 - 6 - October 6, 1972 86 STAT. 775 Certification. advisory committee. The accuracy of all minutes shall be certified to by the chairman of the advisory committee. (d) Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(3) of this section shall not apply to any advisory committee meeting which the President, or the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports, determines is concerned with matters listed in section 552(b) of title 5, United States 81 Stat. 54. Code. Any such determination shall be in writing and shall contain Annual report. the reasons for such determination. If such a determination is made, the advisory committee shall issue a report at least annually setting forth a summary of its activities and such related matters as would be informative to the public consistent with the policy of section 552(b) of title 5, United States Code. Federal officer (a) There shall be designated an officer or employee of the Federal or employee, Government to chair or attend each meeting of each advisory commit- attendance. tee. The officer or employee so designated is authorized, whenever he determines it to be in the public interest, to adjourn any such meeting. No advisory committee shall conduct any meeting in the absence of that officer or employee. (f) Advisory committees shall not hold any meetings except at the call of, or with the advance approval of, a designated officer or employee of the Federal Government, and in the case of advisory com- mittees (other than Presidential advisory committees), with an agenda approved by such officer or employee. AVAILABILITY OF TRANSCIPTS Sec. 11. (a) Except where prohibited by contractual agreements entered into prior to the effective date of this Act, agencies and advi- sory committees shall make available to any person, at actual cost of duplication, copies of transcripts of agency proceedings or advsory committee meetings. "Agency pre- (b) As used in this section "agnecy proceeding" means any proceed- ceeding." ing as defined in section 551(12) of title 5, United States Code. 80 Stat. 382. FISCAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS Recordkeeping. Sec. 12. (a) Each agency shall keep records as will fully disclose the disposition of any funds which may be at the disposal of its advisory committees and the nature and extent of their activities. The General Services Administration, or such other agency as the President may designate, shall maintain financial records with respect to Presidential Audit. advisory committees. The Comptroller General of the United States, or any of his authorized representatives, sahll have access, for the pur- poses of audit and examination, to any such records. Agency sup- (b) Each agency shall be responsible for providing support services port services. for each advisory committee established by or reporting to it unless the establishing authority provides otherwise. Where any such advisory committee reports to more than one agency, only one agency shall be reponsible for support services at any one time. In the case of Presi- dential advisory committees, such services may be provided by the General Services Administration. RESPONSIBILITIES OF LIBRARY OF CONGRESS Reports and Sec. 13. Subject ot section 558 of title 5, United States Code, the Director shall provide for the filing with the Library of Congress of at papers. least eight copies of each report made by everyadvisory committee and. where appropriate, background papers prepared by consultants. The Librarian of Congress shall establish a depository for such reports and papers where they shall be available to public inspection and use. Federal Advisory Committee Act - continued October 6, 1972 -7- Pub. Law 92-463 86 STAT. 776 TERMINATION OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE SEC. 14 (a)(1) Each advisory committee which is in existance on the effective data of this Act shall terminate not later than the expiration of the two-year period following such effective date unless- (A) in the case of an advisory committee established by the President or an officer of the Federal Governemtn, such advisory committee is renewed by the President or that officer by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such two-year period; or (B) in the case of an advisory committee established by an Act of Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law. (2) Each advisory committee established after such effective date shall terminate not later than expiration of the two-year period beginning on the date of its establishment unless- (A) in the case of an advisory committee established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government such advisory committee is renewed by the President or such officer by appropriate action prior to the end of such period; or (B) in the case of an advisory committe established by an Act of Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law: (b)(1) Upon the renewal of any advisory committee, such advisory Renewal committee shall file a charter in accordance wit section 9 (c). (2) Any advisory committee established by an Act of Congress shall file a charter in accordance wit such section upon the expiration of each successive two-year period following the date of enactment of the Act establishing such advisory committee. (3) No advisory committee required under this subsection to file a charter shall take any action (other than preparation and filing of such charter) prior to the date on which such charter is filed. (c) Any advisory committee which is renewed by the President or C---------, any officer of the Federal Governemnt may be continued only for successive two-year periods by appropriate action taken by the President or such officer prior to the date on which such advisory committee would otherwise terminate. EFFECTIVE DATE SEC. 15. Except as provided in section 7(b), this Act shall become effective upon the expiration of ninety days following the date of enactment. Approved October 6, 1972. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORT: No. 92-1017 (Comm. on Government Operations) and No. 9-1403 (Comm. of Conference). SENATE REPORT: No. 92-1098 ----------S. ---- (Comm. on Government Operations). CO------SSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 118 (1972): May 9, considered and passed House, Sept.12 considered and passed Senate, amended, in lieu of S. 1529. Sept.19, Senate agreed to conference report, Sept.20, House agreed to conference report Government in the Sunshine Act (excerpt) September 13, 1976 -7- Pub. Law 94-409 "(iii) all written responses, and memorands stating the substance of all oral responses, to the materials described in clauses (i) and (ii) of the subparagraph; "(D) upon receipt of a communication knowingly made or knowingly caused to be made by a party in violation of this subsection, the agency, administrative law judge, or other employee presiding at the hearing may, to the extent consistent wit the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying statutes, require the party to show cause why claim or interest in the proceeding should not be dismissed, denied, disregarded, or otherwise adv----ly affected on account of each violation; and "(E) the prohibition of this subsection shall apply beginning Applicability, at such time as the agency may designate, but in not case shall they begin to apply later than the time at which a proceeding is noticed for hearing unless the person responsible for the communication has knowledge that it will be noticed, in which case the prohibitions shall apply beginning at the time of his acquisition of such knowledge. "(2) This subsection does not constiture authority to withhold information from Congress". (b) Section --- of title 4, United States Code, is amended- (1) by striking out "and" at the end of paragraph (12); (2) by string out the "act" at the end of paragraph (13) and inserting in lieu thereof "act; and" ; and (3) by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph: "(14 'ex parte communication' means an oral or writen communication not on the public record wit respect to which reasonable prior notice to all parties is not given, but it shall not include requests for status reports on any matter or proceeding covered by this subchapter.". (c) Section ---(d) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by inserting between the thrid and fourth sentences thereof the following new sentence: "The agency may to the extent re---------- with the interests of justice and the policy of the underlying ------ administered by the agency, consider a violatoin of section ---(d) of this title---- ----- cient grounds for a decision adverse to a party who has knowingly committed such violation or knowingly caused such violation to occur.". ----------- AMENDMENTS Sec. 5.(a) Section 410(b)(1) of title --, United States Code, is amended by inserting after "Section --- (public information)," the words "section ---(recors about individuals), section ---(open meetings).". (b) Section ---(b)(3) of title 3, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "(a) specifically exempted from disclosure by statue (other than section ---b of this title), provided that such statue (A) requires that the matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no descretion on the ---- or (B) establishes particular criteria for withholding or refers to particular types of matters to be withheld;". (C) Subsection (d) of section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act is amended by striking out the first sentence and inserting in lines --------, thereof the following: "Subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section shall not apply to any portion of an advisory committee meeting where --STAT, 1267 Pub. Law 94-409 -8- September --, 1976 the President, or the head of the agency to which the advisory committee reports, determines that such portion of such meeting may be closed to the public in accordance with subsection (c) of section 552b of title 5, United States Code". EFFECTIVE DATE Sec 6. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, the provisions of this Act shall take effect 180 days after the date of its enactment. (b) Subsection (g) of secion 552b of title 5, United States Code, as added by section 3(a) of this Act, shall take effect upon enactment. Approved September 13, 1976. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: HOUSE REPORTS: No. 94-880, -- - and No. 04-880, --2, accompanying M.R. 11656 (Comm. on Government Operations) and No. 94-1441 (Comm. of Conference). SENATE REPORTS: No. 94-354 (Comm. on Government Operations), No. 94-381 (Comm. on Rules and Administration) and NO. 94-1178(Comm. of Conferences) CONGRESSIONAL RECORD: Vol. 121(1875) Nov. 5,6, considered and passed Senate. Vol. 122(1976) July 28, considered, and passed House, amended in -------------------- Aug --, House and Senate agreed to conference report. WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS Vol. 12, No. 28 (1976) Sept 13, Presidential statement -- STAT ---- Handicapped Federal Employees, Personal Assistants, Employment (excerpt) 94 STAT. 3040 PUBLIC LAW 96-523-DEC.12, 1980 Travel expenses: "(dX1) In the case of any handicapped employee(including a blind or deaf employee) traveling on official business, the head of th agency may authorize the payment to an individual to accompany or assist (or both) the handicapped employee for all or a portion of the travel period involved. Any payment under this subsection to such an individual may be made either directly to that individual or by advancement or reimbursement to the handicapped employee. Payment Limitation: "(2) With respect to any individual paid to accompany or assist a handicapped employee under paragraph (1) of this subsection - limit or limits which the Office of Personnel Management shall prescribe by regulation to ensure that the payment does not exceed amounts (including pay and, if appropriate, travl expenses and per diem allowances) which could be paid to an employee assigned to accompany or assist the handicapped employee; and "(B) that individual shall be considered an employee, but only for purposes of chapter 81 of this title (relating to compensation for injury) and sections 2671 through 2680 of title 28 (relating to tot claims). "(e) This section may not be held or considered to prevent or limit in any way the assignment to a handicapped employee (including a blind or deaf employee) by an agency of clerical or secretarial assistance, at the expense of the agency under statutes and regulations curently applicable at the time, if that asistance normally is provided, or authorized to be provided, in that manner under currently applicable statutes and regulations." (b) The item relating to section 3102 in the analysis of chapter 31 of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "3102 Employment of personal assistants for handicapped employees, including blind and deaf employees." (cX1) Section 604(--16XA) of title 28, United States Code, is amended by striking out "3102" and inserting in lieu thereof "3102(b)". (2) Section 410(bX1) of title 39, United States Code, is amended by striking out "3102 (employment of reading assistants for blind employees and interpreting assistants for deaf employees)," and inserting in lieu thereof "section 3102 (employment of personal assistants for blind, deaf, or otherwise handicapped employees),". Sec. 2. Section 7(d)(1) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking out "and" at the end of subparagraph (A) by striking out the period at the end of subparagraph (B) and inserting"; and" in lieu thereof, and by adding at the end thereof the following new subparagraph: "(C) such members) "(i) who are blind or deaf or who otherwise qualify as handicapped individuals (within the meaning of section 501 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1978 (29 U.S.C. 794)), and "(ii) who do not otherwise qualify for assistance under section 3102 of title 5, United States Code, by reason of being an employee of an agency (within the meaning of section 3102(a)(1) of such title5), may be provided services pursuant to section 3102 of such title 5 while in performance of their advisory committee duties". Sec 3. The amendments made by this Act shall take effect sixty days after the date of the enactment of this Act. Sec. 4(a) Section ---2 of title 5, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection: Congressional Reports Elimination Act of 1982 (excerpt) PUBLIC LAW 97-375-DEC.21, 1982 96 STAT.1821 mendations as he may deem proper as to the best means of preventing such injuries". (c) The second sentence of section 19(b) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668(b); 84 Stat. 1590 is repealed. REPORTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Sec. 111. (a) 151(g) of title 23, United States Code (87 Stat 285), is amended by striking out the third and fourth sectences and inserting in lieu thereof, "No state shall submit any such report to the Secretary for any year after the second year following completion of the pavement marking program in that State". (b) Section 602 of the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 (45 Repeal U.S.C. 792; 87 Stat. 1022) is repealed. (c) Section 4417a(19( of the Revised Statutes (46 U.S.C. 391a(19)) is repealed. (d) Section 515 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatury Reform Act of 1876 (45 U.S.C. 835;90 Stat. 82) is repealed.(e) Section 10 of the Emergency Rail Services Act of 1970 (45 Repeal U.S.C. 669-84 Stat. 1978) is repealed. REPORT BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Sec. 112 Section 602(c) of the act of June 3, 1980, entitled "An Act to provide for increased participation by the United States in the Inter-American Development Bank,and the African Development Fund" (22 U.S.C. 262(c); 94 Stat. 433), is repealed. REPORT BY THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION Sec.113. Sectoin 10327 (i) of title 49, United States Code (92 Stat 1350), is amended by striking out the last two sentences. REPORT BY THE NATIONAL ---------- AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION Sec. 114. Section 2304(a) of title 16, United States Code, is repealed. REPROT BY THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Sec.115.Section 11 of the Act of November 6, 1978, entitled "An Repeal Act to authorize appropriations to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for fiscal yar 1979, and for other purposes"(42 U.S.C. 2206a;92 Stat 2953), is repealed. TITLE II-MODIFICATIONS REPORTS BY THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT Sec.201.(a) Section 452a(eX4) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by striking out "at least annually" and inserting in lieu thereof "upon establishment or revision" (b) Subsection (p) of section 442a of title 5, United States Code, is amended to read as follows: "p) ANNUAL REPORT.-The President shall annually submit to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President protampore of the Senate a report- Congressional Reports Elimination Act of 1982-continued 96 STAT 1822 PUBLIC LAW 97-375-DEC.21, 1982 "(1) describing the actions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget pursuant to section 6 of the Privacy Act of 1974 during the preceding year; "(2) describing the exercise of individual rights of access and amendment under this section during such yar; "(3) identifying changes in or additions to systems of records; "(4) containing such other information concerning administration of this section as may be necessary or useful to the Congress in reviewing the effectiveness of this section in carrying out the purposes of the Privacy Act of 1974". (c) Effective July 1, 1983, section 6(c) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking out the first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof the following: "The President shall, not later than December 31 of each year, make an annual report tothe Congress on the activities, status, and changes in the composition of advisory committees in existence during the preceding fiscal year.". REPORTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE SEC. 202(a) Section 302(d) of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sancturies Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1432(d)) is amended to read as follows: "(d) The Secretary shall submit a biennial report to the Congress on or before March 1 of every other year beginning in 1984, setting forth a comprehensive review of his actions during the previous two fiscal years undertaken pursuant to the authority of this section, together with appropriate recommendation for legislation considered necessary for the designation and protection of marine sanctuaries.". (b) Section 7 of the National Climate Program Act of 1978 (15 U.S.C. 2906) is amended by striking out "not later than January 30 of each year" and inserting in lieu thereof "not later than March 31 of each year". (c) Section 4(a) of the National Ocean Pollution Research and Development and Monitoring Planning Act of 1978 (33 U.S.C. 1703(a)) is amended by striking out "and a revision of the plan shall be prepared and so submitted by September 15 of each odd-numbered year occurring after 1979" and inserting in lieu thereof "and a revision of the plan shall be prepared and so submitted by Septmember 15 every three years after 1979". (d) Section 8 of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (15 U.S.C. 1457) is amended by striking out the following: "or to participate in the development of voluntary product standards with respect to any consumer commodity under procedures referred to in section 5(d) of this Act.". REPORTS BY THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Sec. 203 (a)(1) Section 808(a) of the Department of Defense Appropriation Authorization Act, 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1520 (a); 91 Stat. 334) is amended by striking out clause (1) and by striking out "(2)". (2) Section 409(a) of the Act of November 19, 1969 (50 U.S.C. 1511(a); -- Stat. 209), is amended by adding the following sentece at the end thereof; "The report shall include a full accounting of all experiments and studies conducted by the Department of Defense in the preceding year, whether directly or under contract, which Executive Order 12024 THE PRESIDENT Relating to the Transfer of Certain Advisory Committee Functions Executive Order 12024 December 1, 1977 By virture of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United States of America, including the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (3 U.S.C. App.I), Section 301 of Title 3 of the United States Code, Section 202 of the Budget and Accounting Procedures Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C. 581c), and Section 7 of Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (42 FR 56101(October 21, 1977)) and as President of the United States of America, in accord with the transfer of advisory committee functions from the Office of Management and Budget to the General Services Adminstration provided by Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977, it is hereby ordered as follows: Section I. The transfer, provided by Section 3F Reorganization Plan No. 1 of 1977 (42 FR 56101), of certain functions under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. Aplp. I), from the Office of Management and Budget and its Director to the Administrator of General Services is hereby effective. Sec. 2 There is hereby delegated to the Administrator of General Services all the functions were vested in the President by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, except that, the annual report to the Congress required by Section 6(c) of that Act shall be prepared by the Administrator for the President's consideration and transmittal to the Congress. Sec. 3 The Director of the Office of Mangement and Budget shall take all actions necessary or appropriate to effectuate the transfer of functions provided in this Order, including the transfer of funds, personnel and positions, assets, liablities, contracts, property, records, and other items released to the functions transferred. Sec. 4 Executive Order No. 11769 of February 21, 1974 is hereby revoked. Sec. 5 Any rules, regulations, orders, directories, ---------, or other actions takes pursuant to the functions transferred or reassigned as provided in this Order from the Office of Management and Budget to the Adminstrator of General Services, shall remain in effect as if issued by the Administrator until amended, modified, or revoked. Sec. 6 This Order shall be effective November 20, 1977. Jimmy Carter THE WHITE HOUSE, December 1, 1977. 45926 Federal Register Vol. 52, No. 231 Wednesday, December 2, 1987 Rules and Regulations GENERAL SERVICES and Executive Order 12024 (42 FR 61445, Provide for Coverage Under the Act ADMINISTRATION 3 CFR, 1977 Comp.. p. 158). Under When Certain Groups Provide, Executive Order 12024. the President Consensus orRecurrent Advice 41 CFR Part ioi-6 delegated to the Administrator of One commenter stated that the FPMR Amendment A-401 General Services all of the functions language in 1101-6.1004 (i) and (j) of the vested in the President by the Act. as proposed rule was too tentative to Federal Advisory Committee amended, except that the Annual Report specifically provide that acceptance of Management to the Congress required by Section 6(c) consensus advice or advice on a AGENCY: Office of Administration, GSA. shall be prepared by the Administrator recurring basis from certain groups were for the President's consideration and determinants for coverage under the ACTION: Final rule. transmittal to the Congress. Act. GSA has accepted these SUMMARY: This,final rule provides Discussion of Comments suggestions and has strengthened the administrative and interpretive wording of these sections in the final guidelines and management controls for As stated above. GSA issued a rule. Federal agencies concerning the proposed rule on the management of Agencies are. in effect, cautioned that implementation of the Federal Advisory Federal advisory committees in the the Act would apply when an agency Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C.. Federal Register and invited comments. accepts the deliberations of.a group as a App.) (hereinafter "the Act"). In a Nineteen commenters responded. Seven source of consensus advice, when previous issue of the Federal Register, commenters had no substantive heretofore the agency had been GSA published an interim final rule on recommendations and were fully obtaining the advice of attendees on an the management of Federal advisory supportive of the proposed rule. Twelve individual basis only. Also, when an committees and requested comments (48 others offered suggestions for improving agency recurrently uses a group at the FR 19324: April 28,1983). Additional numerous sections and the disposition group's request. as a source of advice on comments were requested through an of these recommendations is addressed a preferential basis. exclusion of advance notice of proposed rulemaking as follows: coverage under the Act may become published in the Federal Register on questi6nable even if the group continties February 13,1987 (52 FR 4631). A new Clarify the Distinction Between only to express its own views withot* proposed rule. removing suggested Operational as Opposed to Advisory further solicitations from Federal limitations on the size of Federal Committees officials. advisory committees. eliminating Two commenters suggested that Strengthen the Provision for Excluding .4 requirements for the provision of further guidance in the final rule was Coverage of So-Called Fact-Finding updated committee membership data on necessary to assist agencies in Sub$roups a quarterly basis and restrictions on the interpreting what constitutes primarily compensation of committee members, an operational committee as opposed to Several commenters were of the and reflecting other actions to one which performs only advisory opinion that so-called fact-finding streamline compliance with the Act. was functions, in order to determine subgroups should continue to be published in the Federal Register on coverage under the Act. Accordingly. excluded from coverage under the Act. May 19,1987 (52 FR 18774). with a 90- However, it was their general consensus day comment period ending on August GSA has added language to 1101- that I ioi-8.10(14(k) of the proposed rule 17. All comments received were 6.1004(g) in the final rule which more was less than clear in including both the considered in formulating this final rule fully describes what. in general. members of an advisory committee and which is intended to improve the constitutes operational functions. any of itz, subcommittee members in this management and use of Federal While the legislative history of the exclusion. One commenier felt strongly advisory committees in the Executive Ad contains the concept for the that this exclusion should apply to all Branch of the Federal Government. exclusion of operational WMmitt"& membess of an advisory committee and EFFECTIVE DATE: January 4.-198& dwe is Tw precise lqai idefinition of its subcommittga& whether at not the Aowwssas: General Services operational committm in ei6ler the Aa subcommittee mendIers am membem at Administration. Committee Management or its legislative history. GSA believes the parent committee. GSA agrees with Secretariat (CTMJ. Washington. X that operational futictions to be this recommezAadon sinceft Pareflels 20405@ performed by an advisory committee the lansmge and intent expressed in Copies of all comments received are must be so authorized by law, since the I jol-6.10Mb) (3) mid (4) which clarify available for public inspection in Room making or implementation of certain requirements applicable to 7030 of the General Services Building. Government decisions is normally subcommittees. GSA has reworded the i8th and F Streets NW.. Washington. reserved to Federal officials as opposed definition of "Advisory Committee" in DC. to advisory committees. Additionally. I 1M.111003 of the final rule to follow FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. sections 2(b)(61 and 9(b) of the Act more precisely the language in section James L. Dean. Director, Committee providithat. unless specifically 3(2.) of the Act and has been more consistent in the use of the term Management Secretariat. Office of provided by statute or Presidential .1 k)and Management Services, Office of directive. advisory committees may not subcommittee" in 1101-&1004( Administration. General Services make determination$ or express policy i icn-&ia;7(b)(3) of the final rule. Administration. Washington. DC 20405 in matters under their consideration. Another commenter felt that the language in I 101-&1004(k) was not (202) 523-1343. Given the additional language in this strong enough to preclude fact-finding SUPftXMKNTARY INFORMATIOW final rule. GSA believes that it will be subgroups from Preparing what Background easier for agencies to identify ultimately becomes the advice and committees which perform primarily recommendations of the chartered GSA's authority for administering the operational functions. advisory committee. 88 opposed to Act is contained in section 7 of the Act A17 Federal Register Vol. 52. No. 231 Wednesday, December 2. 1987 Rules and Regulations simply gathering information and INFORMATION:), a commenter suggested � 101-6-1007(b) of the proposed rule. analyzing facts for the committee. GSA that the final rule should not preclude should be included in both the Federal has modified the language in this agencies from issuing an exclusion for Register notice of establishment and in provision to clarify that the results of one-time meetings. This commenter felt the filed charter. such fact-finding activities are to be that GSA's opinion. that such an GSA has not adopted this suggestion subject to the deliberation of a chartered exclusion in the rule was not for two reasons. First. the agency letter advisory committee, or a subcommittee appropriate in view of the limited proposing the establishment of an when subsequently conducting a litigation history. should not bar advisory committee under general meeting under the Act. agencies from issuing such exclusions. agency authority already contains this Provide A dditional Guidance on the In fact, it was the opinion of this information. as specified by J t01- Requirements Applicable to commenter that the absence of litigation 6.1007(b)(2)(iii) of the rule, and this letter Subcommittees history was not sufficient reason to limit would be a public record following the management discretion. establishment of the advisory One commenter requested that the GSA continues to believe that a one- committee. Second, inclusion of this final rule provide additional guidance on time meeting exclusion in the final rule information in the Federal Register the applicability of various requirements would be inconsistent with the Act, and notice of establishment and the filed of the Act to subcommittees. Since the does not intend to provide either a charter is not specifically required under definition of "advisory committee" in direct exclusion in � 101-6.1004 or sections 9 (a)(2) and (c) of the Act. For section 3(2) of the Act specifically provide that such a decision may be left purposes of this comment. GSA has not includes - * * any subcommittee or to an agency, thereby implying GSA's altered � 101-6.1007(b)(1) or � 101- other subgroup thereof * * -, GSA support for such exclusions. 6.1015(a)[1) of the final rule. believes all requirements of advisory Accordingly, GSA reiterates its opinion committees in the Act also apply to that in the absence of any judicial Pro vide Additional Guidance on subcommittees. Furthermore, the Act precedent to the contrary. meetings or BolancedRepresentation and Selection itself contains no provisions for groups which take place or meet only of Members subcommittees which differ from those once should not be excluded from the Ones commenter was concerned that applicable to a full or parent committee. Act's coverage solely on this basis. the proposed rule did not contain Absent more specific language in the Eliminate the Agency Requirement to sufficient guidance on balanced- Act. additional guidance by GSA which Assess Duplication of Advisory representation and the selectionof might serve to differentiate any Committees on a Governmentivide Basis members, and suggested that the fi I nal requirements of subcommittees from rule provide additional instructions for those of advisory committees would be Two commenters pointed out the agencies to follow in these areas. GSA inconsistent with the Act. impracticability of requiring an agency to assess duplication of effort of already recognizes that the guidelines in the Exclude From Coverage Under the Act existing committees on a proposed rule are limited to the Groups Convened by Agencies on an A Governmentwide basis as opposed to an language of the Act. However, GSA Hoc Basis individual agency basis. Both believes that the provisions of section One commenter recommended that commenters further asserted that this 5(c) of the Act are broad enough to the final rule contain an exclusion from Governmentwide role could be allow agency discretion in determining coverage under the Act for so-called ad performed by GSA during its own advisory committee representation and hoc groups lacking formal organization. review process subsequent to the receipt membership relative to applicable structure. or continuing existence; of the agency's proposal in accordance statutes, Executive Orders. and the conv ned by an agency to obtain views with I ioi-mow(b) of the rule. needs of the agency responsible for the .q committee. Accordingly, GSA will retain an particular matters of immediate Since GSA is responsible for concern. GSA is of the opinion that such reviewing and maintaining data on all the proposed guidelines in the final rule an exclusion is not appropriate since the advisory committees in every agency based on the lang"ge of the Act Act itself'neither defines nor specifically pursuant to several provisions of the Provide RevisedRecordkeeping excludes such groups. in fact. section Act. CSA agrees that it can effectiv 'ely Requirements 6(c) of the Act, providing for the perform this function. GSA can also Two commewers. directly of President's annudl report to the provide agencies. on request. . irectly, expressed concern over the Congress. requires a statement for each information on other agency committees Ind ined of effort recordkeeping requirements conta advisory committee, of whether it relative to potential duplication In the proposed rule. One rommenter I s a n ad hoc or continuing body issues. observed that it was not possible for the Accordingly. GSA has not accepted the GSA has rewritten the language in mittee Management officer (CMO) recommendation to exclude ad hoc I iol-6.1007 (a) and (b)(2)(ii) of the final Cam groups since GSA believes that the rule to reflect this concept by providing' to ensure compliance with sections language of section 6(c) of the Act that an agency only consider the 10(b), 12(a) and 13 of the Act, as functions of a proposed committee for required by I 101-4.1(n7. Section io(b) evidences the intent of the Congress that Of the Act requires that the records of an a group is not to be excluded from duplication of existing committees in the advisory committee shall be available at coverage merely because it is convened some agency. a single location at the advisory on an ad hoc. or temporary basis. include the Agency's Plan for Balanced committee or the agency to which it Provide That Agencies May Exercise Membership in Federal Register NOtices reports during the committee's jested Policy Decisions in Issuing Exclusions and Charters existence. This commenter sug for One- Time Meetings One commenter suggested that an that GSA relax the requirement of In a comment directed toward GSA's agency's plan to attain balanced I lol-4.10,17 ornmenter, taking a different position stated in the discussion of prior membership for a proposed advisory Another c hazard comments in the proposed rule (see 52 committee. to be submitted in view, complained of the hap FR 18774. SUPMUENTANY conjunction with the review required by approach by agencies to the public ~0 4~.5928 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 231 / Wednesday, December 2. 1987 / Rules and Regulations availability and retention of advisory Provide Guidance to Agencies Procedural and Administrative committee records. This commenter Concerning the Applicability ~qqf the Comments recommended that the regulations be Anti-Lobbyi~n~qg Statute and Hatch Act to strengthened in these aspects. Advisory Committee Members The final rule incorporates numerous technical and procedural For the following reasons. GSA has With respect to ~q� ~10~1--~qf~qi~.1~q033 of the recommendations made by several determined not to adopt the specific proposed rule. one ~c~ommen~ter stated c~omme~nters. paT~l~qi~cu~qka~r~qky in the suggestions of either commenter. First. that unless provided by statute. agencies following sections: section 8(b)(2) of the Act provides that should not compensate advisory the CMO shall "assemble and maintain committee members if they provide the reports, records, and other papers of policy advice on proposals for Section ~m~o~m~f~i~ca~t~i~o~n any such committee during its legislation because this compensation ~101-6~.~1007~qM~R)~ ~R~e~q~u~we~s ~o~f~o~o~o~s~e~o c~ha~n~e~r ~M~t~h ~age~qm~v existence." When sections 8~q(b)(2) and would violate the anti-iobbying statute. ~f~t~er~ 10(b) are read together. it is clear that (See 18 U.S.C. 1913). The same 101 ~-6.~1007(d)(1) ~Pro~'ev~i~cI~n that date of cha~m~er filing con. t~al~t~i~l~ishmen~t. the records of an advisory committee commenter also stated that GSA should ~o~l-~e~.~t~o~,3~14~o~qm ~E~f~i~s~m~h~o~qw~w~"~qMd~qa~r~"~"~I~4qt~"~, A re~qu~in~i~f~ire~nt lot are to be available at a single location direct agencies to ensure that any aid ~(~C~)~qM~. ~w~o~v~d~i~i Comm Of ~h~l~ing ~l~e~n~e~m to ~Q~jSA by ad" Provision for ~q" and it is the CMO who is responsible for members of an advisory committee who ~dat~q" on charl~ers~; Makes ref~ate~d ensuring that this is accomplished. GSA are subject to the Hatch Act (5 U~.S.C. change to ~co~p~os of ~Pres~o~c~l~en~tia~l advi. sory committee c~ma~n~a~irs tur~n~isn~ed to has therefore decided against relaxing 7321~-7328) are aware of their obligations ~"~Ne the requirements of ~qJ 101~-6.1017 in the ~C~o~r~9~q-~. under that law. ~10~1~-~6~.1015 (~a)(2~) ~Pr~o~y~4~as for ~t~im~e~t~y n~o~b~c~os in ~qf~qt Fed- final rule. For the following reasons. GSA has and ~qf~qt ~1). Wall ~R ~0~8~1 on a ~c~ai~e~n~dar~-~i~s~a~y The commenter who expressed ~-~6.~101~7 ~qW 1~11~qM~. adopted neither suggestion. First. GSA ~10~1 Ad~qO ~n~a~i~l~lt~w~o~7~qw~qn ~M~W ~m~i~a~t~"~b~w~s~h~p and ~(~d~i~. ~l~e~st~3 and c~l~~o~qW Mee" ~qf~qtl~i~t~n~i~n~ur~m~i~. concern over the haphazard approach to does not believe that the traditional t~ion~s be ~i~n~ducl~a~c~! ~i~n r ~, recordkeeping suggested that the final activities of an advisory. committee fall ~1~0~1~-~6.1025~(b) ........... Adds ~re~t~i~l~se~f~f~i~e~nt from section 10(c~) o~t rule should: (1) Require agencies to keep within the scope of the activities which a* A~Ct on ~O~W ~C~ar~"t~i~c~qa~on to ~qf~qt ac~c~ww~y o~f ~t~r~o~m~i~rt~qm ~c~t ~f~f~i~e~n~n~g~s. committee records available for a 18 U.S.C. 1913 was designed to protect 10~1~-~4~.~%~02~7~qf~qt ........... ~A~d~qf~qt ~f~t~i~&~wer~n~e~m to ~M~qO~V ~S~qm~i~q~K~W~O certain period of time after a committee against. Second. the Federal Advisory ~ ~q~ an ~a~p~ir~m~ir ~?~0~0 ~a has terminated, and (2) address the Committee Act itself does not reference ~c~w~r~m~w~qw ~p~rc~iv~i~i~t~l~l~e~i~i ~qW ~qf~qt~a~w~n for ~q" COOK Of perceived unavailability of the the Hatch Act. and there is already a ~O~P~q" with ~O~W ~L~A~X~W~Y ~0~1 ~C~o~m~p~t~i~l~l~is~a. deliberative process privilege under the body of regulations on political fifth exemption of the Freedom of activities by Federal employees which Other sections were also amended or Information Act (FOIA) to advisory has been issued by the Office of revised for clarity of interi~t. or corrected committee records. For the following Personnel Management, 5 CFR Part 733. for errors in content and format. reasons. GSA has not adopted these Also. the Special Counsel of the Merit These sections include: comments. Systems Protection Board, who has First, pursuant to the National responsibilities for investigation and Archives and Records Administration administrative prosecution of alleged Act of 1984. as amended. Pub. L. 98~-497, Hatch Act violations. issues advisory 101~-~6.~1002~id~) .......... C~l~i~i~a~i~ng~m ~c~i~f~t~e~m of ~"~"~* A~o~" to t~qf~qt the Archivist of the United States is opinions on Hatch Act questions. GSA C~l~ov~arr~o~r~an~i~t at ~V~w Su~r~d~r~u~n~e ~*~4~L resp6ns~ible for records management in sees no need to issue regulations in this ~101~- c~l~a~n~v~a~s ~p~r~o~v~o~qw for ~-~, ~qf~qt ~S~. ~1007(~b)~Q~X~ii~i~). ~11~1~6~1~111~1:111c~i~n Of ~f~f~l~e~f~f~it:~411,~11~1 ~V~X~M ~r~e~a~p~ill~ict to the Federal Government. including the area when there are already regulations ~Al~it~t~o ~b~a~t~t~a~nc~e. issuance of regulations and guidance for in piece and an administrative ~10~1~-~4~~1~0~0~9 corrects ~t~a~ll~e of to ~i~n~a~q"~1~0~0 ~a~f~t~a~m~qm of ~" records retention and disposition. as mechanism available through agencies ~1 or ~w~o~m~qm~qm ~a~w ~a~r ~e~a~- well as the process for identifying with greater responsibilities in this area ~t~v in ~p~w~o~o~qf~qt ~M~" -a cam= ~1~qM~0~1~9 of Meow ~V ~P~q- records -a ppropria te for transfer to ~qf~ql~a ~t~qh~qm GSA. ~qM~qm~r~qw~% ~e~c~qw~q" of ~qM~qw~~d~"~" permanent Archives of the United ~s~o~qm~e~w ~b~w ~i~qm. ~6qC~qgm~r~q@~qh~4qy the P~qm~ee~2qd~qw~i~e~s f ~qi~v~- ~qT~qmns~qw~qi~t~t~qh~8q* ~-~i~o~i~-~a~i~o~qm~qw~i ~o~w~*~qm ~w~M~a~" me ~4~1 ~r~a~qf~qt~~~~l ~qf~qt~e~- States. Since the Federa~qi Advisory ~qM~W ~qM~w~e at ~8~9~21~1~1~N~O~W~M~S no ~6qF~a~ql~6qk~qw up ~2qR~e~qp~qr~t~qf~qt off ~2qR~4qk~a~i~n~2qk~7~s~t~"~qd Committee Act is silent on records ~?~W ~c~o~m~m~i~r~i~a~qm disposition for advisory committees. we Advisory Committee Recommendations by ~W~a~l~f ~c~ir ~i~a~l~l~i~n~i~t~i~Nh~O by ~4~0 see no reason or basis for GSA to alter One c~omme~nter requested ~1~0~1~-~6.1017 ............... El~i~n~W~O~qM ~1~0 ~W ~C111 ~0~01~c~m ~qf~qt~l ~1~0 normal ~8qGovernmentwide procedures in clarification in I i~l~qa~i~-~qe~.~t~0qw~q5~q(a~q) of the ~p~e~c~t~a~A~s ~-~-~q-~qv~q- ~10~1-~6~.~tQ~1~9 ............... this area which are the ~r~q6~2qWn~s~qib~qi~qltty of proposed rule on the procedures ~: ~F ~c~ol~i~qm. the Archivist of the Unit~qe~20qd~8qi~0qt~0qates. required for transmittal of follow-up 10~q1-~q4.~q102~q7~q(a~qM3~q) S~qP~qO~qC~qO~qW~qS ~q9~q0 ~qm~0q@ Of ~2q~ ~q"~qM ~qP soft Oran ~qS~0qW~qC ~qp~ql~qa~2qw ~8qW~6q- Second. the commenter suggested that reports to the Congress on the now@ a ~qe~qv~q"~qM~2qf~2qt~qe~q. the Government's settlement of the law disposition of Presidential advisory ~q1~q011~q-~q4~q-~qt~qo~4qn~qa)(~q1~q) ~qc~ql~ql~qe~qr~qi~qf~qt~qs to ~qp~qr~q0~qc~4qm ~qV~q4~q0~8qM ~qO~qW ~qr~qe~q. ~qa~qn~qo of ~qo~qw~6qm~qM~qm~0qm is 111 ~q% suit involving records of the Attorney committee recommendations. as ~qd~qr~qe~8qf~8qt~qi~qll ~qb~qV ~q1~q8w ~qa~qin~qi~4qm~qn ~qw- General's Commission on Pornography required by section ~q6~8q(b) of the Act. GSA wool ~ql~qi~q, ~q1~q0~q1~q-~q6~q.~q1~q0~q3~q1~q4~q9~q) call" ~- ~q- ~q- of ~qs~qe~qc~q"~qn ~q1~q0 ~qW~qC~qW~qW was a concession that the deliberative has decided to retain the proposed ~qp~8qM ~qo~4qw~qw~qa~qt~qi~4qm ~q&~qO~8qW~2qf~2qtd Of 1~q11111~qK~q. process privilege under the fifth language in the final rule without further to to ~qo~qp ~q" raw a fir ~qM~0qM ~qc~qr~4qw~8qw exemption of FOIA does not apply to modification at this time. GSA agrees ~q1~q41~111111~q1~q11111~q6 advisory committees. Since cases may that there has been some confusion as to ~q10~q1~q-6.~q1~q03~q11~4q0 .......... ~qS~ql~qi~ql~ql~qi~qc~ql~qs~q" to ~qV~qW ~q1~q9 NO ~qat~qe~qs agency responsible for ~q&~qW ~qa~qa~qa~qw~4qf~4qt ~qJ~qW A ~qc~qa~qt~qm be settled for a variety of reasons which whether the ~2q@ do not involve a decision on the merits. supporting the Presidential advisory GSA does not believe that the mere committee. or GSA. should transmit the settlement of a matter in litigation is report. GSA intends to propose fu ~q-~qrther A~16q"~8qdon~qa~qll Instructions di~qspo~qsitive of the legal issues raised in guidance in a future revision to this final the litigation. Accordingly. GSA has rule following more consultation with Pursuant to section 7~2q(d) of the Act. the determined not to adopt this suggestion. the affected agencies. guidelines contained in this final rule ~0 Federal Register Vol. 52. No. 231 Wednesday, December 2. 1987 Rules and Regulations 4~q5~0qK~qI~4qM with respect to uniform fair rates of pay Sec. the creation or elimination of. or chan~qg for comparable services for members. 101~-~6.10~08 The role of GSA. in regulations. guidelines, or rules staffs and consultants of advisory 101~-~6.100~9 Responsibilities of an agency affecting agency business: whether the committees have been established after head. information to be obtained is already 101~-6.1010 (Reserved~ql consultation by the Administrator with ~1~0i~-~6.1o1i Responsibilities of the available through another advisory the Director. Office of Personnel chairperson of an independent committee of source within the Federal Management. Presidential advisory committee. Government. whether the committee 101~-6.1012 ~qlRe~served~q) will make recommendations resulting in Executive Order 12291 101~-~6,1013 Charter filing requirements, significant improvements in service or GSA has determined that this final 101~-6.1014 ~qlReserved~ql reductions in cost; or whether the rule is not a major rule for purposes of 101~q4.1015 Advisory committee information committee's recommendations w~qi~ql~qi Executive Order 12291 of February 17, which must be published in the Federal provide an important additional Register. 1981~, because it will not result in an lo~i~-~6~.iol~o ~q[Reserved~ql perspective or viewpoint impacting annual effect on the economy of ~q$100 101~-~6.1017 Responsibilities of the agency agency operations; million or more, will not cause a major Committee Management Officer. (b) An advisory committee shall be increase in costs to consumers or others, ioi~-~e.~io~qu [Reserved] terminated whenever the stated and will not have significant adverse ioi-~e.io~i~i~; Duties of the Designated Federal objectives of the committee have been effects. GSA has based all Officer. accomplished: the subject matter or administrative decisions on this final 101~-8.1020 [Reserved) work of the committee has become rule on adequate information concerning 101~q4.1021 Public participation i~n advisory obsolete by the passing of time or the ~committee meetings. the need for and consequences of this 1~01~-~6.1022 (Reserved] assumption of the committee's main final rule. GSA has also determined that 101~-~6.10~23 Procedures for closing an functions by another entity within the the potential benefits to society from advisory committee meeting. Federal Government; or the agency this final rule far outweigh the potential 101~-~6.1024 [Reserved] determines that the cost of operation is costs. has maximized the net benefits. 10~1~-~6.102~5 Requirement for maintaining excessive in relation to the benefits and has chosen the alternative involving minutes of advisory committee ~me~e~f~i~n~g~s~. accrui~2qM to the Federal Government: the least net cost to society. 1o~i~-~-~q&~io2~e [Reserved~ql ~, ~.~q1~c) An advisory committee shall be I~qM-~4~.10~27 Termination o~qfa~qdv~isory balanced i~n its membership in terms of R~e~qg~i~ala~tory ~qflex~qi~qb~qi~qll~qi~ty Act committees. loi~-~e.~1oz~e (Reserv~edl the points of view rep~resented~q4~ind the These regulations are not subject to ~1~0~1~-~&~I~o~qn Renewal and rechartering of functions to be performed; and, the regulatory flexibility analysis or advisory committees. (d) An advisory committee shall be other requirements of 5 U.S.C. 603 and ic~l~i-~&i03~0 [Reserved] open to the public in its meetings excep~"~q1~8q6 604. 10~1~-~.~&~1~031 Amendments to advisory in those circumstances where a closed committee charters. meeting shall be determined proper an* ~6qUst of Subjects in 41 CF~qR Part 10~q1~-~q6 ~i~cn-~&~2032 ~qlRe~ser~v~edl loi-a~a~0~33 Compensation and expense consistent with the provisions in the Civil rights. Government property reimbursement of advisory committee Government in the Sunshine Act 5 management. Grant programs. members, staffs and consultants. U.S.C. 552(b). Intergovernmental relations, Surplus ~i~qm~-~a1034 [Reserved] Government property, Relocation 10~1~-~&~10~35 Reports required for advisory 101~-4~L~I003 ~qD~e~qt~0qmon~a~. assistance. Real property acquisition. co~n~imittees. "Act" means the Federal Advisory Federal advisory committees. I ~q1~q0~q1~-~8qm~qo~qo~ql scope Committee Act. as amended. 5 U.S.C.~, App. Accordingly. 41 CFR Part 1~q0~q1~-6 is (a) This subpart defines the policies. "Administrator" means the amended as follows: establish minimum requirements. and Administrator of General Services. provide guidance to agency management ..Advisory committee" subject to the PART 101-~q6~q-MISCELLA~6qMEOUS for the establishment. operation. Act means any committee. board. REGULATIONS administration. and duration of advisory commission. council. conference. panel. ~q1. The authority citation for 41 CFR committees subject to the Federal task force. or other similar group. or any Advisory Committee Act as amended. subcommittee or other subgroup thereof Part 101~-~q6 continues to read as follows: Reporting requirements which keep the which is established by statute, Or Authority: Sec. ~Z~6qMc)~. 83 Slat. 3~90: 40 Congress and the public informed of the established or utilized by the President ~qU~.S.C. 48~q6(c): sec. 7. ~3 U.~8q&~qC~-. App~.; and LO~. number, purpose. membership. or any agency official for the purpose of I ~qZ024. 3 CFR 1977 Co~6qm~0qp.~q. p. ~1~5~5, activities. and cost of these advisory obtaining advice or recommendations 2. Subpart i~8qo~8ql~q-~08q&~4q10 is revised to read committees are also included. on issues or policies which are within as follows: (b)~q'~20qM~qe Act and this subpart do not the scope of his or her responsibilities. Subpart ~ql~0qo~qi~q-~0q6.~0q10~q-~08q@~0q@ Advisory apply to advisory meetings or groups "Agency" has the same meaning as in committee M~qan~qag~qe~qnwr~qit I~q.i~qsted in ~0qi 1~2q0~8q1~q-~08q4~q-I~8qOD4~q. section 551(~4q1) of Tide ~8qs of the United ~4q1~0q1~4q0~q1~q-~04q&~q10~4q0~8q2 Policy. States Code. Sec~q. -Committee Management Secretariat" ~q1~q0~q1~q-~q6~q.~q1~q0~q0~q1 Scope. The policy to be followed by Federal (,*Secretariat"). established pursuant to 1~q0~q1~q-~q6.1~q0~q0~q2 Policy. departments. agencies, and Definition#. commissions. consistent with the the Act is responsible for all matters i~qo~qi-~qa.io~2qm Examples of advisory m~qe~qeti~qnss Federal Advisory Committee Act. as relating to advisory committees. and or groups not covered by the Act or this amended. is as follows: carries out the Administrator's ~qnd subpart. (a) An advisory committee shall be responsibilities tinder the Act a ~q1~q0~q1~q-~q6~q.1o~qo5 Authorities for establishment of established only when it is ~qes~qs~qen~6qhal to Executive order 12024. advisory committees. the conduct of agency business. ~q. "Committee ~4qm~qembe~qt~q" means An ~qjo~qi~q-~q6~q.iw~qe ~8qlReservedl Decision criteria include whether individual who serves by appointment 1~qo~q1~q-~q6~q.~q1o~q07 Agency procedures for committee deliberations will result in on an advisory committee and has the establishing advisory committees. 45930 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 231 / Wednesday, December 2. 1987 / Rules and Regulations full right and obligation to participate in make recommendations to State or local this instance. the responsible agency the activities of the committee, including officials or agencies; head shall follow the procedures voting on committee recommendations. . (S) Any committee which is provided in I M-&1007; "Presidential advisory committee" established to perform primarily (c) By the President by Executive means any advisory committee which operational as opposed -to adviso3y Order, or advises the President. it may be functions. Operational functions are (d) By an agency under general established by the President or by the those specifically provided by law. such agency authority in Title 5 of the United Congress. or used by the President in the as making or implementing Government interest of obtaining advice or decisions or policy. An operational States Code or under other general committee may be covered by the Act if an agency head shall follow the recommendations for the President agency-authorizing law. In this instance. "Independent Presidential advisory it becomes primarily advisory in nature. procedures provided in � 101-6.1007. Committee" means any Presidential It is the responsibility of the advisory committee not assigned by the administering agency to determine � AGIALING Ifftservocil President. or the President's delegate, or whether such a committee is primardy by the Congress in law, to an agency for operational. If so. it would not fall under 1101-6.1007 Agerecyprocedumstor administrative and other support and for the requirements of the Act and this establishing advisory committees. which the Administrator of General Subpart. but would continue to be (a) When an agency head decides that Services may provide administrative regulated under relevant laws, subject to it is necessary to establish a committee, and other support on a reimbursable the direction of the President and the the agency must consider the functions basis. review of the appropriate legislative of similar committees in the same "Staff member" means any individual committees: agency before submitting a consultation who serves in a support capacity to an (h) Any meeting initiated by the to GSA to ensure that no duplication of advisory committee. President or one or more Federal effort will occur. "Utilized" (or "used"), as referenced official(s) for the purpose of obtaining (b) In establishing or utilizing an in the definition of "Advisory advice or recommendations from one advisory committee. the head of am committee" in this section. means a individual; agency or designee shall comply with committee or other group composed in (i) Any meeting initiated by a Federal the Act and this subpart. and whole or in part of other than full-time official(s) with more than one individual (1) Prepare a proposed charter foehe officers or employees of the Federal for the purpose of obtaining the advice committee which includes the Government with an established of individual attendees and not for the information listed in section 9(c) of the existence outside the agency seeking its purpose of utilizing the group to obtain Act: and advice which the President or agency consensus advice or recommendations. official(s) adopts, such as through However. agencies should be aware that (2) Submit a letter and the proposed institutional arrangements. as a such a group would be covered by the charter to the Secretariat proposing to preferred source from which to obtain Act when an agency accepts the group,s establish or use. reestablish. or renew advice or recommendations on a deliberations as a source of consensus an advisory committee. The letter shall specific issue or policy within the scope advice or recommendations. include the following information: of his or her responsibilities in the same (j) Any meeting initiated by a group (i) An explanation of why the manner as that individual would obtain with the President or one or more committee is essential to the conduct of advice or recommendations from an Federal official(s) for the purpose of agency business and in the public established advisory committee. expressing the group's view, provided interest; that the President or Federal official(s) (h) An explanation of why the �101-6.1004 Examploesofadvisory does not use the group recurrently as a committee's functions cannot be meetings or groups not covered by Ow Act preferred source of advice or performed by the agency, another or this subpart rewAmmendations-, existing advisory committee of the The following are examples of Ilk) Meetings of two of mom advismy aggincy. ov other means such as a public advisory meetings or groups not covered committee or eiiboom&ittee members hearb* and by the Act or this subpart: convened solely to gather information or f iii) A description of the agency's Plan (a) Any committee composed wholly conduct research for a chartered to attain balanced membership. For of full-time officers or employees of the advisory committee. to analyze relevant purposes of attaining balance. agencies Federal Government. issues and facts. or to draft proposed shall consider for membership I (b) Any advisory committee position papers for deliberation by the interested persons and groups with specifically exempted by an Act of advisory committee or a subcommittee professional or personal qualifications Congress; of the advisory committee; or or experience to contribute to the (c) Any advisory committee (1) Any meeting with a group initiated functions and tasks to be performed. established or utilized by the Central by the President or one or more Federal This should be construed neither to limit intelligence Agency: official(s) for the purpose of exchanging the participation. nor compel the (d) Any advisory committee facts or information. selection of any particular individual or established or utilized by the Federal I 101_&10" Authodess for sst@bfthm@M group to obtain divergent points of view Reserve System: of edvinory committems. that are relevant to the business of the (e) The Advisory Committee on An advisory committee may be advisory committee. Intergovernmental Relations: established in one of four ways: (3) Subcommitteft that do not (n Any local civic group whose (a) By law where the Congress function independently of the full of primary function is that of rendering a specifically directs the President or an parent advisory committee need not public service with respect to a Federal agency to establish it: follow the requirements of paragraphs program. or any State or local (b) By law where the Congress (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section. committee. council. board. commission. authorizes but does not direct the However. they are subject to all other or similar group established to advise or President or an agency to establish it. In requirements of the Act. Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 231 / Wednesday. December 2. 1987 Rules and Regulations call (4) The requirements of paragraphs � 101-6.1009 Responsibilities of any Federal Advisory Committee Desk. (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section shall agency head. Washington. DC 20540: and apply for any subcommittee of a The head of each agency that uses one (3) A copy of the charter indicating the chartered advisory committee. whether or more advisory committees shall Congressional filing date. with the its members are drawn in whole or in ensure: Secretariat. part from the full or parent advisory (a) Compliance with the Act and this (b).4dvisory committee specifically committee. which functions subpart; directed by law or authorized by low. independently of the parent advisory (b) Issuance of administrative Procedures are the same as in paragraph committee such as by making guidelines and management controls (a) of this section. recommendations directly to the agency w@hich apply to all advisory committees (c) Presidential advisory committee. rather than for consideration by the established or used by the agency; When either the President or the chartered advisory committee. (c) Designation of a Committee Congress establishes an advisory (c) The Secretariat will review the Management Officer who shall carry out committee that advises the President. proposal and notify the agency of GSA's the functions specified in section B(b) of the responsible agency head or. in the views within 15 calendar days of the Act; case of an independent Presidential receipt, if possible. The agency head (d) Provision of a written advisory committee, the President's retains final authority for establishing a determination stating the reasons for designee shall file- particular advisory committee. closing any advisory committee meeting (1) The charter with the Secretariat: (d] The agency shall notify the to the public. (2) A copy of the filed charter with the Secretariat in writing that either: (e) A review, at least annually, of the Library of Congress. and (1) The advisory committee is being need to continue each existing advisory (3) If specifically directed by law, a established. The filing of the advisory committees, consistent with the public copy of the charter indicating its date of committee charter as specified in � 101- interest and the purpose of functions of filing with the Secretariat, with the 6.1013 shall be considered appropriate each committee; standing committees on the Senate and written notification in this instance The (f) Rates of pay are justified and the+fouse of Representatives having levels of agency support are adequite: legislative jurisdiction of the age date of filing constitutes the date of t ncy or establishment or renewal. The agency (g) The appointment of a Designa ed the independent Presidential advisory head shall then comply with the Federal Officer for each advisory committee. committee and its subcommittees; provisions of � 101-6.1009 for an (h) The opportunity for reasonable 101-&1014 (Pam ved) established advisory committee: or public participation in advisory J 101-6.101S Adv" conwiMse (2) The advisory committee is not 0 being established. In this instance, the committee activities: and information which must be published In the agency shall also advise the Secretariat (i) That the number of committee Federal Register. if the agency head intends to take any members is limited to the fewest (a) Committee establishment. further action with respect to the necessary to accomplish committee reestablishment, orrenewal. (1) A proposed advisory committee. objectives. notice in the Federal Rooter is required � 101-6.1010 (Resemod) when an advisory committee, except a � 101-6.1006 The role of GSA. committee specifically directed by law (a) The functions under section 7 of 1-101-4.1011 ROSPon"uu" of the or established by the President by the Act will be performed for the -i of an Widispwidsrit PresidentLe! Executive Order, is established. used. Administrator by the Secretariat. The commiftes. reestablished. or renewed. Upon Secretariat assists the Administrator in The chairperson of an independent receiving notification of the completed prescribing administrative guidelines Presidential advisory committee shall review from the Secretariat in and management controls for advisory comply with the Act and this subpart accordance with paragraph (c) of 1121- committees. and assists other agencies and shall: 6.1007. the agency shall publish a notice in implementing and interpreting these (a) Consult with the Administrator in the Fecleral Register that the guidelines. In exercising internal concerning the role of the Designated committee is being established. used. controls over the management and Federal Officer and Committee reestablished. or renewed. For a new supervision of the operations and Management Officer and committee. such notice shall also procedures vested in each agency by (b) Fulfill the responsibilities of an include statements describing the nature section 8(b) of the Act and by 1101- agency head as specified in paragraphs and purpose of the committee and that 6.1009 and 1101-8.1017 of this rule. (d) and (h) of I IM-6-1009. the committee is necessary and in the agencies shall conform to the guidelines 1101-&1012 IRO"rvodl public interest. t and reestablishment prescribed by GSA. (2) Establishmen (b) The Secretariat may request 1101-C1013 Ch@rWft*r*qLdrQ"nt& notices shall appear at least 13 calendar comments from agencies on No advisory committee may operate. days before the committee charter is management guidelines and policy meet. or take any action until its charter filed. except that the Secretariat may issues of broad interagency interest of has been filed as follows: approve less than 15 days when application to the Federal advisory (a) Advisory committee established requested by the agency for good cause. committee program. used reestablished or renewed by an The is-day advance notice requirement (c) In advance of issuing informal agency. The agency head shall file- does not apply to committee renewals- guidelines. nonstatutory reporting (i) The charter with the standing notices of which may be published requirements. and administrative committees of the Senate and the House concurrently with the filing of the procedures such as report formats of of Representatives having legislative charter. automation. the Secretariat shall request jurisdiction of the agency; (b) Committee meetings. (1) The formal or informal comments from (2) A copy of the riled charter with the agency or an independent Presidential library of Congress. Exchange and Gift advisory committee shall publish at agency Committee Management least is calendar days prior to an Officers. Division. Federal Documents Section. ~0 45932 Federal Register / Vol. 52. No. 231 / Wednesday, December 2~. 1987 / Rules and Regulations advisory committee meeting a notice in (e) Chairs the meeting when so in the Sunshine Act in the meeting the Federal Register, which includes: directed by the agency head. notice published in the Federal Register. (i) The exact name of the advisory ~q(f) The requirement in paragraph (b) of Committee as chartered; this section d~Q~e~s not apply to a � 10~1~-6.1024 ~q(Reserved~q] (~i~i) The time. date. place, and purpose Pres~qidentia~qi advisory committee. �10~1~-~6.1025 R~*~quir~a~qm~qw~A ter ~qm~e~w~ita~b~q*~ig of the meeting: � 101~-~6.1020 [Reserved] ~qf~qt~nut~e~s of advisory co~qm~qm~Ht~e~e meetings. ~8qW~qi~ql A summary of the agenda; and (a) The agency head or. in the case of (iv) A statement whether all or part of � 101~-~6.1021 Public participation in an independent Presidential advisory the meeting is open to the public or advisory committee meetings. committee. the chairperson shall ensure closed, and if closed, the reasons why. The agency head. or the chairperson that detailed minutes of each advisory citing the specific exemptions of the of an independent Presidential advisory committee meeting are kept. The Government in the Sunshine Act (5 committee, shall ensure that- minutes must include: U.S.C. 552(b)) as the basis for closure. (a) Each advisory committee meeting (1) Time, date. and place: (2) In exceptional circumstances, the is held at a reasonable time and in a (2) A list of the following persons who agency or an independent Presidential place reasonably accessible to the were present: advisory committee may give less than public: ~q@i~q) Advisory committee members and 15 days notice. provided that the (b) The meeting room size is sufficient reasons for doing so are included in the to accommodate advisory committee staff-, committee meeting notice published in members. committee or agency staff. (ii) Agency employees; and the Federal Register. and interested members of the public: (iii) Members of the public who (c) Any member of the public is presented oral or written statements: � 101~-~q6.101~q6. [Reserved] permitted to file a written statement (3) An estimated number of other � ~101~-~q6.1017 Responsibilities of the with the advisory committee; and members of the public pre~s~q*~n~t-~. agency Committee Management Officer. (d) Any member of the public may (4) An accurate description of each In addition to implementing the speak at the advisory committee matter discussed and the resolution. if provisions of section 8(b~q) of the Act, the meeting if the agency's guidelines so any. made by the committee of such Committee Management Officer will pemit~.~' matter and carry out all responsibilities delegated (~q5) Copies of each report or other by the agency head. The Committee � 101~-~q6.1022 ~q(R~e~s~er~v~edl document received. issued, or appr~qdved J~t Management Officer should also ensure ~q�~101~-~q6.~1023 Pr~o~c~o~qdur~esfor~c~lo~8q"~a~n by the committee. that section 10(b). 12(a) and 13 of the ~a~qd~v~qis~0qm committee meeting~, (b~q) The chairperson of each advisory Act are implemented by the agency to (a) To close all or part of a meeting. committee shall certify to the accuracy provide for appropriate recor~qdkeeping. an advisory committee shall submit a of all minutes of advisory committee Records include, but are not limited to: request to the agency head or. in the meetings. (a) A set of approved charters and case of an independent Presidential ~q110~q1~-~q4~0q002~q6 [Reserved) membership lists for each advisory advisory committee, the Administrator, committee: citing the specific provisions of the � 101~-~6.1027 T~o~r~qm~i~n~at~la~i~i of ~a~d~v~il~sOry (b) Copies of the agency's portion of Government in the Sunshine Ac ~'t (5 corn~n~dtt~o~es. the Annual Report of Federal Advisory U.S.C. 5~q52(b)) which justify the closure. (a) A~qny advisory committee shall Committees required by paragraph (b) of The request shall provide the agency automatically terminate not late than ~q2 � 101~-6.1035; head or the Administrator sufficient years after it is established. (c~q) Agency guidelines on committee time to review the matter in order to ~qm~e~s~t~qs~qb~ql~qii~ahed. or renewed. u~n~0qk~e~qw ~qg~v~qm ~%~0 management operations and procedures make a d~ete~r~i~v~qi~n~a't~qi~qm ~, 1 ~q(~q1~q) Its duration is otherwise provided as maintained and up~qda~te~c~qL and ~qpu~qb~qbca~l~8qd~o~nof the meeting ~i~s~atice for ~qb~qy law-, (d) A~qgency~,de terminations to ~0qd~x~qm required or agency head !by I ~q3~0qW~-~0q&~8qW1~q3~q(~qb~q1 (2) The P~qm~8qdd~E~n~t advisory committee meetings as ~qJb~qJ ~qT~q?~qw general counsel of the agency renews it prior to ~qt~qbe end of such period: required by paragraph (~c) a( ~qS I~4qM~- or, in the case of an ~qInd~e~qp~endl~ent or 6.1023. Pr~i~ts~qi~qd~ent~qial advisory corr~imitte~e. ~0q*~0 (3) ~qT~qhe President or agency head ~q� ~1~0~1~-~6~.~10~18 [Reserved~q) general counsel of the General Services term~qi~qm~t~es~ it before that time by Administration should review all revoking or abolishing its establishment � 10 1 ~-6.1019 Duties of the 0~6~8~6~4qW~N~qf~qt~d requests to close meetings. authority. Federal Officer. ~q(c~q) If the agency head or. in the case ~2q(~qb~2q) if an agency bead terminates an The agency head or, in the case of an of an independent Presidential advisory advisory committee. the agency shall independent Presidential advisory committee. the Administrator agrees notify the Secretariat of the effective committee. the Administrator shall that the request is consistent with the date of termination. designate a Federal officer or employee. o~qns in the Government in the who may be either full-time or =no Act and the Federal Advisory I ~q1~4q011~q-~6q&~qI~04qM ~2qift~qe~qel ~qy~qe~qd~6ql permanent part time, to be the Committee Act. he or she shall issue a ~4q1~q1~4q0~q1~q-~04qm~08qM pw~4qw~04q"~qand~qr~qo~qch~qe~qrt~qer~20qf~20qt~qof Designated Federal Officer for each determination that all or part of the ~qa~0qd~qv~0qil~qsorv ~qc~qo~qn~qv~qn~00qm~0qn~q& advisory committee and its meeting be closed. subcommittees. who: (d) The agency head. or the (a) Advisory committees specifically (a) Must approve or call the meeting chairperson of an independent directed by l~qa~qv~qr~q. of the advisory committee. Pr~qesid~qentiat advisory committee. shall: ~6q(1~6q) Who" duration extends beyond ~4q2 (b) Must approve the agenda: ~2q(1~2q) Make a copy of the determination years shall~, require rechartering by th~qe (~qc) Must attend the meetings: available to the public upon request. and filing of a new charter every 2 years (d) Shall adjourn the meetings when (2) State the reasons why all or part of after the date of enactment of the law such adjournment is in the public the meeting is c~0qlo~4q"~0qd~q. citing the specific establishing the committee. If a now interest; and exemptions used from the Government charter is not file& the committee is not Federal Register / Vol. 52, No. 231 / Wednesday, December 2, 1987 / Rules and Regulations 45933 terminated. but may not meet or take (i) Amend the charter language as position would appropriately be placed any action. necessary, and (5 U S.C. Chapter 51). An agency may (2) Which would terminate under the (ii) File the amended charter as not fix the pay of a staff member at a provisions of section 14 of the Act, and specified in 1101-6-1013. rate higher than the daily equivalent of for which renewal would require (2) To make a major amendment to a the maximum rate for CS-15, unless the reauthorization by law, may be committee charter, an agency shall: agency head has determined that under reestablished by an agency provided (i) Amend the charter language as the General Schedule the staff member's that the agency complies under general necessary; position would appropriately be placed agency authority with the provisions of (ii) Submit the proposed amended at a grade higher than GS-15. This � 101-6.1007. charter with a letter to the Secretariat determination must be reviewed (b) Advisory committees established requesting GSA's views on the amended annually by the agency head. by the President may be renewed by language, along with an explanation of (1) In establishing rates of appropriate action of the President and the purpose of the changes and why compensation, the agency head shall the filing of a new charter. they are necessary. The Secretariat will comply with any applicable statutes, (c) Advisory committees authorized review the proposed changes and notify regulations. Executive Orders, and by law or established or used by an the agency of GSA's views within 15 administrative guidelines. agency may be renewed. provided that calendar days of the request. if possible; (2) A staff member who is a Federal at least 30 but not more than 60 days and employee shall serve with the before the committee terminates. an (iii) File the amended charter as knowledge of the Designated Federal agency head who intends to renew a specified in I 101-BAM3. Officer and the approval of the committee complies with the provisions � 101-6.1032 [Reserved] employee's direct supervisor. If a non- of 1101-6.1007. Federal employee. the staff member 101-6.1030 (Reserved) � ioi-&ion Compensation and expense shall be appointed in accordance with reimbursement of advisory committee applicable agency procedures, following �101-6.1031 Amendments to advisory members, staft and consultants. consultation with the advisory committee charters. (a) Uniform pay guidelines for committee. (a) Committees specifically directed members of an advisory committee. (c) Pay for consultants to an advisory by low or authorized by low, or Nothing in this subpart shall require an committee. An agency shall fix the pay established by the president. The agency head to provide compensation, of a consultant to an advisory ` agency head shall be responsible for unless otherwise provided by law, to a committee after iving consideration to ensuring that any minor technical member of an advisory committee. the qualification: required of the changes made to current charters are However, when compensation is consultant and the significance. scope. consistent with the relevant statute or deemed appropriate by an agency. it and technical complexity of the work. Executive Order. When the Congress by shall fix the pay of the members of an The compensation may not exceed the law, or the President by Executive advisory committee to the daily maximum rate of pay authorized by 5 Order, changes the authorizing language equivalent of a rate of the General U.S.C. 3109. and shall be in accordance which has been the basis for Schedule in 5 U.S.C. 5332 unless the with any applicable statutes, establishing an advisory committee, the members are appointed as consultants regulations, Executive Orders and agency head. or the chairperson of an and compensated under 5 U.S.C. 3109. In administr6tive guidelines. independent Presidential advisory determining an appropriate rate of pay (d) Gratuitous services. In the absence committee. shall: for the members, an agency shall give of any special limitations applicable to a (1) Amend those sections of the consideration to the significance. scope. specific agency. nothing in this subpart current charter affected by the new law and technical complexity of the matters shall prevent an agency from accepting or Executive Order: and with which the advisory committee is the gratuitous seMces of an advisory (2) File the amended charter as concerned and the qualifications committee member. staff member, or specified in � 101--6.1013. required of the memben of the advisory consultant who agrees in advance -to (b) Committees established or used by committee. An agency may not fix the serve without compensation. an agency.'The charter of an advisory pay of the members of an advisory le)-Fravel expenses. Advisory committee established under general committee at a rate higher than the daily committee members and staff members. agency authority may be amended when equivalent of the maximum rate for a while engaged in the performance of an agency head determines that the CS-15 under the General Schedule, their duties away from their homes or existing charter no longer accurately unless a higher rate is mandated by regular places of business. may be reflects the objectives or functions of the statute. or the head of the agency has allowed travel expenses. including per committee. Changes may be minor, such personally determined that a higher rate them in lieu of subsistence. as as revising the name of the advisory of pay under the General Schedule is authorized by section 5703 of Title 5. committee. or modifying the estimated Justified and necessary. Such a United States Code. for persons iumber or frequency of meetings. determination must be reviewed by the employed intermittently in the ,hanges may also be major such as head of the agency annually. Under this Government service. Lhose dealing with the objectives or subpart. an agency may not fix the pay (f) Services for handicapped composition of the committee. The of the members of an advisory members. While performing advisory agency head retains final authority for committee at a rate of pay higher then committee duties. an advisory amending the charter of an advisory the -daily equivalent of a rate for a GS- committee member who is blind or deaf committee. Amending any existing I& as provided in 5 U.S.C. 5332. or who qualifies as a handicapped advisory committee charter does not (b) Pay for staff members of an individual may be provided services by constitute renewal of the committee advisory committee. An agency may fix a personal assistant for handicapped under � 101-6.1029. the pay of each advisory committee staff employe" if the member. (1) To make a minor amendment to a member at a rate of the General . (1) Qualifies as a handicapped committee charter, an agency shall: Schedule in which the Staff member's individual as defined by section 301 of 4-5934 Federal Register / V ol. 52. No. 231 / Wednesday, December 2, 1987 / Rules and Regulations the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. pay system in chapter 51 and chapter 53 (c) In accordance with section 10(d) of 794); and of Title 5. United States Code. the Act. advisory committees holding (2) Does not otherwise qualify for closed meetings shall issue reports at assistance under 5 U.S.C. 3102 by reason � 101-6.1034 [Reowv*dl least annually, setting forth a summary of being an employee of an agency. � 10 1 -6. 1035 Reports required for of activities consistent with the policy of (9) Exclusions. (1) Nothing in this advisory tomrwtteft. Section 552(b) of Title S. United States section shall prevent any person who (a) Within one year after a Code. (without regard to his or her service Presidential advisory committee has (d) Subject to section 552 of Title 5, with an advisory committee) is a full- submitted a public report to the United States Code, eight copies of each time Federal employee from receiving President. the President or his delegate report made bv an advisory committee, compensation at a rate which he or she will prepare a follow-up report to the including any @-,!port on closed meetings otherwise would be compensated as a Congress detailing the disposition of the as specified in paragraph (c) of this full-time Federal employee. committee's recommendations 'In section, and. where appropriate, (2) Nothing in this section shall accordance with section e(b) of the Act background papers prepared by prevent any person who immediately (b) The President's annual report to consultants, shall be filed with the before his or her service with an the Congress shall be prepared by GSA Library of Congress as required by advisory committee was a full-time based on reports filed on a fiscal year section 13 of the Act. for public Federal employee from receiving basis by each agency consistent with inspection and use at the location compensation at the rate -at which he or the ififormation specified in section 6(c) specified in paragraph (a)(2) of 1101- she was compensated as a full-time of the Act. Reports from agencies shall 6.1013. Federal employee. be consistent with instructions provided Dated: November 24.1987. (3) Nothing in this section shall affect annually by the Secretariat. This report T.C. Goldem a rate of pay or a limitation on a rate of has been cleared in accordance with pay that is specifically established by FIRMR ZM-45.6 in 41 CFR Chapter 201 Adrninistrotor of General Services. law or a rate of pay established under and assigned interagency report control JFR Om U-27776 Filed 12-1-87: 8:43 aml the Oeneral Schedule classification and number 0304-GSA-XY- NLAJM CODE 600-3" Wilt ~0 4121~q4 Federal Register Vol. 54. No. 192 / Thursday, october~.~qS. 1~q9~q8~q9 / Rules and Regulations GENERAL SERVICES ~SU~P~P~LE~qU~R~N~YA~R~Y ~INF~O~RMAT~IOW. renewing agency must provide a ADMINISTRATION d~escr~qiption~'of its plan to attain fairly Background balanced membership on a biennial 4 ~qt CFR Part 10 1-~6q4 GSA's authority for administering the basis arid. therefore, must address at the Act is contained in section 7 of the Act time of renewal any changes to the (FPMR Am~d~t. A-481 and Executive Order 12024 (42 ~qF~qR ~q6144~q3. composition of the committee which 3 CFR. 1977 Comp.. p. 158). Under may have occurred since its Federal Advisory Committee Executive Order 12024. the President establishment or last renewal. ~qGSA Management delegated to the Administrator of recognizes the merit of this suggestion. AGENCY: Office ~of Administration. GSA. General Services all of the functions but believes that the Act and existing Ac~T~i~o~qw Final rule. vested in the President by the Act. as ~n~qde already provide for agencies to amended. except that the Annual Report accommodate the requirement for fairly ~S~U~M~MA~R~qr~. This final rule provides to the Congress required by section 5(~c) balanced membership. ~qGSA. therefore. additional administrative and shall be prepared by the Administrator has not adopted this recommendation. interpretive guidelines and management for the President's consideration and controls for Federal agencies concerning transmittal to the C~ongr~es~qi. ~qf~qi~e~qquir~e that Agencies Consider and the implementation of the Federal Select a C~qr~a~s~s~-~qs~e~c~t~qio~n of ~6qce~r~ta~4qm Advisory Committee Act. as amended (~q3 Discussion of Comments Membership categories U~.S~.C.. App.) (hereinafter "the Act"). In ~qGSA published a notice of proposed The other comm~enter was of the a previous issue of the Federal Rooster. rulem~a~qking in the Federal ~qR~e~qS~qk~qA~or on ~o~qp~qm~i~on that the language in the ~6qGSA published an initial final rule an the management of Federal advisory proposed rule requiring that an agency the management of Federal advisory committees. with a ~4qW~-da~qy comment consider (only) certain categories of committees (52 ~qFR 45~q92~4q& December Z period ending on Febru~a~xy ~qZ~q& 1~q9~4qM (53 potential members seemed to suggest 1987~q). This new final rule revises the ~qFR 53022~. December 30. 1~q9~4q0). No that ~* ~* I "so long as an agency has current rule to improve further the Federal agency submitted substantive considered' a cr~o~ss~-~sec~t~qi~on of views management and use of Federal recommendations. Two non-Fed~er~a~ql and interests in the course of putting a advisory committees in the Executive commen~ter~i~; responded in writing and Committee together. it can ultimately Branch of the Federal Government. were highly supportive of the proposed select any composition it w~ant~s~q@~. These revisions: ~q(1~q) Clarify the rule. stating. for example. that "Me including one which is one-sided and guidelines applicable to achieving proposed rule provides greater guidance t~qmbal~ai~n~ced.~- GSA does not believe that committee memberships which are to agencies ~* ~* ~*~" and. that "The the ~qg~o~ql~qidanc~e provided in the ru~6qk balanced in a way that is fair and changes proposed by GSA ~* ~* ~* ~q1~q1 will cause agencies to adopt represent a major improvement over ~qt1~qw ~e~s~i~c~i~a~q"a~r~q' ~4q9 consistent with section 5(b) of the Act. existing rules." Both comm~enter~s offered ~t~qh~qi~ql~e perceived ~a~o~u~qm with regard to (2) add new language which cross- Suggestions for ~qlmp~r~ov~qh~6qq two sections membership select leading to the references regulations relating to of the proposed rule. both of which results ~su~qg~6qp~s~qted by this c~omm~or~t~ie~r~. Federal confl~qic~t-of-intere~st statutes and ~ortained to provisions relating to In any case, I ~q1~q0~q1~-~q&~1~q0~1~q5~q(~a~q)(1~q) of the standards of conduct within the final ~qp final rule will now require the balanced membership of advisory now ,rule: (31 clarify the procedures for committees. Theis comments discu~s~a~ied agency to publish In advance in the transmitting follow-up reports to the three recommendations made in relation Federal Rooster its description of its Congress as required by section ~q5~q(b) of to I ~ql~qo11~-~q6~-~q1~q0~8qMb)(2)~q(~qiii) and to I IM~- plan to attain fairly balanced the Act on Presidential advisory 5.101~q5~q(~a)(~q1) of the proposed rule. 'Me membership. allowing for public committee recommendations: and (4) disposition of them recommendations is comments which could include those provide that annual agency fiscal year ~a~qd~qd~r~e~l~sed as follows- offered by any interested party who reports to GSA shall also include might d~qi~q"~6qM~t ~qth~al the committee will information requested to carry out the R~o~qq~u~qi~j~r that Agencies ~qI~n~c~q/~a~qd~qi~r in Moir be fairly balanced. Furthermore. since annual comprehensive review required Balanced Membership Plans a ~qt~qh~e eventual selection of members for by ~%~e~c~tion 7~q1b~q) of the Act. Corrections of Description of Plans To, A~qf~qf~qi~m~qi~n and Am composition an advisory committee minor. nonsubs~tantiv~e errors in the text ~0qMa~qh~0qM~m~qi~n Fairly Balanced Membership e~s~qu~qb~qb~ab~0qW this provision rests of the original final rule have also been One comm~en~t~er stated that the final with the agency head. ~2qGSA does not made. rule should require agencies to describe believe that the final rule can compel ~&~.n ~9~qMCTIV~E ~DAT~I: October ~q5. ~qI~8qM. plans to maintain fairly balanced agency to make any particular Ao~c~i~t~ass~es: General Services membership. since ~* ~* I "advisory membership s~olecti~qlo~qw C~qSA h~e~& Administration. Committee Management committees undergo changes from the therefore. not adopted this Secretariat (CTM). Washington. DC initial composition through routine recommendation. 2040~0q5. membership rotations or the resignation ~2qI~2qt~qe~8qqu~2qir~qe that an A~0qS~qe~qn~qcy's F~qod~qer~qi~qal Copies of the two comments received and replacement of members.' ~20qGSA R~qe~8qg~12qW~qo~qr Notice of Establishment Solicit are available for public inspection in agrees that advisory committees often the Proposal Of Specific Nominees for Room ~0qS~6qi~4qo~0qe of the General Services have changing membership compo~qsi~2qd~qo~2qm ~6qt~qn~qel~6qus~6qi~qa~qn ~qO~qn~qa Committee Building. loth and F Streets. NW.. However. section 14~4q(~qs)(2)(A) of ~qt~6qh~qe Washington, DC. Act provides that advisory committees With regard to the Federal Rooster PC* ~qF~qU~8qf~8qf~qr~qN~6qM ~qI~2qW~qO~qR~qMA~qT~q1~q0~q" CO~qN~qTAC~2qr. established by agencies shall terminate notice of establishment required by Charles F. H~qow~qton. Senior Committee after two years unless renewed b~0qy I ~0qi~4qo~0qi~q_~0q&m~0qs~4q(~qa~8qX~0qt~8q) of the ~2qf~2qln~qe~6qi rule. the Management Specialist. Committee appropriate action~q. In I ~8q10~4q1~q-~04q&~0qI~4qO~32qM~qC~2q) Of previous comm~qent~qer also suggested Management Secretariat. Office of the original final rule. ~16qGSA requires that ~0qf~4qW~20q6~q0~qf t~0qh~q4~0q1 ~q* ~q* ~q' ~q"~6qb~8qy requiring agencies Management Services. Office of ~qan agency head who intends to renew a to give the public an opportunity ~q10 Administration. General Services committee comply with the provisions of comment on the plan for attaining fairly Administration. Washington. ~2qDC ~4q204~4q0~2q5 ~8q1 lot-& 1007 Of the final rule dupl~8qic~qa~0ql~8qd~24q" balanced membership. including by (2021523~q-4884. procedures ~6qfor establishment. The proposing specific nominees for ~0 Federal Register Vol. 54. No. 192 ~/ ~qnursday, October 5, l~g~s~g / Rules and Regulations 41215 inclusion on the committee (that) the need for and consequences of this (b) This would be invaluable to the public final rule. GSA has also determined that (2) Submit a letter and the proposed and would also be of great benefit to the potential benefits to society fro har~qter to the Secretariat proposing to agencies. because it would ensure that this final rule far outweight the potential cestablish or use, reestablish, or renew they would have the most information costs, has maximized the net bene Its, an advisory committee. The letter shall possible about potential committee and has chosen the alternative involving include the following information: members." the least cost to society. ~& For the following reasons, GSA has Regulatory ~qFl~e~3~qdbil~qity Act ~qk~qi~qii~q) A description of the agency's plan not adopted this suggestion. First. a to attain fairly balanced membership. notice of establishment normally These regulations are not subject to The plan will ensure that. in the contains the name and telephone the regulatory flexibility analysis or selection of members for the committee. number of the agency official other requirements of 5 U.~qS.C. ~q803 and responsible for responding to questions 604. the agency will consider a cross-section from. or for receiving comments of those directly affected. interested. provided by. any interested person. ~6qUst of Subjects in 4~q1 C~qFR Pan ~q1~q01-~q6 and qualified. as appropriate to the Such comments can include proposals Civil Rights, Gover~a~rnent property nature and functions of the committee. for specific noininees for membership on management. Grant programs, Committees requiring technical a commi ~i tee. Second. notices of Intergovernmental relations, Surplus expertise should include persons with establishment frequently are published Government property. Relocation demonstrated professional or personal by an agency prior to the seiection of assistance. Real property acquisition. qualifications and experience relevant members, and the agency would have Federal advisory committees. to the functions and tasks to be performed. the opportunity to consider the Accordingly, 41 C~qF~qR part ~q10~q1~-~q6 is commenter's suggestion$ of potential amended as follows: members. Even if an agency has chosen 5. Section ~q10~q1~-~q6.1008 is amended by the members of a committee prior to the PART 101~-~q6~q-~6qM~qI~qSCELLA~qMEOUS adding paragraph (d) to read as follows: publication of the notice. it can make REGULATIONS ~qJ~q1~q0~1~-~0q&100~q9 Th~e~qm~4qk~o~r~qc~-~4qM~4q& changes to the membership at any time during the life of the committee. Third~ql, 1. The authority citation for ~q41 CF~qR ~qGSA is of the opinion that the overall part i~4qM~-~q6 continues to read an follows: ~q(d) The ~2qL~c~reta~,riat shall ~as~sum~0qAa~qt purpose of the Federal Register notice of Auth~a~qdty~. S~qm 20~6(c)~, ~6~3 Stat. 3~0qM 40 follow-up reports required by "COW establishment, which in accordance U.S.C 4~0qWc~q); sec. 7. 5 U.S.C, App~@ and ~4qK~8q0~. ~q6~q(b) of the Act are prepared ~a~n~qd ~:~q@_~q4 with I 10~q1~-~q6~.~q1015(a)(2) of the final rule 22024. 3 CFR ~1~9~7~7 Comp~. ~qp. 1~5L transmitted to t~qh~e Congress as ~i shall appear at least is days before the I Section ~qjoi-~qa.io~2qn is amended by by the President either by his de te. filing of the committee's charter. is to revising paragraph (a) to read follows: by the agency responsible for providing provide the public an opportunity to support to a Presidential advisory comment on the necessity or any other ~q1~q0~q1~-~8qm~qo~qo~ql Sao" committee. or by the responsible agency aspect of the proposed committee. or organization designated pursuant ~qt~o (a) This subpart defines the policies, paragraph (c) of ~qJ 10~q1~-~q&~q1~q0~q11~. In Additional Information ~estab~qli~r~)hes minimum requirements. and performing this function. GSA may The guidelines contained in this final provides guidance to agency solicit the assistance of th~e Office of rule with respect to I ~qioi~-~q4.100~q8~q(d). management for the establishment. Management and Budget and other wherein GSA may solicit the assistance operation, administration. and duration appropriate organizations, as deemed of the Office of Management and Budget of advisory committees subject to the appropriate. in assuring the completion of follow-up Federal Advisory Committee Act~. 8~8 ~8q& Section 1~q01-~-~4q&~q200~q9 is amended by reports required by section ~q6~q(b) of the amended. Reporting requirements which revising ~qp~a~r~2qw~qm~qph~s (e~q@ ~q(h~q) ~&~0q" ~6q4 a" Act, were developed by GSA after keep the Congress ar~8qW the public by ~a~qd~2qf~2qt ~qpa~r~e~qS~r~a~qp~qh~g ~q0~q1 and ~q(~q1k~q) to mad consultation with that agency. informed of the number. purp~o~s~p- as ~qf~a~ql~qlo~qw~i~c Similarly, the guidelines contained in ~s~a~qm~qber~ship activities~, and cost of these ~qI~f~0qA~'~S~.~0q&~J~4qO~0qW this final rule with respect to I 101L~- ad~v~qi~s~qm~qv c~i~ann~0qa~t~e~ss are aim ~qk~q=~qb~0qW~A~2q& ~8qq~qP~q0~2qW INS& ~q6~.i~8qW~q9~qj~qj~qb wherein an agency head shall ~0 ~W ~6 ~% ensure that ~t~'he interests and aff~qi~qf~qt~ati~on~s Section U~qn~-~q6~.~q1~qL~8q= is a~qm~e~0~qd~8d b~qY ~qf~qal A review. at 11~q0~4qM a~qm~ua~8qf~8qt~- Of ~qt~qh~e of advisory committee members are ~qw~v~qi~&~2qW~qg ~qpa~r~a~qgr~ap~qh (c) to read as need to ~c~o~i ~- I each e~3~qd~2qon~qg advisory reviewed consistent with ~r~e~qsulatio~ns follows: committee. consistent with t~qh~e Public published by the Office of Government interest and the purpose and functions Ethics. were developed by GSA after ~qJ ~q1~q6~q1~-~0qc~l~qo~4qu ~qP~o~0qf~0qt~qy. of each committee; consultation with that agency. ~q- ~8q- ~q9 Executive Order ~0q1~04q=1 ~6q(~qc~6q) ~4qL ~qG~2q;~qVi~qs~qo~qr~2qy committee shall be ~6q(~0qh) ;~0q1~qi~qo ~q- reasonable fairly balanced in its membership in opportunity for GSA has determined that this final terms of th~qe points of view represented ~qr~qf~qi~qc~qipatio~qn in advisory rule is not a major rule for the purposes a~0qt~qid the functions to be performed; and ~qc~qomm~8qi~0qt~0qt~2q" activities~q; of Executive Order 12~08qM of February 17. . ~qe (i) That the j~qiu~qsib~qer of committee 1~4q9~0qs~4q1~q. because it will not result in an 4. Section ~4qjo~4ql-~08qalo~8qo~4qY is amended by members is limited to the lowest annual effect on the economy ~0qof ~0q$~4q1~08qW revising the introductory text of necessary to accomplish COM-' million or more. will not cause a major increase in costs to consumers or others, paragraph (b)(2) and paragraph (~4qb~6q)~0q(2)(~2qii~2qi) ob~0qi~qe~qc~2qd~qv~q*~qc to read as follows: ~6q(~0qj~0q) ~0ql~24qU~8qt the interests and &Motions and will not have significant adverse of advisory committee members an effects. GSA has based a~2ql~6ql I 10~4q1~q-~12qCIW ~4qA~12qW~12qM Procedures f~0qO~qr reviewed consistent with ~qr~q0~60q0~qst~2ql~q0~qa~qs administrative decisions on this final ~qi ~00qN No advisory ~qc~qa~0qm~qa~0qd~0qt~qh~4qW~2q& published by the Of~6qf~6qic~q* Of Government rule on adequate information concerning ~16qA~12q2~16q7 ~0 41216 Federal Register Vol. 54, No. 192 Thursday. October ~5~. 1989 Rules and Regulations Ethics in s CFR parts 7~q34, 735. and 737. revising Paragraph (a)(1) to read as President. a follow-up report will be and additional requirements. if any. follows: prepared and transmitted to the established by the sponsoring agency ~q� 101~-~q6.10~15 A~d~v~i~s~8qM~e~qmm~itt~e~e Congress as determined under pursuant to Executive Order 12574, the Information which must be pub~qi~qlsh~ed In the paragraph (d) of I ~q10~q1~-~q6.~qI~8qW8~, detailing conflict-of-intere~st statutes. and the Federal Register. the disposition of the committee's ~qFth~qic~s in Government Act of 1978. as (a) ~* ~. ~. recommendations in ~eccordance with a~qmend~ru: and (1) A notice in the Federal Register is section ~q6~q(b) of the Act. Reports shall be ~0qN Unless otherwise specified by t~qhe required when an advisory committee consistent with specific instructions President, the preparation and except a committee specifically dire~2q&d issued periodically by the Secretariat. transmittal of a follow-up report to the by law or established by the President (b) The President's annual report to Congress detailing the disposition of the by Executive Order. is established. used. the Congress shall be prepared by GSA puhl~qic recommendations of a reestablished. or renewed. Upon based on reports filed on a fiscal year Presidential advisory committee receiving notification of the completed basis by each agency consistent with supported by the agency, in accordance, review from the Secretariat in the information specified in section ~q5~q(c) with sections 6(b) o ~.f the Act. accordance with paragraph (c) of 110~q1- of the Act. Reports from agencies shall 7. Section 101~-6~.1011 is amended by ~q6~.1007. the agency shall publish a notice be consistent with instructions provided revising paragraphs (a) and (b): and by in the Federal Register that the annually by the Secretariat. Agency adding paragraph ~q(c) to read as follows: committee is being established. used. reports shall also include information reestablished. or renewed. For a new requested to enable the Secretariat to ~q@~1~0~1~-~q6~.~10~1~qi ~qR~e~s~4qw~a~qf~qt~4q"t~qt~q"~o~ql~ith~e committee. such notice shall also carry out the annual comprehensive chairperson of an independent Presidential describe the nature and purpose of the review of each advisory committee as advisory c~omm~ktt~e~e~. committee and the agency's plan to required by section 7(b) of the Act. to~r attain fairly balanced membership, and These reports have been cleared in (a) Consult with th~0q:Administra shall include a statement that the accordance with ~qF~qU~0qM Subpart ~qZ~2qM~- concerning the role of the Designated committee is necessary and in the public 4~q5.~q6 in 41 C~qFR chapter ~q2M and ass~qign~e~i~qi Federal Officer and Committee interest. interagency report control number 030~q4~- Management Officer GSA~-~qX~2qX ~q(b~q) Fulfill the responsibilities of an ~q9. Section ~q1~q0~q1~-~8q4.103~q3 Is amended by agency head as specified in paragraphs revising paragraphs (a) and (~qb) to read (d). (h~q) and ~q(j~q) of I j~qo~qi~-e~.1~8q"~, and as follows: Date& August Z3. I~4qM. ~Z (c) Unless otherwise specified by the President, consult with the ~qj ~q1~q0~q1~-~4q&~q1~q03~q5 Reports ~r~o~qq~8qW~4qM for Richard G. Au~2q" Administrator regarding the designation Oft" ~c~O~qm~qm~0qm~q"~I~L Acting Administrator of Ce~n~e~r~a~ql S~e~rv~qi~e~qf~qt of an agency or organization responsible (a) Within one year after a ~q(~8qm Doc. ~qm~-~qm~4qa Riled ~i~0~q4~-~0qf~0qt US am) for implementing section ~q6~q(b) of the Act. Presidential advisory committee h~e~& ~8. Section 101~-6.1015 is amended by submitted a ~qp~l~iblic report to the ~�~K~A~J~qM ~c~o~qm I 0 APPENDIX B: SANCTUARY DESIGNATION DOCUMENT AND REGULATIONS 9 . .0, Cmv%i 0 TO BE INSERTED AFTER FINAL REVIEW OF REGULATORY PACKAGE 0 B-2 APPENDIX C:- STATE AND FEDERAL AUTHORITIES APPLICABLE TO THE 0 MONTEREY BAY AREA is 0 C-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. State and Federal Authorities Applicable to the Monterey Bay Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-3 II. State Authorities * * * * C-3 . . . . C-4 A. The California Coa;t;l*A@t* B. California State Environmental Protection Agency . . . C-7 C. Water Quality Control Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-8 D. Fish and Game Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-10 1. Regulations of Sport and Commercial Fishing C-lo 2. Endangered Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-12 3. Protection of Migratory Birds . . . . . . . . C-12 4. Oil Spill Contingency Plans . . . . . . . . . C-13 E. SB 2040, The Lempert-Keene Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act . . . . . C-13 F. Cunningham-Shell Tideland; A*ct' C-16 G. Control of Oil Discharges from Vess;ls* C-17 H. Air Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. C-17 III. Federal Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-19 A. Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act C-19 B. Endangered Species Act . . . . . . . . : . . . . C-21 C. Marine Mammal Protection Act . . . . . . . . . . . C-22 D. Migratory Bird Treaty Act . . . . . . . . . . . . C-25 E. Clean Water Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-25 F. Rivers and Harbors Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-28 G. Ports and Waterways Safety Act . . . . . . . . . . C-28 H. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships . . . . . . . C-30 I. The oil Pollution Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-31 J. The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act C-34 K. The Federal Aviation Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-34 L. Clean Air Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-35 M. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act . . . . . . . . C-35 N. Title I of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-36 0. National Historic Preservation Act . . . . . . . . C-37 IV Additional Special Areas/Agencies . . . . . . . . . . C-38 A. Los Padres National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . C-38 B. Military Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-39 C-2 I. State and Federal Authorities ADDlicable 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. This discussion includes a description of relevant legislative mandates as well as, administrative measures taken to accomplish them. II. 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. A recent initiative by the Governor of California (Apri]L,. 1991) proposes to combine a number of exisitng agencies, and creates one new Board, into a new California Environmental Protection Agency, a new cabinet level agency designed to streamline and coordinate the state's environmental programs. The new agency will combine the Air Resources Board, that regulates automobile emissions and assists local governments in regulating air emmissions from stationary sources the Integrated Waste C-3 Management Board, to help local governments meet waste reduction goals of 25 percent by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000; the State Water Quality Resources Control Board that governs state water rights and oversees state water pollution controls; the Depratment of Toxi c Substances, that assess various methods for cleaning up toxis in the air, water and land; the Department of Pesticide Regulation, that sets, monitors and enforces the use of pesticides for agricultural purposes; and the office of ENvironmental Health Hazard Assessment that ascertains the environmental risks from chemicals in the air, water, food, solid and hazardous waste, .sediment and various consumer products. A. The California Coastal Act of 1976 (Cal. Pub. Res. Code 30000 et seq.] 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 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. C-4 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 coastal waters to situations where "there is no feasible less environmentally damaging alterna tive" and the activities are related to specific li-sted 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 C-5 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 Seaside, Monterey, Pacific Grove and Carmel. 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) 15oo 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 C-6 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. 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. In addition, recent amendments to tlxe CoastaJL Zone Management Act require the CCC to prepare and submit, in coordination with.the State Water Quality Resources Control Board, to the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Commerce for approval a Coastal Non- point Pollution Control Program. B. California Envirgnmental Protection Agenpy California State Environmental Protection Agency was created C-7 by Governor Wilson in April 1991 to streamline and coordinate the state's environmental programs. The new Agency creates an Office of the Secretary which serves as the primarly point of accountability,-reporting directly to the Governor, for the management of environmental programs and brings together the functions which cut across the various programs designed to address pollution in a specific medium, e.g., air, surface water, ground water, land disposal, ocean disposal, etc. It specifically, incorporates the following State Environmental Agencies: (1) The Air Resources Board, (2) the Integrated Waste Management Board, (?) The State Water Quality Resources Control Board, (4) The Department of Toxic Substances Control (including the Toxic Substances Control Program), (5) The Department of Pesticide Regulation and, (6) The Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. c. water Quality Control Act (California Water Code �13300 et s 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 (19ss), which set standards for water quality characteristics for C-8 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, 1988). 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, 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. Finally the SWRCB, responsible for developing part of a joint Coastal Non-Point Source Program, in cooperation with the CCC (J 6217, CZMA) (in conjunction with Regional Boards) and submitting the program for approval to the Administrator of EPA and the Secretary of Commerce. C-9 D. 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 areasunder 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, protection of endangered species, protection of migratory birds, and coordination of the oil spill contingency plans. 1. Regulations of SRort 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). 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 C-10 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. 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 (California Fish and Game Code �7920 et se .). 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 leg., must be supplied by buyers, processors, and anyone elsi 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 engraged in the business of mariculture (California Fish and Game Code S 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 S 130(c) -qt- seg.], California has jurisdiction over kelp within state waters as C-11 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). 2. Endangered Species (California Fish and Game Code �2050 jt__ 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 Seg.,) 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. 3. Protection of Migratory Birds (California Fish and Game Code �355 !It &jq. and 3500 et seg.) 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, C-12 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. 4. Oil Spill Contingency Plans California Fish and Game Code �5650 et aeg.) It is unlawful to_"Deposit or permit any petroleum to pass into the waters of the state" (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. E. SB 2040, The LemRert-Keene Oil SRill Prevention and Responsg Act, 1990 SB 2040 establishes "a comprehensive oil spill response and Prevention program,for the State of C alifornia. The major provisions do the following: C-13 1) Provides the Governor with the overall responsibility for oil spill response in the State. 2) Requires any person who causes an oil spill to begin an immediate cleanup, follow approved contingency plans, carry out the directions of the administrator, and fully mitigate for adverse impacts to wildlife. This bill requires the Governor to appoint an administrator for oil spill response as a Chief Deputy Director in the Department of Fish and Game. The Administrator would: a) Develop an oil spill response training program; .b) Study and evaluate dispersants, new oil spill response equipment and techniques, and determine use of dispersants; c) Conduct periodic drills to test oil spill response; d) Coordinate Federal, State and local planning and preparation for oil spill response; e) Negotiate with Alaska, Oregon, and Washington to develop an interstate compact regarding tanker safety and oil spill response and prevention; f) Tnsure that trained persons are at the scene of an oil spill as quickly as possible; g) Determine the cause of any spill; and h) Establish rescue and rehabilitation stations for wildlife. SB 2040 is divided into two main.categories: Prevention and Response. Prevention measures include: � Expanded oil tanker safety inspection programs � comprehensive oil spill prevention plans required for all tankers C-14 and terminals � Vessel traffic monitoring and surveillance program � Tugboat escorts in hazardous waters � Emergency stations along the coast for disabled tankers � Cease and Desist authority to enforce spill prevention measures � Prevention and response based on "Best Achievable Protection" standards. Response measures include: * New state.oil spill response unit * Mandates massive oil industry oil spill cleanup capability * $100 million Emergency Fund for cleanup * Unlimited State borrowing authority for cleanup, funded by a 25 cent per barrel oil industry fee * Comprehensive oil spill cleanup plans for all tankers * Unlimited qualified immunity for "good samaritan" respondents to spills 60 day qualified immunity, with possible 30 day extension for professional respondents to spills * Extensive wildlife rehabilitation programs * $500 - $1 billion mandatory financial assurance requirements for tankers. By regulation, the State Interagency Oil Spill Committee (siosc) consisting of 18 State agencies, develops the State Oil spill Contingency Plan SB 2040 mandates additional representatives on the committee and establishes the SIOSC review subcommittee (SRS) to review and make recommendations on C-15 regulations drafted by the Administrator. F. Cunningham-Shell Tidelands Act, as Amended (California Public Resources Code �6850 et secr.) 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 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 C-16 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. G. 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 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). H. Air Resources (California Health and Safety Code 93900 -e-t leg. 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 C-17 APCD's: 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. 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. C-18 III. Federal Au horities 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. A. Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA) (16 USC � 1801 et leg.) The FCMA provides for the conservation and management of all .fishery resources between 3 and 200 rm'(5.6 and 370 km) offshore. The National Marine Fisheries service (NMFS) is charged with establishing guidelines for and approving fishery managementplans (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 (PF14CY. 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 (e.g., fish meal and oil) may only proceed in two seasons: from C-19 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 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 C-20 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). B. 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 endangere d species and their habitat by establishing a consultation process designed to insure that projects authorizedl 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 C-21 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, and 6) short tailed albatross. c. Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) (16 USC �1361 The X"A, 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 C-22 petition was later withdrawn. As specified in the MMPA, the Department Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), is responsible for the management of polar bears, walrus (a pinniped), northern and southern sea otters, three species of manatees, and dugong; and Department of Commerce, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 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 affecting marine mammals such as operation of motor boats in vaters in.which these animals are found. The XKPA allovs certain exceptions to the moratorium. First, the Secretary 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. C-23 Secondly, the Act directs officials to seek $an optimum sustainable population (of marine mammals)" ['_6 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 "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 C-24 management is with the NMFS the day-to-day operational management may be delegated to state and local authorities. D. Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC �703 et sec.) 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 game birds is year-round. Of the birds found in the study area only certain species of ducks, geese, coots, 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). E. Clean Water hct (CWA) (33 USC �1251 It igg.) 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 C-25 of the CWA- The CWAIS 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 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 C-26 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 organizationa 1 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 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 J13,11(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. C-27 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 USC j 1322). F. Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC H 401 et seg.) 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. G. Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA) (33 USC J� 1231 At 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 C-28 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. 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 C-29 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. H. Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (APPS) (33 USC 1901 et seg.) 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 C-30 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, dischargesby 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. I. The Oil Pollution--Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-380, 33 U.S.C. 2701 It �eq.) The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 creates a comprehensive prevention, response, liability, and compensation regime for dealing with vessel and facility-caused oil pollution. It substantially increases Federal oversight of oil transportis divided into three subtitles: K) Prevention; B) Removal; and C) Penalties and Miscellaneous. Subtitle A gives added responsibility to the Coast Guard regarding merchant marine personnel, including the review of alcohol and drug abuse and review of criminal records prior to issuance and renewal of documentation. It also increases the responsibility of the Coast Guard to: 1) regulate the conduct of tankers by requiring some vessels to participate in vessel traffic service systems, and 2) authorize the region. Title I creates a liability and compensation regime for tank vessel and facility-source oil pollution. Any party responsible for the discharge, or the substantial threat of discharge, of oil into navigable waters or adjoining shorelines is liable for the removal costs and damages for injury, destruction, loss or loss of use of natural resources, including assessment costs, real or C-31 personal property damages, subsistence use, lost government revenues, and lost profits and earning capacity. NOAA has the responsibility of promulgating damage assessment regulations. Sums recovered by a trustee for natural resource damage will be retained in a revolving trust account to reimburse or pay costs incurred by the trustee with respect to those resources. Title II makes numerous amendments mandating that other Federal statues conform to the provisions of the Oil Pollution Act. Title III encourages the establishment of an international inventory of spill removal equipment and personnel. Title IV is divided into three subtitles: A) Prevention; B) Removal; and C) Penalties and Miscellaneous. Subtitle A gives added responsibility to the Coast Guard regarding merchant marine personnel, including the review of alcohol and drug abuse and review of criminal records prior to issuance and renewal of documentation. It also increases the responsibility of the Coast Guard to: 1) regulate the conduct of tankers by requiring some vessels to participate in vessel traffic service systems, and 2) authorize the expansion, construction, improvement and operation of Vessel Traffic systems in United States Ports. More specifically, Subtitle A establishes double hull requirements for tank vessels. most tank vessels ov er 5,000 gross tons will be required to have double hulls by 2010, while vessels under.5,000 gross tons*will be required to have a double hull or double containment systems by 2015. All newly constructed tankers must contain a double hull (or double containment system if under C-32 5,000 gross tons), while existing ve ssels are phased out over a period of years. Subtitle B amends subsection 311 (c) of the Clean Water Act, requiring the Federal Government to ensure immediate removal from navigable waters or adjoining shorelines of any oil or hazardous substance that threatens to affect natural resources. It also requires a revision and republication of the National Contingency Plan within one year which will include, among other things, a Fish and Wildlife response plan developed in consultation with NOAA and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Nothing in Subtitle B preempts the rights of States to require stricter standards for removal actions. Subtitle C alters and increases civil and administrative penalties for discharges and violations of regulations under the Clean Water Act. As well as criminal penalties, other penalties are included for negligent operations and failure to comply with Federal law on carriage of liquid bulk dangerous cargoes, load lines, manning, and crew complements and requirements. Financial responsibility and civil penalties may be assessed up to $25,000 per day. All penalties are to be paid into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. Title VII authorizes oil pollution research and technology development, including the establishment of an Interagency Coordinating Committee, that is chaired by Department Of Transportation and comprised of representatives from the Departments of Energy, Interior, Commerce (NOAA) , Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management Agency, National C-33 Aeronautics and space Administration, and the U.S. Fire 0 Administration. Title IX amends the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and increases from $500 million to $1 billion the amount that can be spent on any single oil spill incident, of which no more than $500 million may be spent on natural resource damages. J. The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act of 1987 (MPPRCA) (33 USC �� 1901-1903, 1905, 1907-1909, 1912) The MPPRCA amends the 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. K. The Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (49 USC ��1301 -et. 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. C-34 L. -Clean_LlLr Act (cAA) (42 USC �7401 -et peg.) 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. 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 topromulgate regulations for compliance with ambient air quality standards pursuant to the Clean Air Act (State of California v. KILeppe, Doc. No. 2363 (9th Cir. Amqust 20, 1979). M. outer Continental Shelf Lands Act OSCLA (43 USC �1331 At &e 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) C-35 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 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. 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 USC S 1333]. N. Title I of the Maring Protection. Research, and Sanctuaries Ac (33 USC ��1401 et seg.). C-36 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 materials. 0. National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 USC 470 et seg.) The National Historic Preservation Act authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to maintain a National Register of "districts, sites, buildings, structures, and.objects significant in American history, architecture, archeology, and culture". Sites have been listed on the National Register which include or are composed entirely of ocean waters and submerged lands within state waters or on the Outer Continental Shelf. Should any sites in the study area be listed on the National Register, any federal agency conducting, licensing, or assisting an undertaking which may affect a listed site must provide the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on the proposed action (16 USC �470f). The basic criterion applied by the Council is whether the undertaking will change the quality of the site's historic, architectural, archeological, or cultural character (36 CFR Part 800). C-37 IV. Additional Special Areas/Agencies A. 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 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 C-38 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. B. 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 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 C-39 July each year. 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. No prohibition set forth in the Sanctuary regulations shall apply to activities that are necessary 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.- C-40 0 APPENDIX D: DISCHARGE AND DEPOSITS INTO THE MONTEREY BAY AREA is 0 Discharge and Deposits into the Monterey Bay Area 0 0 D2 FIGURE D-1 Figure D-1 shows the entire study area and proposed boundaries for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. The study area, Boundary alternative #5, was divided into three areas: (1) the Central Area, corresponding to Boundary Alternative #2 and watersheds that drained into this alternative; (2) the Northern Area, which corresponds only to the northern extension provided by Boundary Alternative #4, and watersheds that drained into this northern area, and (3) the Southern Area, which corresponds only to the southern extension provided by Boundary Alternative #3 and watersheds that drained into this southern area. The following tables and figures subdivide the discharge and deposit data first by these three analysis areas, (north, central, south) and then subdivide the data by watershed (Hydrographic Unit) and county. D3 MONTEREY BAY SANCTUARY BOUNDARIES. ANALYSIS AREAS, ADJACENT COUNTIES, AND HYDROLOGIC U 05 NORTHERN AREA 900 Squa;a Nautical Miles Francisco Mateo ......... 18050006 ff .... .... .. . ........ . ........... Sow 'C t .................... 001 18060 ... ........ 18060002 .......... ..... 1806001 ...... . . ...... ........... 18060012 .......... .. .......... CENTRAL AREA:] 2500 Square Nautical Miles 18060005 . . . . . ..... ... ....... .... I-X -rHERN @@EA Isou 700 Square Nautical Miles 18060006 square mileages are approximate. Numerical values indicate hYdrOlOgic units. .. .......... .............. map data prepared by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, ......... . office ot Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, Rockville, MarYland. r9FUNDARY ALTERNATIVES 7 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Altern0ve 3 Alternative 4 AlternaVve 5 Alternative 6 Alternative L TABLZ D-1 Table D-1 shows the amounts and seasonal loadings of pollutants from Point Source dischargers, by analysis area, hydrographic unit and county. This data is derived by using values from either Permits, monitoring data, or modeling predictions. It should be noted that this data is approximately ten years old. This information is provided to give an estimate of relative loadings between analysis areas and an estimate of cumulative loadings rather than to determine the exact,pollutant contribution from any one discharge source. D4 POINT SOURCE OWHARGES BY FACILrIV WrFMN WOROLOGIC UWF8 ADJACES 41131JARY 9TUDY AREA. ORCA 1111101114 AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED PERMITS* FACILITY NAME ANNUAL FALL SPRING SUMMER WINTER ANNUAL UNIT COUNTIES FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW FLOW DOD TS3 TN TP (MG) (MG) (MG) (MG) (MG) (LBS) (Las) (LBS) (LOS) NORTH 1905000S MARIN MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 183.00 45.60 45.80 45.00 45.00 ' 45.0W.00 45.6W.00 17.1120-W IOAM.00 18050006 SAN FRANCISCO CA0037681 RICHMOND SUNSET WWTF- 7.990.00 1.990.00 i.99moo t9go-olt i.goooo ivollAw-00 4.040.0011.00 1.00ZODD-00 04.ODD-OD SAN MATEO HALF MOON ELAY- 80.00 221.DD 221.00 221.00 221.00 '015,01XI-00 ItS.80D.00 02,90D.00 51.000.00 CA0037494 PACIFICA WWTF** 92&W 208-W 206.00 200.0D 208.W 201LOW-W AD 77AW.OD 492W.OD CA0037737 DALY CITY WWTF'* Z850.00 712.00 712.00 71ZOD 712.00 40000.00 719.OW.00 280POM 106.400.00 SANTA CRUZ NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01) SUBTOTAL 12,702-00 3.174.00 3,174.90 3.174.00 3.174.001 111,4018.8%).00 6.0292W.00 1.447.320-W 1.140AN-00 CENTRAL isowwt SAN MATEO NONE 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SANTA CRUZ MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 22.00 5.49 5.40 5.48 5.40 1.2W.00 5.480.01) 2.OW.00 1M.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 19.00 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 0.00 1,379.00 0.00 0.01) MINOR INDUSTRIAL 19.00 4.57 4.57. 4.57 4.57 0.00 1.379.00 0.00 0.011 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 61.00 15.20 15.20 15.20 15.20 0.00 4.0w.00 0.00 0.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 18.w 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 0.00 1.3nw 0.00 0.01) MINOR INDUSTRIAL 17.00 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.29 12011.00 2,700.00 0.00 107.80 MINOR DRINKING WATER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 18.01) 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 0.00 1,379.00 0.00 0.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL t2.00 3.04 3.04 3.04 3.04 0.00 918.00 0.00 0.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 20.W 5.08 5.00 5.08 5.00 0.011 1.810.00 0.w 0.w MINOR WASTEWATER PU13LIC 149.00 37.29 37.28 37.20 3729 204,9W.00 3722113.20 14.230.00 9.079.00 MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 4.00 0.88 0.88 0.80 0.90 4.830.W 978.60 335.34 213.90 CA0048194 SANTA CRUZ WWTF 4,000.00 1,220.00 1.220.00 1.220.00 1.220.00 6.740.OW.00 2.900.000-00 1.714.000.00 W000-00 18060002 SANTA CLARA NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.w 0.00 SANTA CRUZ MINOR INDUSTRIAL 18.w 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 0.00 1.379.00 0.00 0.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 10.00 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 0.00 1.370.00 0.00 0.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 2.00 0.39 0.39 0.39 0.30 0.00 390.00 0.00 0.00 CA0048216 WATSONVILLE WWTF 3.070.00 796.00 706.W 708.00 760.00 6.220,W0.00 2.380,000-00 386.00D.00 332.000-00 MONTEREY NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SAN BENITO NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1806wl I MONTEREY MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 04.00 156.00 156.00 156.00 156.00 179,111W.00 1512M.00 58.900-w 30.400.00 MINOR INDtJSTRfA1 45.00 11.10 11.10 11.10 11.10 &920.00 0.200.00 4,1910.00 2.02D.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 3.00 0.65 0.54 0.00 0.59 $.9w.00 4.59D.00 498.00 0.00 MINOR INDiJSTRIAL 1.00 0.19 0.18 0.23 0.17 Z620.00 1,338.00 142.00 0.00 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.w 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 40.90 47.00 16.56 620 CA0006M P G 6 E. MOSS LANDING 261.000.00 64.000-00 96.500.00 77.100-01) 72.900-00 0.00 .00 0.00 0.00 CA0007005 NATIONAL REFRACTORIES. MOSS LANDING-- 7,000.00 I.M.011 1.790.00 1,7W.W I.M.00 0.00 4.020.OW.00 lIZ2W.00 0.00 SAN BENITO NONE 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.w 0.w 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 19080005 MONTEREY MINOR INDUSTRIAL 20.w 5.07 5.07 5.07 &07 0.00 1Aw.w 0.00 0.00 SAN LUIS OBISPO MINOR INDUSTRIAL 18.00 4.57 4.57 4.57 4.57 0.00 1".w MOD 0.00 CAOD47593 EL PASO DE ROBLES WWTF 439.00 1 10.w t10.00 1,10.00 110.00 32. 109.9w.00 41=.W 25.111W.00 SAN BENITO NONE 0.00 ODD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ISDOW12 MONTEREY MINOR INDUSTRIAL I2.w 2.98 2.96 2.96 2.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MINOR WASTEWATER PU13LIC 241.W 80.07 W.07 W.07 W.07 46".20 50.929.20 22,589.20 '14.043.00 MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 320.00 81.93 81.93 81.93 91.93 OX'123.90 09.470.80 30,611.90 19,156.40 CAW481713 PACIFIC GROVE WWTF - 50CW 126.00 126.00 120.00 126.00 51II&OOD-011 i28,0W.W 03,40D.W 54.GW.W CA0048551 MONTEREY REGIONAL WWTF 6.170.00 1.540.00 1,540.00 1,540.W 1.540.W 2,2011.000.00 2AW.Ow.W 570,0w.W 300,000.00 SUBTOTAL 3D4,839.OD 69.943.62 72.443.49 83,043.82 78,643.56 16,33111,111110.1110 11.979.657.40 3.029.249.91111 1-385,104.70 SOUTH 19060006 MONTEREY MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 6.00 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.552.00 1.552.00 554.00 519.00 SUBTOTAL 6.w 1.55 1.55 1.55 1.55. 1,552-00 1,552.00 554.00 510.00 GRAND TOTAL 317,547.W 73.119.77 75,619.64 06,219.97 92.019.71 27.907.962-W I8.0D9.409.40 4.476,123.9111 2.526,482.70 NUMBERS REPRESENT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM MAJOR PERMIT; ALL OTHERS ARE MINOR - DISCHARGE DIRECTLY INTO THE OCEAN WATERS OF THE MONTEREY BAY SANCTUARY STUDY AREA NONE means no data available In database. CODES - MG:mNNons of gallons; LBSpounds: BODtkichernical oxygen demand: TSSIotal SuVended sedimern; TN.Iolal nitrogen; TPlotal phosphorus. Source: National Coastal Polkilant Disclharge Inventory, Office of Ocew Resources Conservation and Assessment, Strategic Environmerrial Assessment DtvWw. National Ocean Service, Rockville Maryland. POINT SOURCE DISCHARGES BY FACILITY WITHIN HYDROLOGIC UNITS ADJAC ENT TO THE SANCTUARY SrfUDY AREA. CIRCA 1"4 AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED PEFIMITS* FACILITY NAME ANNUAL UNIT COUNTIES AS CD CR Cli FE pe No ZN OIL FC (In XBS) (LBS) (LBS) (LBS) (Los) (LBS) (LOS) (Las) (TOTAL CELLS) NORTH 18050005 MARIN MINOR WABTIEWATER PUBLIC 49.20 17.20 86.40 56.60 1.0m.00 411111140 0.57 252.00 17.180.00 imoooe SAN FRANCISCO CA0037681 RICHMOND SUNSET WWTF- 133.20 598.00 08.40 &900.00 10%000.00 3.320.00 68.00 22.000.00 ZOMM-00 6.020.0100.00DAM000 SAN MATEO HALF MOON 13AY - 239.00 93.20 316.00 274.00 5.100.00 430.00 2.16 1.21&W .01) &000.000=.ODO CADW7494 PACIFICA WWW- 222.01) 77-90 296.00 256.00 4.820.00 XIB.011 11-67 1,139.00 77,900.00 G.M.000.000.000 CA0037737 DALYciTYWNTF- 238.00 238.W 110.90 11.9W.01) 16,840.00 111411.1111111 1111111.70 1,91110.00 01.1m, M 211.6110.0130,0010.000 SANTA CRUZ NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 SUBTOTAL 890.40 1.014.20 962.60 6.2211-00 1190,686-00 4.144-80 11116.119 20.906.00 2=9110.00 6.055,920.0110.000.000 CENTRAL ieowwi SAN MATEO NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MOD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 SANTA CRUZ MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 5.00 2.06 7.94 6.90 [email protected] 0.14 0.07 30-20 2.000.00 100.00CAMAM MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 6.00 0.00 0,00 01.20 010111 0.00 0.00 0.w 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 611.20 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 204.W Q,QQ 0.00 0.w 0.00 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 00 61.20 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 9.60 22.W 5.02 34.20 147.20 9.48 0.01 13.64 754.00 0 MINOR DRINKING WATER 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.20 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.01) 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.130 0.00 0.00 40.90 0.00. 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.03 0.17 0.85 0.95 8.40 1.02 0.01 1.36 0.00 0. MINOR WASTEWATER PU13LIC 40.4 1 16.65 56.41 52.90 976.00 66,611 0.40 226.43 is.010.n 6.4711.0010,0110,090 MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 0.95 0.30 1.33 1.25 23.00 Lof 0.01 5.34 3n74 152.500.000.000 CA0040194 SANTA CRUZ WWTF 00-40 65.20 5W.OD 400.00 1100,200.01) 2AN,00 W4.00 5M.00 810.000.00 3.7W.000,000,000.001) 18060002 SANTA CLARA NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.w O.W 0.00 0 BANTA CRUZ MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.20 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL q00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.20 0,00 0-w 0.00 0.00 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.03 0.13 0.609 0.64 6.44 0." 0.01 1.03 0.00 0 CA0048216 WATSONVILLE WWTF 972-00 1,394.00 2.30D.00 3,740.00 02.SW.00 1,512,00 16-10 12,11140.01) 704.000-W 2,320.000.000.0110.000 MONTEREY NONE q00 0.00 0.130 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 SAN BENITO NONE 0.130 0.w 0.00 Ow 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.w 0.00 0 18060011 MONTEREY MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 104.20 59.BD 224.00 193.90 3.640.00 2N.00 1.14 $W.W 58,800.00 4,730,000,0100.0110 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 1.11 0.37 14.94 14.94 262.00 it'" 0.11 37.40 4.190.00 339.000,000.000 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 oldIll 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 MOD 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0100 0100 0.00 0.011 0 MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0 CAOW6254 P 0 & E, MOSS LANDING 2n,00 35.00 234.00 5,020.00 3.120.00 39.00 4.0 Z720-00 11.11M.000.00 0 CA00070D5 NATIONAL'REFRACTORIES. MOSS LANDINQ 2,300.00 1.772.00 4.140.00 1,102.00 O.W I I A20m 106-00 IIXQ@00 0.01) 0 BAN BEN ITO NONE 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-w 0.00 0.00 0 19060OD5 MONTEREY MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.130 60.00 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0.00 0 SAN LUIS OSISPC MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 0.0111 0.00 611.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 CA0047593 EL PASO DE ROBLES WWTF lio.00 41.40 156.90 130.00 2.5110.00 163.40 11-311111 W4.00 4112200.00 3,320.1300. 0 C M, - r - SAN BENITO NONE 0100 0.01) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0 1906M12 MONTEREY MINOR INDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 MOD 0 MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 64.89 22.67 96.20 74.79 1,404.38 99.68 0.76 331.63 22.672.90 11,111123.000.0W.OW MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 80.51 30.03 117.71 102.01 1,915.64 122.32 IAI 452.37 30.027.20 2.407.000.0110.000 CA0048170 PACIFIC GROVE WWTF ** 143.40 230.W 368.00 8114.0D 10.320.00 246.110 2AII 114120.00 11115.9011.00 3111111.01110.000.0110.000 CA004&%l MONTEREY REGIONAL WWTF- 1,862.00 5N.W 22W.00 1,914.00 36.OOD.00 2.300.00 19.20 111.5110.0D 308.001).00 4411.700.000.0110.01110 SUBTOTAL 5,875.52 4.273.78 10.523.84 13.488.18 224.252.37 19,042.68 357.22 411.01113-40 4.075.758.62 6.487.198.SW.000.000 SOUTH 118080008 MONTEREY MINOR WASTEWATER PUBLIC 0.13 0.03 2.94 2.82 67.40 2.59 0.02 7.16 1.426.00 47.0110.011XII.0110,0130 SUBTOTAL 0.13 O.w 2.94 2.82 67.40 2.50 0.02 7.16 1,426.00 47,0130.000.000.0W GRAND TOTAL 6,756.05 5.268.01 11.399.39 19,717.80 415.005.77 23,190.04 453.43 67.966.56 6,357,164.82 12,570,100,500.000.000 NUMBERS REPRESENT NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM MAJOR PERMIT: ALL OTHERS ARE MINOR ** DISCHARGE DIRECTLY INTO THE OCEAN WATERS OF THE MONTEREY BAY SANCTUARY STUDY AREA NONE means no data avallable In database. CODES - AS:arsenic: CD.*cadmkim; CRchromlurn; CUvopper; FE*on; PSisad, HGmen;ury; ZN::dnc; OIL.,oll and grease; FC.1scal colfform bacteria Source: National Coastal Pollutard Discharge Inventory. Office of Ocean Resources Conservation and Assessment. Strategic Environmental Assessment Division. National Ocean Service. Rockville Maryland. TABLE D-2 Table D-2 shows the relative loadings from point source and various non-point sources in the Monterey Bay area by analysis area, hydrographic unit and county. Data is shown for a variety of pollutant constituents including total wastewater flow, total suspended sediments, biochemical oxygen demand, total lead, total copper, total nitrogen, total phosphorus, total oil and grease, and total fecal coliform bacteria. D5 WASMWATER FLOW, CIRCA IOU (bW- of g*N- pw year) POINT S04JRCES NONPOINT SOURCES ALL SOURCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTE WATER DIRECT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FOREST LAND PASTURE/ IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGE RETURN FLOW SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 1806=5 MARIN 0.2 0 0 0 54 62A 70.4 0 0 195 180SOODS SAN FRANCISCO 8 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 0 0 t7 SAN MATEO 4.6 0 0 6.64 1.53 172 28.0 a 0 57 SANTA CRUZ 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 0 13 SUBTOTAL 12.8 0 0 8.44 55.53 90.9 105.3 0 0 263 CENTRAL 1806=1 SAN MATEO 0 0 0 0 2 2.9 2.0 0 0 7.9 SANTA CRUZ 5.1 0.2 0 14A 2.1 15.7 2.1 0 0 30.6 19000002 SANTA CLARA 0 0 0 3.1 7.5 27 Its 0 0 64.1 SANTA CRUZ 3.1 0.04 0 1.3 &3 0.8 1.4 0 72 20.1 MONTEREY 0 0 0 0 0.3 0 0 0 1.8 SAN BENITO 190swil MONTEREY 0.6 7.1 2811 1.9 4.9 0 0 0 0 295A SAN 13ENITO 18000005 MONTEREY 0 0.2 0 0.4 2.4 6.0 4.3 119 IA 20.3 SAN LUIS OBISPO 0.4 0.02 0 2.9 5.4 2.5 0.6 1.2 0 13.2 SAN 13ENITO 19000012 MONTEREY 7.2 0.011 8.0 0.2 0.8 2.0 0 0 194 SUBTOTAL 10.4 7.57 201 32.6 32.2 55.9 30.5 15.1 9.6 479.9 SOUTH 18000006 MONTEREY 0.01 a a 0 0.06 1611 0 0 0 1152 SUBTOTAL 0.01 0 0 0 0.05 15.1 a 0 a 152 GRAND TOTAL 29.21 7.57 201 41.04 87.70 151.9 i3s.0 15.1 0.6 715111.1 Source: The NsIlonal Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, Stralegic Envkwwwvtal Asessarnent Wdon. OMm of Ocean Remources Coneervallori and Ammeownent. National Oosan Service, RodMile. Maryland. TOTAL SUMN090 IKMWMM (M), COCA 11164 (mw- 0(t- pw vw) MNT SOURCES NONPO(NT SOURCES_ AREA 14yoRWROMIC 04CLUDED WASTE WATER DIRCOT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FOREST LAND PANTtM IRRIDATION UPSTMAM TOTAL UNIT C"TIES TREATMENT 1W)USTAW PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF ALIKIPF RAWK AETURNpoft gOunn PLANTS DISCHAPMRS NORT" 19050006 MARIN 0.04 Dm MUG 0.00 9.ww 301.00 51340.00 0.01 0.00 7.891m 10050000 SAN FRANC.13CO 4,00 OW 0.00 4A* OJW 0.00 0.00 am 0.00 am SAN MAteO 1.00 Ow 0.00 1,00 420.0 17?.00 2,10.00 0.00 0.00 Z100.00 SANTA CRUZ 0100 0xv 0.00 0100 olim I&SO 0.00 GAO 0.00 10.1110 SUBTOTAI &I" oto 0.00 t3o 2.6101m 499AM ?Aatw Qjw 0.00 iowtw CENTRAL 1806"1 SAN MATEO 0,00 0.00 0.00 Ali'* 1 250 24.40 oix 0-00 227.20 SANTA CRUZ 2,90 oxe GOD 46.40 1110.00 04,00 GAO 0.00 24&30 tookm sANrA CLARA 0.00 4.01) 0,130 4.70 46.00 47MOD 11m.00 0.00 V46.90, SANTA Coul 2,40 0,01) obo too 140.00 QW 0.00 041 420 '196.70 MONTEREY 0.w olm 0,00 am 00.00 &40 &0o DIM 0.00 "20, SAN BENITO 4010.00 tooewl I MONTEREY 0.15 4.w 0.03 2Ao 400.00 0.00 0180 0.00 SANOCNITO 180swo MONTEREY 0.w GOD 0.00 a," t 21 1.1111510,00 04.00 0,0:1 11,110 Z"7.00 SAN LUIS OBISPO 010 0.00 0.00 4AO Ilm'm 22011m 21.40 01110 0.00 i.347= SAN BENITO 100molf MONTEREY 2.30 Q.90 19,70 m&70 5,10 0.00 0100 1124.40 1,40.70 too C70 61"11.50 SUBTOTAL 7.95 4.03 0-w 46V Z186.16 2,708,90 SOUTH 180swo MONTEREY 0.00 OVO 0.00 4.00 5.40 oill-00 1.10 0.00 0,00 01 7.10 SUBTOTAL 0101) om 0.00 0.00 5.40 GKOD )-to 0.00 0.00 617.70 GRANDTOTAL 1179 4@03 &03 S420 4,$Bt.W UWAD 0,2440 keo 6.70 1719" Swrce: The Ng*rW CQWW POWAM 01064fos tMWWY- 81MVIc tr*pwwtW AWWVW* M**M, Oftm ci 00m AMMM CW*PVW*M WA Aft"wWkL Radwilip, Marytond, BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND (BOD), CIRCA 1964 (pounds X 10-00 p- Y-) POINT SOURCES NONPOINT SOURCES ALL SOURCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTE WATER DIRECT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FOREST LAND PASTURE/ IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGE RETURN FLOW SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 18050005 MARIN 4.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.412.00 90.40 2.140.W 0.00 0.w 3.647.W 18050006 SAN FRANCISCO 1,070.00 0.00 0.00 63.10 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 1,133.10 SAN MATEO 72.10 0.00 0.00 66.40 392.W 120.00 1.287.00 0.00 0.00 1.937.00 SANTA CRUZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.70 SUBTOTAL 1,146.6D 0.00 0.00 129.50 1,91)4.00 215.10 3,427.01) 0.00 0.00 6.722.40 CENTRAL 18060001 SAN MATEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 142.01) 10. 00 9.70 0.00 0.00 162.00 SANTA CRUZ 695.10 0.10 0.00 143.40 19.00 67.00 51.80 0.00 0.00 970.9D 1 806=2 SANTA CLARA 0.00 0.00 0.00 31.00 31.70 221.30 362.20 0.00 0.00 W.20 SANTA CRUZ 622.00 0.00 0.00 13.20 76.00 0.00 4.20 0.00 6.00 721.40 MONTEREY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.20 10.10 0.w 0.00 0.00 65.30 SAN BENITO 18060011 MONTEREY 17.70 2.10 0.00 18.50 163.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 201.00 SAN BENITO 18060005 MONTEREY 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 08.90 3.6111111.20 1.008.W 0.00 1.20 4,760.W SAN LUIS OBISPO 3.20 0.w 0.00 29.20 768.W 33.3D 3.60 0.00 0.00 037.50 SAN BENITO I 808W1 2 MONTEREY 293.70 0.w 0.w 98.0D &40 50.30 11.50 0.00 0.w 451.W SUBTOTAL 1.631.70 210 0.w 324.9D 1.331.8D 4,001.20 1,451.W 0.00 7.20 8.830.70 S04JTH 16060000 MONTEREY 0.20 0.w 0.w 0.w 2.70 1,220.41D 0.20 0.00 0.00 1,223.W SUBTOTAL 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.70 1.220.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 1,223.00 GRAND TOTAL Z778.50 2.20 0.w 454.30 3.136.30 5.516.30 4,978.20 0.00 7.20 16.776.10 Source: The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, Strategic Environmental Assessment Division, Office of Oceen Resources Conservation eind Aseegernwit. National Ocean Service. Rockville, Maryland. YWAL LEAD (m), ctacA is" (PwAms X 0muser"k par yew) POINT SOURCES NONPOINT SOU!SES ALL SOURCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTEWATER DIRECT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FOREST LAND PASTURE/ IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGE RETURN FLOW SMP40EB PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 10050005 MARIN 0.07 0 0 0 00.9 9 too 0 220 18050000 SAN FRANCISCO 13 a 0 6.4 0 0 0 0 0 a? SAN MATEO 0.75 0 0 10.1 14.7 5.3 "2 0 0 OILI SANTA CRUZ 0 0 0 0 0 0.32 a 0 0 0.32 SUBTOTAL 4.12 0 00 ts.5 76.3 14.62 224.2 0 0 334.12 CENTRAL 10060001 SAN MATEO 0 0 0 0 5.3 0.75 0@73 0 0 6.9 SANTA CRUZ ts 0.01 0 2t.8 t.4 3.3 1.9 0 0 30.9 1106OW2 SANTA CLARA 0 0 0 4.7 2 14.1 382 0 0 57 SANTACRUZ 1.8 0 0 2 4.5 0 0.20 0 0.22 9.5 MONTEREY 0 0 0 0 1.3 0.08 0 0 0 IA SAN BENITO lemil MONTEREY 0.23 11.8 0.04 2.8 0 0 0 0 20.9 SAN BENITO 18060005 MONTEREY 0 0 0 0.53 11.9 27.9 7.50 0.14 0.013 37.0 BAN LUIS OBISPO 0.16 0 0 4.4 16.4 3.3 0.39 0.0`1 0 24.7 SAN BENITO 18080012 MONTEREY 2.8 0 0 13.11 0.29 1.3 0.00 0 0 17.5 SUBTOTAL 7.19 11.81 0.040 49-33 39.99 50.63 47.00 0.15 02m 0 203.5 SOUTH 19060006 MONTEREY 0,003 0 0 0 0.06 9.1 0.010 0 0 9.2 SUBTOTAL 0.mS 0 cc 0 0.08 9.1 0.010 0 00 9.2 GRAND TOTAL 11.3,13 11.01 0.040 05.93 114.37 74.35 971ZM 0.16 02m 0 $46.82 Source: The Nadional Comal Polward Dkdmqs Invo". StralegIc EnvironnwvW Ases""W4 DMdon, Ofte of Oc@w Rgeoupoge Cormrvallaft and Asmaillmo National Oman Service, Rock%ille, Marylanti. 0 TOTAL COPM (CtI). CIRCA 1954 POINT SOURCES (thousands d pounds per yea" NONPOINT SOURCES ALL SOURCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTE WATER DIRECT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FORESTLAND PASTURE/ IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGE RETURN FLOW S04JRCES PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 18050005 MARIN 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 Iw.90 15.10 206.00 0.00 0.00 382.00 t9050006 SAN FRANCISCO 3.98 0.00 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0.w 0.00 5.30 SAN MATEO 2.10 0.00 0.00 2.30 14.70 5.31) 64.20 0.00 0.00 MAD SANTA CRUZ 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0.00 0.30 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.30 SUBTOTAL 6.14 0.00 O.OD 3.70 115.50 20.70 330.20 0.00 0.00 476.40 I CENTRAL 18060DOI SAN MATEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 5.30 0.75 0.73 0.00 0.00 &OD SANTA CRUZ 0.46 0.04 0.00 5.10 1.30 3.3D 1.90 Ow 0.00 1220 18060002 SANTA CLARA O.OD 0.00 0.00 1.10 2.20 14.10 36.00 0.w 0.01) 53.40 SANTA CRUZ 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.47 4.50 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.60 9.w MONTEREY 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.w 2.70 0.16 0.00 0.w 0.00 2.00 SAN BENITO 18060011 MONTEREY 0.19 1.20 5.00 0.06 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 19.10 SAN BENITO 18060005 MONTEREY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 &W 55.00 15.10 0.77 0.07 74.90 SAN LUIS OBISPO 0.13 0.00 0.00 1.00 32.90 0.70 0.64 0.02 0.00 41.30 SAN BENITO 18060012 MONTEREY 2.70 0.00 0.00 3.10 0.59 2.50 0.17 0.w 0.00 W10 SUBTOTAL 7AS 1.24 5.00 11.55 64.90 83.11 54.80 0.29 0.75 229.10 SOUTH 19080008 MONTEREY 2.80 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.16 19.30 0.03 0.00 0.00 19.50 SUBTOTAL 2.90 0.00 O.OD 0.w 0.16 10.30 0.03 0.00 0.00 19.50 GRAND'TOTAL 16.12 1.24 5.00 15.25 180.65 122.11 385.03 0.29 0.75 724.06 Source: The Nallonal Coastal Pol DMchaW Inver", StrategIc Envirorunernal Assessment Division. Office of Dow Rammes Comwwadon end Ammmmm. National Oman ServIce. Rockville. MarylaW. TOTAL WFRWEN ffW), ORCA 111164 POINLSOURCES . maussimb of P-k& pff Y-) K#(EONT %NRCES ALL SOURCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTEWATER DIAECT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FOREST LAND PASTURE/ IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGE RETURN FLOW SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 18050005 MARIN 17.10 0.00 0.w 0.00 7.120.W 491,00 10.60.00 0.00 0.w 1620.W 18050DOS SAN FRANCISCO 1.002.00 0.w 0.w 70.30, 0.w 0100 0.00 0.w 0.w 1,072.W BAN MATEO 428.00 0.w 0.01) 152.00 1.978.W ow-00 SA45.W 0.00 0.00 9'w4.w SANTA CRUZ 0.00 0.w 0.w 0.w 0.00 010111 0.w 0.00 23-00 SUBTOTAL 1.447.10 0.00 0.w 222.30 9,098.W 14074,00 17,1gs,00 0.00 0.00 2111.91117.1111D CENTRAL 18060001 SAN MATEO 0.w 0.w 0.w 0.00 728.00 W120 49.W 0.00 0.00 1129.00 SANTA CRUZ 1,730.w 0.w '0.w 3w.00 140.00 934.60 Rw.00 0.w 0.w 2.795.W isopm SANTA CLARA 0.w 0.w 0.w 71.00 373.W M".00 I'aft.00 0.00 0.w 3.359.W SANTA CRUZ 306.00 O.w 0.w 30.00 09.00 0.00 Z1.0o 0.w 250.W 1297.W MONTEREY 0.00 0.w 0.w 0.w 3w.w 50170 0.00 0.w 0.00 409.70 SAN BENITO 1806wil MONTEREY 6B.8D 117.00 0.w 42.40 1.482.W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 I.SW.W SAN BENITO 19060006 MONTEREY 01w D.W 0.w 8.10 3,492.W 10,47C00 5.00.00 l.mw 39.20 28.645.W SAN LUIS OBISPO 0.01) 0.00 0.w 67.W 4.002.W 1101111-00 I&W 140.W 0.w 4.439.W SAN BENITO i9osW112 MONTEREY SIMAD 0.w 0.00 [email protected] 79.W 111111-00 57.w 0.w 0.w tm.w SUBTOTAL 2X9.010 117.00 0.00 747.10 ll=.W 20AU,90 7263.00 1.7ww 209.20 44,710.70 SOUTH 19060008 MONTEREY 0.55 0.w 0.w 0.00 22.50 0.112.00 1.10 0.00 0.00 6,139.OD SUBTOTAL 0.55 0.w 0.w 0.00 22.50 8,1Q.00 1.10 0.w 0.00 6.138.00 GRAND TOTAL 4,307.25 1117.00 0.00 9S9.40 20,30.50 0.1110-10 0079.10 111730-00 2011120 79.9=.30 Source: The Nallonal Comal Pollutant Discharge Invert!", Strategic Environmental Assevernard Division, Offkm of OCOM ASSOINCIIIIII OQMBWVdIM &W Asb@mm@K National Desert Servlm. RodrAlls. MaryhuW. TVrAL RMP"DRUS; (TP), CIRCA 1904 P-nwxb of p-mb Per Y-) POINT SOURCES NONPOINT SOURCES ALL SOURCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTE WATER DIRECT POWER URBAN CV40PLAND FOREST LAND PASTURE/ IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGE RETURN FLOW SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 19050005 MARIN 10.80 0.w 0.00 0.00 71.00 4.50 107.00 0.00 0.00 193.w 19050006 SAN FRANCISCO 984.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 9N.00 SAN MATEO 206.00 0.00 0.00 23.00 20.00 41.00 64.00 0.00 0.00 390.00 SANTA CRUZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 SUBTOTAL 1.140.60 0.00 0.00 37.50 91.00 10.70 1?1.00 '0.00 0.00 1.452.20 CENTRAL 1906=1 SAN MATEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 7.00 0.50 0.50 0.w 0.00 too SANTA CRUZ 541.00 0.10 0.00 50.40 6.00 3.30 2.60 0.00 0.01) 003.00 18060002 SANTA CLARA 0.00 0.00 0.01) io.90 21.00 11.01) 18.10 0.00 0.00 61.00 SANTA CRUZ 332.00 0.130 0.00 4.60 31.70 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.30 378.00 MONTEREY 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 9.30 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 SAN BENITO 1808mil MONTEREY 38.40 2.80 0.00 8.50 00.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 105.70 SAN BENITO 18060005 MONTEREY 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 259.00 185.0D 50.40 32.00 1.10 528.01) SAN LUIS OBISPO 25.60 0.00 0.w 10.20 W.00 1.70 0.19 2.91) 0.01) 90.00 SAN BENITO IODOW12 MONTEREY 448.00 0.00 0.00 30.10 VQ 2.50 0.57 0.00 0.00 494.00 SUBTOTAL 1,383.00 2.70 0.00 11&90 467.30 204.51 72.55 35.50 10.40 [email protected] SOUTH 141060006 MONTEREY 0.52 0.0D 0.00 0.00 0.87 61.10 0.01 0.w 0.00 62.50 SUBTOTAL 0.52 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.97 et.10 0.01 0.430 0.w 62.50 GRAND TOTAL 2,524.12 2.70 0.00 151.40 539.17 276.31 243.56 35.50 l0A0 3,M.40 Source: The Nalkmal Coastal Pollutant Discharp ftwerriM. Sirstagle Envircrimerdal Asnnffwd DMdon. Office d Ocam Resources Conserwillon wW Asnmn@K Nidlonal Ocean Servke, Ro"lls, Maryland. TOTAL OIL AND GREASE, CIRCA 1964 Plumummuls of powHk Per Y-" POW SOL;A918 22M!g2LT NPURCES ALL SOIJRCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTE WATER DIRECT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FORESTLANb PASTUREJ IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGIE RETURN FLOW SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 19050w MARIN 17.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 ow 0.w 0.w 17.20 18050me SAN FRANCISCO 2,040-00 0.00 0.00 183.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 2.223.40 SAN MATEO 22.80 0.00 om 477.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.w 700.00 SANTA CRUZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.01) SU13TOTAL 21000-00 0.00 0.00 oeow 0.w 0.00 OAC 0.01) 0.00 2.940.00 CENTRAL 1908=1 SAN MATEO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-w 0.00 cm 0.00 0.00 0.00 BANTA CRUZ 05.00 0-75 0.00 744.00 0.00 0.00 0-ca 0.00 0.w 1,580.00 18080002 BANTA CLARA 0.00 0.00 0.00 223.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 223.00 BANTA CRUZ ?U.00 0.00 0.00 8520 0.00 0.00 0100 0.01) 0.00 7119.00 MONTEREY 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0.00 0.w 0100 0.00 0,01) 0.0111 SAN BENITO 180awlt MONTEREY 58.80 4.20 11.1111U.00 121.00 0.00 0-M 8100 0.01) 0.w Z149.0110 SAN BENITO 18090w MONTEREY 0,00 0.00 0.00 2@AO 0.01) oleo 0,08 0.00 0.00 211.0 SAN Luis owspo 41.00 0.00 0.00 206.00 0.w 0.00 9-0p 0.00 0.w 247.00 SAN 13ENITO iso@IX112 MONTEREY 477.00 0.00 0.00 616.00 0.00 0.00 0140 0.00 0.w 1,003.00 SUBTOTAL 2.1115.11110 4.95 119541w 2,033.9111 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 6,108.40 SOUTH 11909m MONTEREY IAD 0.01) 0.00 0.01) 0.w 0.00 oleo 0.01) 0.00 1.40 SUBTOTAL 1.40 0.00 0-00 0-w 0.00 0.00 otal) 0.00 0.00 1.40 GRAND TOTAL 4.107.20 4.96 1.064,00 2,8n@O 0.00 0140 op 0.w 0.w 9.050.40 Source: The Niltilonsil Coastal Pollutant Memp hwer". Strategic ErwkonnwmW Ammunwit D, Cities of Oommn PAsourcas CarOW40lon wid Aolftn@M Nallonal OcW Servim, Rockville. Marylartcl. TOTAL FECAL COLIFORIM IIACTEAIA (FC:9), CIRCA m4 (to" I' Im", per VOW) POINT SOURCES NCNPOINT SOURCES ALL SOURCES AREA HYDROGRAPHIC INCLUDED WASTE WATER DIRECT POWER URBAN CROPLAND FOREST LAND PASTURE/ IRRK3ATION UPSTREAM TOTAL UNIT COUNTIES TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF RANGE RE TURN FLOW SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGERS NORTH 19050005 MARIN IAO O.OD 0.01) 0.00 0.0111 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.40 18050006 SAN FRANCISCO 6.020.00 0.00 0.00 12,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 11111,529.00 SAN MATEO 34.50 0.00 O.OD Z920.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 2.9%.00 SANTA CRUZ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0100 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.w SUBTOTAL 6,055.90 0.w 0.w 15.429.W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 211.41MA0 CENTRAL I908wt SAN MATEO O.OD 0.00 0A0 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 SANTA CAUZ 3.707.W 0.w 0.w 5,940.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.647.01) 18000002 SANTA CLARA 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,478.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01) IA7&00 SANTA CRUZ Z320.00 0.00 0.00 6m.w 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 111.00 3.057.00 MONTEREY 0.w 0.00 G.W 0.00 0.w 0.00 O.OD 0.00 0.w 0.00 SAN WNITO 180swil MONTEREY 4.70 0.33 0.w 975,00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 911111).00, SAN BENITO 18060005 MONTEREY 0.00 0.00 OV0 214,00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 1.20 215.20 SAN LUIS 0131SPO 3.30 O.OD 0.00 1.040.00 0.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 MIX) 1."3.w SAN BENITO 18000012 MONTEREY 432.00 0.00 0.w 4,940A0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,372.011 SUBTOTAL 8,467.00 0.33 0.w to,011.00 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 112.20 22,500.20 SOUTH 19080009 MONTEREY 47A0 0.0() 0.00 0.00 Mw 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 SUBTOTAL 47.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-w 01w 0.00 47.00 GRANO TOTAL 12,54119@90 0.33 0.00 31.440.00 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00 112.20 44,121.00 Source: The National Commal Pollutant Discitarge Inventory. Strategic Environinen ad Asammarrant Division. Offloe of Ocam Remourm Conservation and Awassarnent. National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland. FIGURE D-2 Figure D-2 illustrates in graphic form the data provided in Table D-2 for the pollutant constituents total wastewater flow, total lead, total suspended sediments, and total nitrogen. D6 Total Wastewater, by Hydrologic Unit and County, Discharged Into Areas Adjacen* to the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Study Areas, by Source, circa % 300 - 0@ Lu UJI 200- U) z 0 .j .j 105 z .81 0 00 100- S6 33 32 30 13 16 is 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 @zzs 0 GTEWATE R . DIRECT . POWER ' LIMAN CROPLAND FOREST PASTURE ' IRRIGATION' UPSTREM TREATWNT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF AND RANGE RIFTLIRN SOURCES RANTS DISCHARGE RUNOFF FLOW WASTEWATER SOURCE M NORTHERN STUDY AREA N CENTRAL STUDY AREA N SOUTHERN STUDY AREA Note: Power plants discharge large volumes of wastewater as a result of cooling water requirements. However, the mass of pollutants discharged from power plants is generally small. Source: National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory, Office of Ocean Resource Conservation and Assessment, National Ocean Service, Rockville, Maryland. 8' S6 S6 33 :@32 is @6 0 0 Total Lead, by Hydrologic Unit and County, Discharged Into Adjacent Areas Under Consideration for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary Study Areas, by Source, circa 1984 400- 300-00 LU 224 x CC 0 LU 200- Z LU :D 0 100-00 75 49 39 51 47 12 16 is 4 7 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 100 0 -QSTEWATER* DIRECT PMO VWWE R CROPLAND FOREST -P.ASTURE IF!Rnam' UPSTREAM TREATMENT INDUSTRLAL PLANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF AND RANGE RETURN SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGE RUNOFF FLOW POLLUTANT SOURCE E3 NORTHERN STUDY AREA 0 CENTRAL STUDY AREA E SOUTHERN STUDY AREA Source: National Coastal Pollutant Disdune Inventory, Office of Ocean Remxces Conservation and Assessment. National Ocw Service, Rockville, MarAand. 490 51 0 Total Volume, by Hydrologic Unit and County, of all Suspended Sediments Discharged into Adjacent Areas Under Consideration for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, Study Areas by Source, circa 1984 . .. ..... 7481 8000 000 UJ 6000 LU CC 0 w CC CL Q z S20 4000 0 @- 2611 2769 -1 U. ot0 2510 611 0 U) 1834 Z 0 2000 0'0 490 49 10 6 8 0 4 0 o 0 5 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 IIIW 0 WASTEWATER DIRECT POWER URIBAN CROPLAND FOREST PASTURE IRRIGATION UPSTREW TREATWENT INDUSTRIAL RANTS RUNOFF RUNOFF RUNOFF AND RANGE RETURN SOURCES PLANTS DISCRARGE RUNOFF FLOW POLLUTION SOURCE NORTHERN STUDY AREA E CENTRAL STUDY AREA SOUTHERN STUDY AREA Source: National Coastal Pollutant Disdmqp Inventory, Office of Ocean Resource Conswv"on and Aggeownent. Nallonej Ocean Servics. Rockville, MaryWW. Total Nitrogen, by Hydrologic Unit and County, Discharged Into Adjacent Areas Under Consideration for the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, by Source, circa 1984 25000- 20434 -4-3 20000 0@ 17125 IN 6122 UJ 4 CC 15000-000 LU U) >- 11233 cc LU 9098 z LU U) 0 z 10000-00 7253 0 CC z -000 2910 5000 1447 1730 747 222 ... 299 00" 117 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 W. 0-99 .1- - . WASTEWATER ' DIRECT POWER Upa" CROPLAM FOREST PAVURE IRRIGATION UPSTREAM TREATMENT INDUSTRIAL PLANTS AL#40F;F A1.1111110IFF RI.*4wF A11111111DRIVIIIGE RIERIFIN SOURCES PLANTS DISCHARGE MINDIFF FLCw E3 NORTHERN STUDY AREA 9 CENTRAL STUDY AREA a SOUTHERN STUDY AREA POLLUTANT SOURCE Source: National Coutal Pollutant Disch" lnv*ntDry, Officill Of Ocean R91110urc9s Cwmwva&m .NW Amument. National 00"In Service Flockville. MwyiwW. . @747 0 .0 APPENDIX E: ABBREVIATIONS 0 0. AMBAG - Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments APPS - Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships (33 U.S.C. 1901 et sea.) 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-Adt 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 LRA - List of Recommended Areas MBNMS - Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary E-2 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 se .) MMS Minerals Management Service, Department of the Interior MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. �� 1361 et sea.) MP - Management Plan MPRSA - Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (33 U.S.C. 1401 et seg.-and 16 USC �� 1431 et secl.) 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 (ME14D) OCS - Outer Continental Shelf OCSIA Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. �f 1331 at 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 Safety Act (33 U.S.C. �� 1221 et seg.) RFP Request for proposals E-3 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 E-4 gr--ObAgg -V C*4(XPWr 'S I Monterey Final Environmental Bay pact Statement/ National Management Plan Marine Responseto Sanctuary vCoolmummeenIlts on the Draft EIS/MP 4L U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and or Atmospheric Administration AN@ Mbb.., A @7\ Sanctuaries and Reserves bivis.ion Of to/ \wwwwV00) Monterey Volume [I: Bay Responses to National Comments Raised Marine by the DEIS/MP Sanctuary United States Department of Commerce August 1991 Prepared BY: Sanctuaries and Reserve Division Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource MOncQement National Ocean Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrotlon 1825 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 714 Washington, D.C. 20235 Table oi Contents Issue Introduction ................................................................................................. ............ . . . ......................4 Figure 1. Proposed Sanctuary Boundaries ............................................................................................5 Table 1. Issues Raised by Gov1. Officials, Govi. Agencies, Organizations, and Business/Industry ....6 Issue 1: Sanctuary Boundary ............................................................................ ............................ -10 Boundary Afternatives/Extensions Central Coast Sanctuary Proposal Def inition of the Term "Buffer" Buffer Zone Dimensions and Regulations issue 2: Hydrocarbon DeveknxneM .. . ........ . ........................................ ....... 12 Regulation and Prohibition Activities in State Waters Impacts Issue 3: Vessel Traffic .......................................................................................................................... 13 Regulation and Prohibition Vessel Traff ic Monitoring Issue 4: Oil Spill Contingency Response Plan ................................................................................... 16 Oil Spill Prevention Oil Spill Contingency Plan Cleanup Activities Moss Landing Terminal Oil Spill Penafties Wildlif e Considerations Issue 5: Depositing and Discharge Activities ...................... . ............................. . ...... . ................... 19 Introduction General State and Federal Regulatory Control NPOES Permits increased Costsot Improved Treatment Comments on the DEIS Fishing and Vessel Operation Discharges Land-based Dischargers Water Quality Issues Air Quality Issues Desalination Regulation Environmental Concerns issue 6: Alteration of, and Construction on the Seabed ............... . ............... ... . ..... . .................... 26 Regulatory Authority Geophysical Surveys Dredging Ocean Dumping Sandmining Artificial Reefs Issue 7: Kelp and Aquaculture ............................................................................................................ 29 Operation and Regulation Ecological Effects of Kelp Harvesting Regulation and Operation of Aquaculture and Kelp Harvesting Issue 8: Harbor Exclusion .................................................................................................................... 30 Issue Clarification Harbor Redefinition Issue 9: Linkages with the Elkhorn Slough ........................................................................................ 31 Sanctuary Linkage Issue 10: Nearshore Development ...................................................................................................... 32 Protection of Coastal Lands from Development Seawall Impacts Beach Nourishment Issue 11: Historic Resource Protection ....................................................................................... . ..... 33 Resource Preservation Shipwrecks Issue 12: Taking of Marine Mammals and Seabirds .......................................................................... lu Prohibition of Take Incidental Take Current Legislation Coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Coordination with Environmental Groups Issue 13: Fishing Activities .................................................................................................................. 36 Regulation and Prohibition Gill Net, Trammel Net, and Other Fishing Methods Shark Fishing Comments on the DEIS Issue 14: Motorized Aircraft ..............................................o .................................................................. 38 Prohibition of Overflights Regulation of Overflights Seaplanes/Airport Approaches issue is: Personal Water Craft ............................................................................................................ 39 Prohibition and Regulation Def inftion of Personal Water Craft Policy Timetable Emergency Response Exceptions State Consultation Issue 16: Sanctuary Management ....................................................................................................... 40 Preferred Management Plan Financial Considerations 2 1wM Regulation and Management SAC: Participation SAC: Composition, Organization, and Function Issue 17: Military Activities .................................................................................................................. 43 Oil and Gas Activities Military Training Exercises Table 2. Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................ 44 Table 3. Petitions .................................................................................................................................... 46 Table 4. Public Hearing Speakers .......................................................................................... Table S. Individual Commentors .............................................................................................................. 51 3 Introduction Volume 11, Response to Comments Raised by the These comments contributed to the evolution of DEISIMP, summarizes the comments received on the NOAA's policies concerning the proposed Sanctuary. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Management This volume clarifies the issues expressed by the Plan prepared for the proposed Monterey Bay commentors, and presents NOAA's position on National Marine Sanctuary. This document provides proposed activities in the Monterey Say National the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Marine Sanctuary. (NOAA) with the opportunity to respond to these comments in a comprehensive manner. All letters, documents, and scientific papers were read and divided into five categories: individuals, On November 7,1988, Public Law No. 100-627 government, organizations, industry, and public directed the Secretary of Commerce to designate the hearing transcripts. Each comment was carefully Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. This analyzed and grouped into one of seventeen issues. directive automatically advanced Monterey Bay to NOAA's response is printed across from each active Sanctuary candidate status. In 1989, two comment. public scoping meetings were held and response was favorable to proceed with the DEIS/MP. The DEIS/ Table 1 shows issues raised by government officials MP was completed and released to the public on and agencies, organizations, and industry. Their August 3, 1991. The document proposed the letters are located in the back of this volume. Indi- establishment of a National Marine Sanctuary cen- viduals who commented on the Monterey Bay tered on Monterey Bay to facilitate the long-term National Marine Sanctuary are listed in Table S. management and protection of its resources. Specifi- cally, the DEIS/MP presented boundary and regula- tory alternatives and environmental consequences of each choice. It also provided details on the most important Sanctuary resources and uses. The Sanctuaries and Reserve Division received over 1,200 written comments during the 60-day period between August 3 and October 3, 1991 from individu- als, organizations. industry, and State and Federal government. In addition, over 200 statements were presented at three public hearings held on the following dates: - September 12, 1991: Monterey City Hall Monterey, Callomia September 13, iggi: Veterans Hall Auditorium Santa Cruz, California September 14,1991: Half Moon Bay Community Seniors Center Half Moon Bay, California. 4 MONTEREY BAY SANCTUARY BOUNDARIES, ANALYSIS AREAS, ADJACENT COUNTIES, AND HYDROLOGIC UNrrS 1805000S INORTHER .900 SquamNsuacal Oles Francisco Mateo 18050006 ................. . ............-...... W.4 ............... ........... ........... X.: 18060001 X....... ..... 18030002 18060011 18060012 ICENTRALA=REA .... ......... 2500 Square Naubcal Adiles X X.. . ............ .. . ......... .--.. soLrrHERN A=F;EA 700 Square Nauftal Miss 18060006 Square mileages are approximate. .Xxx Numerical values indicate hydrologic units. sion, i:*@*.-t Map data prepared by the Strategic Environmental Assessment Divi office of Ocean Resources Conservabw and Assessment, National Ocean Service. RockWle, MarYbnd- MUNDARY AL7E:t@WIVES L Alternative 7 Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4 Alternative 5 Alternative 6 Table 1. lefties Ralsed by Gvt. Officials, Gvt. Agencies, Organizations, and Agencies 4f aovwvwwd As"m*msn Sam awnes x x x x x Assemblyman SAM Farr x x x x x Anernolyman Ted LwnW x x x x x x AMOMMVWWW K Jacqueline Speler x CaMornla AMM wy General John Van Do Kamp x x x Camornia Governor George Due"lan x x x x State Senator kfionleon x Sims Senaw Hwq J. Mallo x x x State Senator 141ton Morki x Slaw Senator Ouendne Koo x x Slam Senator Fbwoca Nbrpn x x U'S. Representative Leon E. Panetta x x x x U.S. PAprevemalkv Tom Campbell x x x U.S. PAjpnmmwuW* Tom Lantoo x x x U.S. Senator Poe Wbon x x x Total for Government 0111daft 15 8 7 4 8 4 0 0 Gover"w*ent AgwwADe Aawdetion at hlorearvy Bay Ant* Gwomments (AMBAG) X x x x x x CaMomis Air Reawrose 50IM x camowft Cw" C4mmiaalon x x x x x x x Calornis D*Wffwll of Fbh and Game x x x x C&Wwft D"W *I Partin aM Recreation x x x Calwornia DOW 0 ol Transportation x Cawornia Pagional Weer Ouawy Control so" x Caillornia. State Lwde Commission City of Capilow x x x x x Cay of carmai-SymWS" x x C" d ORMY x x Cky at Hall Moon Bay x x x x Cky at Manna x x x x x City of ww"" x x x x x x x x City of Morgan No x Cky of pooft Grove x x x city of Paoft& x x x Cky of San Ru x x CNY of San MONO x X Cky of Santa Cna x x x x x x CRY of Scaft Valley x x x CRY d Sesside x x x x day of wawwft x x Corps d 810@ x x County SwUlon 0 at LA. CouM x x Department of ft Army x x 0"artment of ft M" EfwbVnMWW Pmoctlon Aq-V x x x x Landeb-M ft Creek Pass x x Manne ceir" VAIW OMM x MMI"@)ftyU I AlrCOM1310111M x Marvervy C4u" x x x x x moo" V CoA* A@tLfttW COffddMBW Mwwev Pw*mm Floglo"If Pwk olow x x x x x x x Monexey PenwMIA vftw hftmvnwo ow" x MW @@ I p,@0 We=, ftamort Control Agency pasoMWO CWWWAy Qwnd x x Sell Fimmiew COUM x San LL08 Owepa C-W" x x San whoo Cou" x x x x x DWW x x x x Y00) x x 3MA Cna CMj" x x x Sent;& CnAt PWI Okra U.& Depwimars of ft Total jor Qwmmwt AgWANS 29 Is is 6 36 if 1 5 6 Table 1 cont. Issues Raised by Gvt Oftials, GA. A4encles, Organluftns, and Ag A, 4 Ve Amwiran Catiscean Society x x x x Bonwonwftdale Hai wow w Association x 84 Stick Serving Associalion x arrAa NaDve PIM Society x x Cafflomis State Park Rangers Association x C;amw W Marine Conservation x x x x x Cantral COomia Council of Diving Ojos. Inc. x x x x x Central Caillamis, Wildift Federation x x Central CoW Agricultural Task Force x Car" Cow Conservation Center x x x Central Coast OCS FlOgWal Stud$$ Program x x x x x Coastal Concern x x x x Cafft Palm Museum x ngj-Md@M of Ww's x x x x x Elkhorn Sough Foundation x x Elithorn Saigh hterpretive Guidet; Association x x x x x renew of Prince Williarn Sound x x x FAINXIS d to S" Ow x x x x x x I a io the Future x I a A4 dulow Society x x x x Mao Mom Say Fishermare Marketing Asso"lon x x koftne ot Marine Science, UCSC x x x La i im Wanershed Council x x x LandeftwMill Big Cre" Reserve x L&Mgua d Wol w Voters (Pagional & National) x x x x Moto y Bay Aquarium x Mores, ey Say Ounes Coalition x Bay Teachers 1017 x Moreeney, Peninsula Audoloon Society Most; LarAV Moire Laboratory. Student Body x x Natio" Audd3on Society Natural Resources Detwas Council x x Northern COW x Clow Alliance x x x x oamn Protection C0411110" x x I x x P Comm Federation d Flahermans Assockdore x x x pecift arow@ Muneurn of %ailural Hislict y Association x x x x x San Mom mums" Society x Son Cna SPCA x Sam our S? I X a 11 x I Sierra Club (PagWal & Na*r4 x x x I x Sudiltiss Four4stion 9 8 Ventishis WkbMWM SWXbAkfy x r x Wed. Sac" (PAOWAd a NUWM x x x x x as 76 5 29 12 0 2 Amsft Dralopmarri CO. x EA. x x x x x G&WO.&MOMW x Kaloo x x x Mwadoclno sea Vappat" Cwr"M x W-1, @ May". Eftnrw a HM x x x Pauft Gas, a Electric; COMP" X genes Cruz Seaside CAMPPOW x x x x x UA TOM for w4wry 4 1 3 1 F. Total: OWL. OMMAM"ona. hillusilry st 51 so 11111, 71 3 Table I cofit. issues Raised by Gvt OffiCials, Gvt. Agencies, Organizations, and Agencies GG%vffmW4 Omalm" Asseeft"w SaM Barnes x x x Asser"men Sarm Farr x x Aa@wMy- Ted LWTPW x Aseefft"mw V- JaMUelne Sp@W Callomis Allomey General Jdm Van Do Karm x x CWNwft Governor GWW Djs@ x x x Stale SWAM Morrison State SWAW Henry J. MGM x stale Sermlor Mmon Marie Sme Swmv Ouwvdrw Kapp Suft 4-noor Reb- U.S. Reprementolve Leon E. Pansma x x x US. RepreasnWa Torn Campbal US. RepresentmAm Torn Lantos U.S. Sensor Pam Wbon TobW for Gmimerdnont COC" 0 1 2 2 1 1 3 2 2 Govenninment Aqmrm*m not Morm" Bay ArmaGomminen (AMBAG) x x x x x Air Resources Board x CaNlorrAs Coastal Commission x x x X X X Caorno OWwnm of Fish and Gone x x x x x CaWornla Depaimunt d Poft and PA=Ozdw Calarnia Depstimunt d Traroponadon x x Callon" Regional Wiser Quaft C4mol Board CaWamis SION Lands Camn"on x Cky d cq*Aoa x x x x c4ty at Canimmi-ey-TNI-Sm Cay of GbW Cky of HIS Moon Bay x x coy of marhm x x x X city of Mal to x x x x x CAy of MorW HW city d Puft am" x x x x x cay d Padfts Cky of Son F city of San mam Cky of Santa cma x x x x CRY of Scaft V&%y CRY d Samode City *I Wow WNW Corps d E gh" Ciour" Ser"lon ONO" of Lk Cot" Dapaimurm of ft Amy x Ompartrnart at ft Nory x E. vs onilm PNI@Cft AQWCV x Landml@40 81 Croak PAM" main COOq wow Dierks mar" any U Air CAr" MOrts Mar" CON4 x x x x x x x mor" cc" ftft*u'W ON-unle" x x MW. 1 c4umv WAW momp"Wra ClOft man" Pankow@ PAOM m Amikohma x x x x x Mor" Penksma Vim Managerned C . .- - ey A 91 m I Wow PokAmm C;onW Agercl Pomm" ummir" CWWA San F - -1 - CAm" San Luis ab"O cau" son mam cou" x x x safte"Cour" x XX x Sam Cruz Part chorb x U@L Deperement d to x 4 5 1 11 4 is 13 It 2 Tow forawwwrortAp TWO I COM ISSUSS Raised by GA. Offictals, Gvt. Agerw*w, Organizatlons, and Agencies Origisnizatiors &dwm Society x Anwicen COACMn Sock" x x x x x x Boreeford-Hillowle Hweowrws Ansoclaakm ft Stick SwvWV Assacistion Caftris NNKV PWM smww x x CoUtwis Swe ftrk PaVers Assoclstlm Comer for Marl" corlservaborl x x x x x x Corltral C4111cmis Coircil of DM% CluW. ft. x x x x Commit C4911lomis Wkft Federation x Comrsl Cow Acrictftral Teel; Force Comfol coast Corlservullorl Comer Camral Cowt OCS PAglorW Studles ft*w x x x x x x x C4"w Corcerm; Coyote Pow MUMM Doismism 01 "it" x Elldwo Slough Foundadw x x x ENIorn SlQugh IMWWGWG GukJQ5 Ass0dellOn x x x x x x x Rim olPh VAIllornSound Friends of the See Otter x x x x to Me Fwn x Goiden Goo ALduban SccWy x No Moan Boy FWwmsm Morksting Associobw x vlauto of Muft Sdww. UCSC x La Horids Werunhod Council x LAMOW-M ft Crook PAserve x Lsq;w ol Vftmon Vam (PW&nW & Nollorial) x x x Monterey SW AQ-1- x Momer" NY Dwm Cob%w x himemy Bey Tfischm Astioddlion Momoroy Pw*wuk ALdobw Society Man Lwdft Mwft Lsboruory. StWM Body x x x x Noblei hdobon Society x WLM Pdocurm Delervis Council cam so" Ocow AMWM x x Oates PFGNK*Wt C4w X x x it x Fed cam Feders"on GfFkbwmim*ssmdvmom Pod Grow kknournoININWHOWIVANCIC141" Son Maso HLmm Sad" So" Our Shorell x x x Sierra Ckb Mogial a Nowdo It x x x SurMaw Foundodon x versomil MAN SwdLwy x x x x Society ( & Nedow YNdwnm Q M F4 ) ol CA IN Nordwist PAQkM Offim x Tobw for Omortwkwo 3 3 9 12 is 10 is is Armift Dwnftffwt Co. x FA a GWn4AMCWO* x x KOM ses velpstow C4"p" NOW iliviaq,lEds" IIIIHIM x pedft am a Deem Cornpom So" Cna Somme CoMPWV U& MOM Taw ow 111"ry C=oWned TOW: Gvl- OPPWZWDM WWLIWY 0 w 0 n 34 33 9 Tss7ue 1 -- Sanctuary Boundary Comment NOAA Response Boundary Alternatives/Extensions Boundary Alternatives/Extensions NOAA should extend its preferred Boundary Alterna- NOAA's preferred boundary is Alternative 2. This tive because a northern extension (Alternative 4) afternative was chosen because it integrates impor- would: 1) protect the critical nesting and migratory tant coastal, nearshore, and deep-ocean canyon paths between Monterey County and the San Mateo resource zones under one management regime. coast; 2) create a continuous interrelated zone These zones include Monterey Bay; the Big Sur offshore between Monterey Bay and the Gulf of the coastal area; Af)o Nuevo; the adjacent continental Farallones Marine Sanctuary; 3) restrict or prohibit shelf, slope, and rise; certain highly productive industrial activity that threatens the Sanctuary, shoreline and intertidal areas such as Pescadero particularly oil and gas activities, and 4) provide a Marsh and Elkhorn Slough; and the deep ocean suff icie nt buffer for AM Nuevo from threats such as environments of the Ascension, Monterey Bay, Big hydrocarbon development and vessel traffic, and 5) Sur, and Partington Canyon complexes. The provide additional protection to the Fitzgerald Marine Monterey Submarine Canyon is the focal point of the Reserve which protects a diverse intertidal inverte- Sanctuary. Extensions will not significantly incorpo- brate community. rate additional natural resources associated with the Canyon that warrant Sanctuary protection. Although a northern extension would provide addi- tional protection from oil and gas activities, it would also adversely affect numerous other human uses. The offshore area is trafficked heavily by vessels entering and exiting San Francisco Bay, and is used for dumping and dredging activities by the Corps of Engineers. Extensive military activities occur in this area, as well as underwater submarine training operations. Finally, this area is heavily impacted by both point and nonpoint source pollution, primarily from the urbanized areas of northern coastal San Mateo and San Francisco counties. A southern extension (Boundary Aftemative 3) would: A southern extension would provide minimal addi- 1) provide additional protection to the extensive kelp tional protection to the existing resources and pristine beds found in the region; 2)encompass more than habitats while furthering Sanctuary management three-quarters of th@@sea otter range; and 3) preserve costs for enforcement and other related activities. an undeveloped a,*4 significant natural area before it These resources are adequately protected by is adversely affected by human impact. existing management authorities and are not under any immediate or long-term threat from harmful human activities. An extension boili'-fibith and South (AfteMative 5) Extending the Sanctuary to Alternative 5 would would provide full protection for the reasons stated decrease its manageability and be too costly to above. provide for adequate enforcement, surveillance, education, and research. The DEIS does not provide adequate analysis for The final document (FEIS) has been substantially each boundary alternative. The evidence NOAA revised to present an analysis of all boundary after- presents does not adequately support its preference natives. 10 Sanctuary Boundary Comment NOAA Response for Aftemative 2. The DEIS states that Boundary Alternative 5 is unwieldy from a managernent perspective and too costly for adequate enforcement measures. This statement needs to be suppoited.. Based on relative costs and benefits, boundary alternative analyses should examine the possUfty oi not including certain areas within the Sanctuary. NOAA should develop cooperative agreements with NOAA will work closely with agencies through responsible State agencies to accomplish compa- arrangements such as Memorandums of Agreemerds rable management goals. (MOAs), between Federal, State, regional, and local management and regulatory agencies to ensure Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. Central Coast Sanctuary Proposal Central Coast Sanctuary Proposal A nomination package should be prepared for a A nomination package has been sUbnnftd to NOAA Central Coast National Marine Sanctuary, from Big thW hidudes Mona Say and the Central California Sur south to Santa Barbara County. Boundary Coast. Mwo Bay is included inNOAA's Site Evalua- Alternative 4 should be chosen for the Monterey tion List (SEL) and is efigbte for future consideration Sanctuary, so a separate southern sanctuary can be for active candidate status as a National Marine justified in the future. Sanctuary. Definition of the Term "Buffer" Definition of the Term "Buffer" NOAA should clarify the term "buffer" and discuss its The term "buffer' has been clarified in the FEIS. The relationship to the preferred boundary, sensitive preferred Sanctuary boundaries are designated to Sanctuary resources within and outside the bound- encompass sensitive resources and to provide an ary, and regulatory authority. if a resource is impor- adjacent area (buffer) within the Sanctuary boundary tant enough to be included in such a zone, 0 is where potentially harmful human activities would be important enough to be within the Sanctuary itself. under Sanctuary jurisdiction. Buffer Zone Dimensions and Regulations Buffer Zone Dimensions and ftgulletbw A 30-mile contiguous buffer zone around ft Sandu- In1wo, P, rident Bu sh announced that oil and gas ary boundary should be created where oil and gas activAles woWd bepwhibiked kWelMa4 within the exploration and develloPrnertadivfts would be prof erred Sanctuary boundary. Rx0m, ft Presiderd prohibited to ensure protection of marine resources. said UW no oil and gas devellopmell will O=f Out- This-zone should have enforceable regulations to side the proposed Sanctuary in the Central California prohibit Outer Continental Shed (OCS) related Planning Area until after the year 2000 when the activities. analysis of environmental studies conducted in the area will be completed. NOAA proposed a MOA with the Minerals Management Service (MMS) to enhance coordination between both agencies during future exploration, production, and development activities to minimize the threats of Od and gas development to sanctuary resources and quakfies. Hwftver, MMS recommended the decision to adopt any such MOA be deterred until after the year 2000. In the interim, NOAA and MmS will continue to explore ways that existing regulatory authorities, relationships, and coordinating mechanisms can be strenghtened and enhanced to work more effectively. Issue 2: Hydrocarbon Development: Comment NOAA Response Regulation and Prohibition Prohibition and Regulation Oil and gas development within the Sanctuary should NOAA will prohibit exploring for, developing, or either be prohibited or regulated. Concerns range producing oil, gas or minerals in the Sanctuary. from impacts of potential toxic wastes released from oil-drilling platforms, reduced tourism due to dimin- ished scenic views, lack of adequate emergency oil response capabilities, to catastrophic blow outs. Activities In State Waters Activities In State Waters The Governor of Calffornia recently requested and NOAA's proposed oil and gas prohibition covers all secured the deletion of Monterey Bay and adjacent State and Federal waters within the Sanctuary, and areas from oil and gas leasing activities. All state thus overlaps with the current prohibition in State waters within this region, including the Bay proper, waters. However, the State can revise this prohibi- now fall within a State Oil and Gas Sanctuary in tion at any time. NOAA's prohibition will ensure long- which oil and gas activities are prohibited. term. protection of both State and Federal waters. Impacts Impacts The potential impacts of oil and gas activities are not The FEIS includes an analysis of Sanctuary impacts clearly analyzed in the Draft Environmental Impact on all resources and uses (including oil and gas) for Statement (DEIS). The FEIS should examine direct, all boundary afternatives. indirect, and cumulative impacts on all proposed boundary alternatives. 12 Issue 3: Vessel Traffic Comment Regulation and Prohibition NOAA should either regulate or prohibit vessel traffic within the Sanctuary area. Specifically: 1) traffice should be prohibited unless vessels are bound for a destination within the Sanctuary; 2) size of vessels to be regulated or prohibited from the Sanctuary area should be clarified; 3) vessels should either be routed offshore and avoid the Sanctuary area completely, or traffice lanes should be developed along the Sanctuary edges; and 4) vessels traveling along the Sanctuary boundaries should be limited to specific port access routes and shipping lanes established by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) and NOAA. A 10-year moratorium on vessel traffic within the Sanctuary should be imposed until double hulls becomes standard and adequate contingency and emergency response plans are in place. Vessels that are Sanctuary-bound and carrying hazardous cargo should be required to have special designs such as double hulls. NOAA Response Regulation and Prohibition NOAA has included vessel traffic regulation in the scope of regulation, and will determine appropriate levels of regulation after designation in consultation with the USCG, State agencies, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) through the USCG Since publication of the DEIS, both the State and Federal governments have passed comprehensive legislation regarding protection of the environment from vessel traffic. For example, The National Oil Pollution Act of 1990 establishes couble hull requirements for tank vessels. Most tank vessels over 5,000 gross tons will be required to have double hulls by 2010, while vessels under 5,000 gross tons will be required to have a double hull or a double containment system by 2015. All newly constructed tankers must contain a double hull (or double containment system if under 5,000 gross tons), while existing vessels are phased out over a period of years. The following is a chart showing sample phase-out years: NOAA believes that the intent of a 10-year moratorium is already adequately addressed by the 1990 Oil Pollution Act. The Act also mandates that tank vessel and facility contingency plans are prepared for a worst-case discharge, and vessel plans must be reviewed and approved by the USCG. Also, a new California law, SB2040, California's Oil Spill Prevention and Removal Act, states that no tanker may use any terminal in the State after January 1,2000, unless the vessel is double hulled. SB 2040 also requires that while entering, leaving, or navigating in the harbor, large tankers be accompanied by a 13 Vessel Traffic Comment NOAA Response tugboat or tugboats, except under those circum- stances where the harbor safety committee finds that tug escorts are not beneficial. To assure safety and compliance, SB 2040 requests a review and evalua- tion of the pilotage groups, the USCG, and the maritime industry. No vessels containing nuclear materials or hazard- All vessels will be reviewed by NOAA and the USCG ous wastes should be allowed within the Sanctuary to determine appropriate action. boundary, thus establishing the MBNMS as a nuclear-free zone. Vessels must be allowed to travel to and from Pacific The PG&E plant at the Moss Landing terminal will Gas &Electric's (PG&E) Moss Landing Terminal. continue operations. The plant contracts with a tug Therefore, hydrocarbon transport within the Sanctu- boat service that takes a mooring master to the ary should be prohibited except to and from port tanker where he/she stays until the tanker docks at terminals.Tankers should either be escorted by the marine terminal. Port access routes in the tugboats, or should have captains on deck while in Monterey Bay area and San Francisco Bay Will be the Sanctuary. Port access routes for smaller tankers maintained. traveling to and from Moss Landing should be analyzed and clarified, and port access routes to San Francisco Bay should be maintained. There should be no blanket restrictions imposed on NOAA agrees. In working with the Coast Guard and oil tankers and barge traffic. Commercial vessel IMO on appropriate vessel traff ic regulations, NOAA regulation should be carefully crafted so as to not intends to develop regulations so as to: 1) not restrict preclude the safe operation of such traffic in the innocent passage or impact foreign and domestic future. traffic; 2) consider the needs of ports in the Sanctu@ ary; and 3) protect the natural resources and qualities within the Sanctuary. Communities south of Monterey Bay have seriously NOAA will consider the threats from all vessels considered water tankering from Canada. These including water tankers as part of the analysis. tankers should be regulated separately from those carrying cargo. This issue should be addressed in the FEIS. With NOAA allowing vessel traffic in the Sanctuary, NOAA believes that the requirements of NEPA and only partial protection of natural resources is pro- the MPRSA have been met. The EIS and Manage- vided. This does riot satisfy the necessary protection ment Plan were prepared in full compliance with all based on the requirements of NEPA and the NEPA and MPRSA requirements. NOAA will consult MPRSA. with the USCG and the IMO to determine appropriate vessel traffic regulations after designation to ensure that Sanctuary resources and qualfties are protected. Vessel Traffic Monitoring Vessel Traffic NbnItorIng Monitoring vessel traff ic along the coast may be NOAA agrees that a vessel traff ic monftoring and difficult. A mondoring system should be established communications system along the Califomia coast is which is compatible between public agencies and the desirable and appropriate for the region. Pursuant to USCG. SB 2040, the State of Callomia is in discussions with 14 Vessel Traffic Comment NOAA Response the Coast Guard regarding Vessel Traffic Service Systems (a vessel monitoring system) along the California Coast. An agreement may be reached by the end of 1993. The Oil Pollution Act 1990 requires the Secretary of Transportation to complete a comprehensive study on the impact of installation, expansian, or improvement of vessel traffic servicing systems, including the effectiveness of tanker-free zones. NOAA will work with the State, the USCG and appropriate public agencies during the development of these monitoring studies to determine an appropriate system for the Sanctuary. 15 Issue 4.- Oil Spill Contingency Response Plan Comment NOAA Response Oil Spill Prevention Oil Spill Prevention An adequate oil spill response plan should be NOAA has taken preventative measures to address created, emphasizing prevention first and contain- these threats by: 1) proposing a prohibition of oil and ment second. The DEISIMP overemphasized con- gas development within the Sanctuary boundary; and tainment relative to prevention, and failed to address 2) exploring ways to minimize the release of oil from the potential impacts of large spills in and around the vessels by working to reduce vessel traffic within the proposed Sanctuary area. Sanctuary (see NOAA's Vessel Traffic response). NOAA data base information should be used to NOAA is currently preparing an inventory of past oil identify potential oil spill sources, therefore heli:iing to spills in and around the Sanctuary area, and will use prevent spill events. this data to identify potential spill sources and to focus management efforts accordingly. Oil Spill Contingency Plan Oil Spill Contingency Plan If spills can riot be prevented entirely, a contingency The FEIS identifies existir4 oil spill contingency plans plan should exist for emergency response and and efforts in the Monterey Bay area. However, cleanup. To facilitate response action, NOAA should NOAA agrees that the Monterey Bay National Marine work with, and build upon, the efforts of other organi- Sanctuary requires its own contingency plan to zations and agencies already developing plans for ensure that resources are protected during events the area. that threaten the environment. A prototype Sanctuary Contingency Plan is almost complete, and will be tested at the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary. Once implementation experience has been gained, the plan will be adapted to other Sanctuary sites, including Monterey Bay. To suc- cessfully implement an organized approach to emergency response, NOAA will incorporate State and Federal legislation, as well as local efforts, into the Sanctuary Contingency Plan. There is a lack of emergency equipment and there NOAA agrees ftt with Sanctuary designation, the may be inadequate response capabilities in the area will warrant.the equipment rwcessary td handle Sanctuary .region. It is important to develop a Sanctu- large-scale emergency response situations. NOAA is, ary contingency plan which recognizes the need for therefore. exploring the feasibility of purchasing such ongoing spill response training and for appropriate equipment as well as coordinating with OCS industry emergency equipment and response plans. and local oil spill response facilities. The USCG will be responsible for developing -regional spill response training programs using emergency response equip- ment. NOAA will conduct periodic drills within the Monterey Bay Sanctuary to test local emergency response capabilities. An oil spill response facility should be constructed on The development of an oil spill response facility and the Caldomia coast, and a full emergency response an emergency response team located on the Califor- team, including an ocean-going tug boat, Should be nia central coast will be the responsibility of the State centered in Monterey. of California and the USCG. If such a team is devel- oped, and a facility built, NOAA will participate fully to ensure Sanctuary resources are protected. 16 Oil Spill Contingency Response Plan Comment SB 2040, a bill recently approved by the California State Legislature, will provide additional funds for emergency stations and radar equipment to monitor vessel traffic. NOAA should work with state and local radar facilities to tract potential problem vessels. Cleanup Activities Agreements should be established between various local, regional, State, and Federal agencies to ensure adequate cleanup response. Moss Landing Terminal An organization such as Clean Seas should provide supervisory personnel when a tanker is mooring at Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) Moss Landing Terminal. PG&E should be responsible for clean-up if any accidental spills occur as a result of operations at the Moss Landing Power Plant. Oil Spill Penalties Penalties should be imposed on those responsible for catastrophic accidents. Penalties should be imposed on those responsible for catastrophic accidents. NOAA Response California's SB 2040 authorizes local governments to develop regional oil spill response plans, and provides funds for a wildlife rehabilitation facility, emergency stations, and radar equipment to monitor offshore vessel traffic. NOAA will coordinate with California to work with State and local radar facilitie to improve vessel tracking. Cleanup Activities Under the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP), 40 CFR Part 300, the USCG serves as the Federal on-scene coordinator to organize all containment, removal and disposal efforts, and resources during a spill event. If a spill occurs, NOAA will take an active role, to the extent allowable, to participate, coordinate, and actively protect natural resources. During the planning phase, NOAA will work with the existing response mechanism, and will cooperate with local government, industry, organizations, and interested individuals to implement a comprehensive contingency plan. A top priority for the Sanctuary Manager will be to meet with those involved with contingency planning to coordinate Sanctuary roles and responsiblities during an emergency response situation. Moss Landing Terminal NOAA will pursue the viability of recommending that a clean-up organization provide supervisory personnel when tankers moor at PG&E's Moss Landing Terminal. Currenctly, PG&E is responsible for the clean-up of spills at the Moss Landing Power Plant. Off Spill Penalties Under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sancutaries Act (MPRSA), section 307, any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States who violates any Sanctuary regulation shall be liable for a civil penalty of not more than $50,000 per day. Section 312 of the MPRSA states that all recovered amounts can be used to restore, replace, and manage Sanctuary resources. California SB 2040, Article 9, allows the State to collect $5,000-$500,000 in penalties for violation of the Act. Collected fines will be deposited into the Environmental Enhancement Fund to be used for enhanced projects adjacent to marine water, not for 17 Oil Spill Contingency Response Plan Comment NOAA Response cleanup of oil or restoration. The 1990 Oil Pollution Act (OPA) creates new liability limits for vessels, offshore, and onshore facilities, ranging from $600 per gross ton to $350 million per facility. Penalties go to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund and can be used for removal costs, damages for injury to natural resources, and public services. Wildlife Considerations WIldllfe Considerations A sea otter enhancement or study facility should be Under California's SB 2040, funds will be available for created within the Sanctuary area. This facility could a wildlife rehabilitation facility which will be the be converted into a rehabilation station if necessary responsibility of the State of California. NOAA will following a spill. NOAA should cooperate where cooperate as appropriate. appropriate. 18 Issue 5! Depositing and Discharging Activibes Introduction All discharges classified under the Clean Water Act prohibited. Disposal at existing sites, at current (CWA) as "discharges into the waters of the Nation" frequencies, rnagnitudes and qualities will be regu- are under the scope of Sanctuary designation 15 lated by the Sanctuary to ensure that #*,ack4#y is CFR 944.5 (a) (2)-(3). consistent with the goals of the Sanctuary. NOAA will work within the existing process, rather Other types of discharge activities, such as nonpoint than create a new regulatory review and approval source pollution, vessel discharges, toxic sites, and procedure, governing discharge activities in the river outflow which are subject to Monterey Bay NMS Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary area and regulations but currently do not require a permit, coastal watersheds that currently require (or will license, or other authorization, will be monitored by require) a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination the Sanctuary to ensure resources and qualities are System (NPDES) permit or a Wastewater Discharge protected. Requirement (WDR) permit for discharges 00 affect, or may affect, the Monterey Bay NMS. Generally, these permits are issued for municipal, power, and industrial plants, and for the use of ocean disposal sites. Consistent with the MPRSA primary objective of protecting the Sanctuary and its resources, section 301 (b) (5) of the MPRSA, 16 U.S.C. � 1431 (b) (5). the Sanctuary regulations address discharges within the Sanctuary boundary (15 CFR 944.5 (a) (2)) as well as those discharges outside the Sanctuary boundaries which may enter the Sanctuary and injure resources and qualities (15 CFR 944.5 (a) (3)). In accordance with section 304 (C) (1) of the MPRSA, 16 U.S.C. � 1434 (c) (1), NOAA may regulate exist- ing permits through certification which may include the imposition of terms and conditions consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary is CISSkyNded- Regulation of new discharge peffftft LSSUed aUff !be date of designation will be suW 108 MvWw Pro- cess which may iinclude added terms and conditions or objection to issuance, as necessary to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities. Any application for an amendment, renewel, or extension to an existing discharge permit will be considered a new discharge permft. No new discharge will be permfited into the Sanctu- ary, unless the discharger can prove that it will be beneficial to Sanctuary resources and qualities. For municipal discharges, the Sanctuary will require at least secondary treatment, as appropriate. depend- ing on the risk to Sanctuary resources and qualities. All new ocean disposal of dredge material will be 19 Depositing and Discharging Activities Comment NOAA Response General State and Federal Regulatory Control General State and Federal Regulatory Control Depositing or discharging from any location within NOAA agrees, and will regulate depositing or dis- the boundaries of the Sanctuary or from beyond the charging from any location within the boundaries of boundaries of the Sanctuary should be prohibited. the Sanctuary and from beyond the boundaries of the The regulation of discharges to improve effluent Sanctuary, that subsequently enter the Sanctuary quality is a significant concern. and injure resources or qualities. NOAA will work with agencies and dischargers to certify discharge permits. NOAA may require special terms and conditions, including (but not limited to) improved effluent quality to ensure Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. California's possible loss of control over specific Approximately 16 percent of the Monterey Bay activites in State waters is a concern. NOAA's Sanctuary ecosystem lies within State waters. These discharge regulation and permit activities should be resources and qualities (including, but riot limited to, limited to Federal waters, and such actions should be coastal wetlands and estuaries) are the most vulner- coordinated through the appropriate agencies and able to dischargers and degraded water quality. To cooperative agreements. ensure Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected uniformly in this area, NOAA requires the authority to regulate discharges if it is determined that Sanctuary resources and qualities rnay be injured. Sanctuary staff will work closely with agen- cies through Memorandums of Agreement (MOAs) between Federal, State, and local water quality management agencies to determine specific proce- dures to achieve the goals of the Sanctuary using the existing discharge permitting process. The regulatory working agreements, that exist now, It is NOAA's intent to reach a formal agreement specifically between the Environmental Protection prior to the completion of the management plan prior Agency (EPA) State Water Resources Board and the to designation. NOAA and existing water quality California Regional Water Quality Control Board management agencies are in the process of develop- (CRWQCB) should be formally agreed upon before ing an MOA to determine an appropriate regulatory the management plan is adopted to assure coopera- framework between all agencies to ensure Sanctuary tion. resources and qualities are protected. The DEIS is not suff lcient for the Governor of Calffor. NOAA has enjoyed a close working relationship with nia to take action. NOAA should address the confik;t the State of California throughout the entire designa- existing between California policy and Sanctuary tion process. It is not the intent to supercede Califor- designation. A joint EISIEIR must be prepared nia laws, but rather to enhance State and Federal according to the Caldomia Environmental Quality Act natural resource protection programs. However. (CEQA). This joint plan should respect the laws of because NOAA is the sole Federal agency respon- the State of California, not supercede them. sible for designating the Sanctuary, only NEPA applies. Some city governments do riot favor NOAA regula- NOAA will be acting in an oversight capacity within tion, and suggest instead that NOAA act in an the existing regulatory framework. NOAA requires "oversight capacity" to ensure that State and regional the allthority to act Within this framework to ensure boards comply with regional discharge standards, Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. and address the quality of discharge instead of the process. Because NOAA is inexperienced in Califor- 20 Depositing arid Discharging Activities Comment NOAA Response nia water control issues, it should deter to stft state regulations. NOAA should include California's Ocean Plan and The.existing plans and standards will provide a the Central Coast Regional Basin Plan standards in starting point from which NOAA will evaluate how the Sanctuary regulations. effectively: 1) dischargers meet the terms of the plan; and 2) the standards and guidelines protecting Sanctuary resources and qualities. In addition, NOAA does not intend to elirnisnate any exismg Slate or Federal authority, but rather to build upon the existing regulatory framework to provide the level of protection necessary for the nationaft sigridicatit resources and qualifies of Monterey Bay. However, inclusion of both plans is inappropriate. NOAA's assumption of regulatory authority is a The MPRSA gives NOAA different authorities regard- concern. To maintain an equitable regulatory irg old versus new permits. NOAA can prohibit the regime, old and new dischargers should have the exercise of new permit applications, but not existing same benefits and restrictions. PenTAS. All cities should be required to obtain the appropriate NOAA agrees. Howew, NOAA does not intend to permit from NOAA, and NOAA should control and creole a new perrKit process or permit, but to work reduce discharges to improve effluent quality. with the existing process to reduce delays and prevent unnecessary paperwork. NOAA should clearly define regulations and proce- Existing authorities set up standards, criteria, and dures prior to assuming responsibility, and should discharge requirements. NOAA will work with these clardy its position by either defining requirements authorities within the existing regulatory process to for all dischargers in the FEIS/MP or by setting determine if the standards and criteria are sufficient conditional discharge requirements during the to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities, and that planning phase. these standards and criteria are met. NPIDES Perrnits NPIDES Permits NOAA's certification of the NPIDES permits should NOAA agrees, and Will work in paraN wthnilevarit parallel that of the Central Coast Regional Water authorities. The exact pwcedures will be determined, Quality Control Board arid EPA!s permitting wher possUe, upon owipletion of the necessary process, rather than awaft the conVWftn ot We MOAs, State-EPA permit process. Sanctuary regulations should be modified to exempt NOAA disagrees. To ensure that a level of protection discharges regulated by the NPIDES and to allow is given to the resources of the Monterey Bay area, discharges under the existing RWQCB standards. consonant with the area's national significance, NOAA intends to regulate all dischargers and deposi- tors including those with NPIDES permits. The FEIS should discuss how NOAA plans to view NPIDES permit renewals will be treated as new NPIDES permit renewals. Will now Permits be re- permit applications. quired, or will old permits be recerldied? 21 Depositing and Discharging Activities Comment NOAA Response New wastewater discharges into Sanctuary receiving NOAA intends to require at least secondary stan- waters with treatment levels less than secondary dards, as appropriate, depending on the threat to treatment should be prohibited. Sanctuary resources and qualities. The regulation prohibiting depositing or discharging Discharges that prove harmful and injurious to the of potentially harmful materials is sufficient to exclude Sanctuary will be prohibited. the possibility of such pollution, and enforcement is unecessary. increased Costs of Improved Treatment Increased Costs of Improved Treatment Concern was expressed over the DEIS statement NOAA intends to require at least secondarytreatment that secondary treatment is a minimum requirement, standards, as necessary, depending on the threat to and that a higher level of treatment is preferred. It Sanctuary resources and qualities. Dischargers will was suggested that this "preference* could later be reviewed on the basis of providing protection to become the minimum level, and this would substan- Sanctuary resources. By working within the existing tially impact the construction and operational costs of process, increased operational and construction treatment facilities because they would not be costs, as well as afternative disposal costs, will be required to upgrade from their current secondary taken into account. treatment level. Specifically, NOAA should address: 1) the unavoidable adverse impacts of increased energy and chemical use required for higher treat- ment levels; 2) potential results of dischargers forced to use land disposal schemes rather than ocean outfall schemes; 3) the possiblift of higher water and sewer bills resulting from improved treatment levels; and 4) the impacts of municipal dischargers and the limited number of alternatives available to such dischargers. The environment is equally affected by similar NOAA's review and approval of discharge permits sewage discharges from various sources. Therefore, will be based on the effect of the discharge on the regulations should be clarified concerning the poten- Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary, regardless of its tial for some cities to discharge into Monterey Bay source. while others cannot-. Comments on the DEIS Comments on the DEIS Discharge permits should be conditioned, and the NOAA intends to certify and condition discharge FEIS should clearly state that the burden of proof will permits based on information provided by the dis- be on the discharger to show that resources will not charger. The burden of proof will be on the dis- be damaged before a permit or certification is given. charger to prove that Sanctuary resources and qualities will not be injured by the discharge. A mechanism should be included in the management The existing permit process provides numerous plan to channel public input into the permitting and opportunities for public input. certification process. 301 H waivers should be discussed in the FEIS and 301 H waivers permit discharge of primary treated prohibited within the Sanctuary. sewage effluent into receiving waters. This is inconsistent with NOAA's policy to require secondary 22 Depositing and Discharging Activities Comment NOAA Response and Possibly tertiary treatment, as appropriate, depending on environmental impacts. information on point discharges from shore should be This information has been added to the FEIS. included in the FEIS to complement the information in the DEIS on length-of-shore ouffall. Fishing and Vessel Operation Discharges Fishing.and Vessel Operation Discharges NOAA should clarify the types of discharges allowed Discharges and deposits from fishing vessels may be during routine fishing and vessel operations. Dis- regulated except for specif ic discharges intended to charge and depositing exemptions should be recon- provide for normal fishing activities, such as coofing sidered for fishing and vessel operations- because of waters from boat engines, and fish wastes. the harm caused by marine debris. During routine fishing operations, raw sewage Bilge pumping and raw sewage disposal are prohib- disposal and oily bilge water is common, and such ited in the Sanctuary. discharges should be more stric1ly regulated. Land-based Dischargers Land-based Dischargers It NOAA is concerned with Inland dischargers, such Inland disch, wge information is provided in the FUS dischargers should be listed and described in the for dischargers in watersheds adjacerd to the Sanctu- FEIS. ary. NOAA has neither the staffing nor the experience to NOAA intends to work with existing water quality regulate land-based nonpoint dischargers. NOAA control boards including those governing nonpoint should use existing nonpoint source programs by source pollution. Recent amendments to the Coastal working with State and regional water quality control Zone Management Act (CZMA) provide NOAA, EPA, boards. and Coastal Zone Management programs an oppor- tunity to control nonpoint source pollution. Section 104 of the MPRSA has been interpreted to Section 104 of the MPRSA concems ocean dredge indicate that a point source dis;charpr with a perrnit waste diisposA riot NPOES permitted point source authorized under the provisions ol the Clean Water po&AiDn. Ocean ftdge, 1 wle disposal is pmh*Med Act is licensed to discharge certain pollutants into in the Sanctuary, except at sxisfing desigrated sites marine waters. If such pollutants nnA in damage to SF-12 an, d @SF-14 -off Mass Landing, at existing Sanctuary resources, the discharger would not be ftquencies w)d PagnihAm Deposits of dredge liable under Sctlon 104, 0 in full compliance with waste at SF-1 2 and SF- 14 wiJil be reviewed and applicable permit requirements. certified in accordance with �CFR 944.9. The HIS should include information on nonpoint This information is included in the FEIS. source pollution. This information was not included in the DEIS. Water Quality Issues Water Quality Issues The proposed Sanctuary staff should include a water NOAA agrees. A water quality specialW will be hired quality specialist if Sanctuary water quality criteria within one year after designation. are to be altered from existing State requirements. 23 Depositing and Discharging Activities Comment NOAA Response The Marine Sanctuary Administration and the The Sanctuary will work with the RWOCB within its RWQCB should prepare a timetable for preparing existing timetable and with all other authorities to and implementing any new water quality criteria. determine appropriate terms and conditions during Goals and objectives relating to water quality criteria the certification process on each discharge. NOAA should be quantifiable and measurable to aid in agrees that goals and objectives should be quantifi- enforcement. able. NOAA has not discussed what, if any, evidence of Evidence of water degradation is provided in the water quality degreclation is necessary in order for FEIS. In addition, the loss of wetlands and shellfish additional conditions to be placed on existing permits. closures due to degraded water quality require an NOAA should develop a list of criteria to be used to extra level of protection that the Sanctuary can judge the adequacy of existing permit conditions. provide upon designation. Air Quality Issues Air Quality Issues The DEIS did not address air quality issues but No oil and gas activities will be allowed within the should have. One of the greatest threats to the Sanctuary boundary. NOAA will work with the Sanctuary is water- and air-bome pollution from oil California Air Resources Board (CARB) and MMS to operations and other regional development. determine the level of impacts, if any, of OCS activi- ties and regional development on the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary area. Desalination Regulation Desalination Regulation The DEIS does not adequately address desalination NOAA has incorporated a discussion of desalination plant regulation. activities into the FEIS. This section includes poten- tial impacts on the marine environment and environ- mental consequences of a desalination facility in the region. Desalination may become an important source of NOAA agrees that desalination may become an fresh water for California. NOAA should analyze the important freshwater source for California. Currently, impacts of proposed regulation on future desalination the construction and operation of two desalination facilities discharging into Sanctuary receiving waters. plants has been proposed for the Sanctuary area, one in Marin County and the other in Monterey County. Existing authorities set up standards, criteria and discharge requirements. NOAA will work with these authorities, within the existing regulatory process, to determine if the standards and criteria are sufficient to protect Sanctuary resources and quali- ties. Proposed desalination discharges should be exam- While NOAA recognizes that desalination technolo- ined by the Sanctuary regulatory regime on an gies have the potential to address recent water individual, as well as cumulative, basis. shortages in the Monterey Bay area, NOAA is concerned with the potential negative effects of these activities individually and cumulatively on the Monterey Bay ecosystem. NOAA has included desalination activities under the scope of Sanctuary regulatory authority. Proposed desalination activities 24 Depositing and Discharging Activities Comment Seawater brube discharge created through a desalination process, as well as the installation, construction, and maintenance of the disposal lines, should be under the auspices of a local public agency and allowed in the Sanctuary. Environmental Concerns Desalination is an expensive and energy-intensive way of securing fresh water. In addition, the highly saline outflow from these plants is harmful to the marine environment. Discharges from outside the Sanctuary should be prohibited, including sewage outfalls and contaminated waste because, in the future, affected waters may be used for domestic water supply, and such discharge is not currently allowed in other similarly situated areas. NOAA Response could be affected by the Sanctuary regulatory regime governing discharges, alteration of the seabed, and the taking of marine mamals and seabirds. NOAA will be acting in an oversight capacity within the existing regulatory framework. NOAA intends, however, to work with desalination plant owners and operators as well as the relevant management authorities through the Sanctuary's proposed certification procedure provided in 15 CFR 944.10 Environmental Concerns NOAA will review specific desalination proposals and analyze information from existing desalination plants in conjunction with relevant authorities including the California Coastal Commission, Monterey Regional Water Pollution Control Agency, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and coastal cities. This review will determine whether operation of desalination plants is consistent with the objectives for which the Sanctuary is being designated. NOAA's review will include, but will not be limited to: 1) pipeline construction on the seabed; 2) degradation of water quality from chemicals in the discharge water; and 3) the disposal of heated and concentrated brines and their potential impacts on the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. NOAA agrees that by allowing discharges from industrial and municipal sources into coastel waters, water contamination may occur. NOAA may require special terms and conditions including, but not limited to, improved affuent quality to ensure Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected. 25 s@sui66@-'@4@ltetiktiortoti:or.ConttructI n on the Seabed, 0 Comment NOAA Response Regulatory Authority Regulatory Authority Proposed regulation 15 CFR 944.5 (a) (5) should be NOAA's regulation of Prohibiting alteration of, or modified so as to not pre-empt the existing authority construction on the seabed exempts specific activi- of CDF&G to allow seabed alteration if necessary for ties, including certain maritime operations deter- the development of maritime operations. mined to be compatible with the purposes of the Sanctuary, from the scope of the regulation. In addition, existing activities that have a valid lease, permit, licence, approval, or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority prior to the designation of the Sanctuary will be reviewed by the Sanctuary in accordance with 15 CFR 944.9 and allowed I consistent with the purposes of the Sanctuary. New a6tivities would be regqlated by the Sanctuary in accordance with IS CFR 944.10, which states that any person applying for a lease, permit, licence, approval or other authorization from any Federal, State, or local authority to conduct a prohibited activity in the Sanctuary must notify NOAA. NOAA then has the authority to review, certify, or deny the activity. Geophysical Surveys Geophysical Surveys Geophysical survey activities should be prohibited or NOAA encourages research within the Sanctuary. It strictly regulated due to the short- arid long-term the research violates a Sanctuary regulation, (such as eff ects of deep seismic surveys on marine blota. alteration of, or construction on the seabed) re- searchers are required to obtain a sanctuary re- search permit (15 CFR 944.8). NOAA will determine the environmental consequences of the proposed research, including short- and long-term effects on marine biota, and may deny the request d environ- mental consequences are determined to be too severe. Dredging Dredging Dredging is essential to maintaining viable working Existing permitted dredging activities such as routine harbors. However, because of potential degradation harbor maintenance and dredging of navigation to the environment, dredging should be prohibited channels at current magnitudes and rates will be within the Sanctuary. NOAA should clearly state how exempt from Sanctuary regulations. regulations will affect current dredging activities in the Sanctuary. NOAA regulations should be avoided due to the NOAA has determined that the overall socioeco- additional cost to the local taxpayer. nomic impact of the Sanctuary will be positive due to the enhanced.re6wrCe protection regime for this valuable environment (See FEIS, Part IV Section IV). 26 Afteration of, or Construction on the Seabed Comment NOAA Response Contrary to the DEIS, agencies regulating and MOAA recognizes the roJes ot the agencies presently reviewing the dredging process have done a thor- regulating and reviewing the dredging process. ough job, and an additional step in the permit pro- However, unlike NOAA, these agencies are not cess would be unnecessary, cumbersome, and mandated to review activities from an ecosystem expensive. perspective. The goal assigned the highest priority for Sanctuary management is to protect the marine environment, resources, and qualifies of the MBNMS. NOAA will work with the current regulatory agem@es to assure that mutual goals are satisfied. tn addition, NOAA intends to wori( within the existing process to reduce unnecessary stepsin the pem* process. Sand and mud dredging is necessary to maintain Existing routine harbor maintenance and dredging operations at the PG&E plant. activities at current magnitudes and rates will be allowed to continue at the PG&E plant. Ocean Dumping Ocean Dumping Ocean dumping is a threat to the marine environment No dumping of dredge material will be allowed within and should be entirely prohibited within the Sanctu- the Sanctuary except at current frequencies and ary area. magndudes at exisl@ designated sites SF-12 and SF-14. Existing dumping and disposal of dredge maledal wVA be regulated by the Sanctuary in acoor- dancewith 15 CFS 944.9. NOAA should address the potential conflicts between NOAA prefers Bou r4vy Alternative 2, Which does Boundary Alternatives 4 and 5, and the current EPA not overlap with any EPA study sites. However, efforts to designate a permanent ocean disposal site NOAA will continue to work with the EPA, the COE off the coast of San Francisco. and the city of San Francisco and Oakland to ensure that the determination of a final disposal site will not threaten either the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary nor the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Any additional layers in the permit process would be NOAA agrees, and iftends to work wthin ft existing unnecessary, cumbersome, and expensive. process regarding disposal at exW&V Wm SF-1 2 Uld The DEIS does not specdy whether Federaffy autho- SF-1 2 and SF-1 4 will remain available for ocean rized dredge material disposal sites SF-12 and SF-14 disposal at existing frequencies and magrAudes. will remain available for future dredging projects that would otherwise qualdy for State and Federal per- MRS. Sandmining Sandmining Sandmining is detrimental to the environment, Sandmining below ft mean high tide line in the surf especially drag line and hydraulic slurry sandmining, zone is prohibited. Existing activities below the mean and this type of extraction should be prohibited. high tide line can continue until expiration of current However, existing sandrniners should be permits. Sandmining in the surf zone using drag line grandfathered to allow continued extraction activities and slurry techniques alters the seabed and is in the Sanctuary. detrimental to nearshore habitats and biota in the 27 Alteration of, or Construction on the Seabed Comment NOAA Response However, existing sandminers should be drag line and slurry techniques alters the seabed and grandfathered to allow continued extraction activities is detrimental to nearshore habitats and biota in the in the Sanctuary. MBNMS. It is also known to accelerate natural erosion of the adjacent dune system. Artificial Reefs Artlflclal Reefs Artificial reefs should be allowed through a permitting NOAA is riot aware of any existing artificial reefs in process devised by NOAA, not at the discretion of the Sanctuary. The creation of new artificial reefs the Sanctuary Manager. would involve alteration of the seabed, and permits required by existing authorities would be reviewed and either certified, modified, or denied by NOAA and the Sanctuary Manager in accordance with 15 CFR 944.9. The Manager would provide recommenda- tions to NOAA for the appropriate level of regulation. Issue 7: Kelp Harvesting and Aquaculture Comment NOAA Response Operation and ReguLation Opwatim and Regulation The regulatory regime for aquaculture and kelp Kelp harvesting is not regulated by the Sanctuary. harvesting activities within the Sanctuary remains The CDF&G is responsible for managkVkelp ter- unclear. Currently, aquaculture development is the vesting and mariculture operations Only new responsibility of the CDF&G, and because of this, mariculture sites YAII be reWIMed by the Sanctuary in mariculture operations requiring seabed afteraWns accordaryce with IS CFR 944.10. should be excluded from Sanctuary regulations, and allowed to continue. There are a number of aquaculture facilities operat- Existing mariculture faciTties, at current levels of ing within the Sanctuary, yet the DEIS gives little operation, do riot appear to pose a threat to Sanctu- consideration to their future operations. Why are ary resources and qualities. However, if new sites only aquaculture facilities existing at the time of are proposed, or existing sites request a change in designation excluded from prohibitions concerning the level of operation, the Sanckiary needs to ensure seabed alterations? that the change vA not injure Sanctuary resources iiind quanties. Is kelp harvesting included in the discussions on Kelp harvesting is included in -ft dscussion of commercial fishing and mariculture operations? fishing regulation, licences, and permits. No kelp harvesting regulations are proposed with designation. The ecological effects of mechanical kelp harvesting NOAA has inckided a discussion of kelp harvesting in techniques were riot explained in the DEIS. Re- the FEIS. Consultation wth the CDF&G indicates search should be conducted to examine the ecologi- that little research has been conducted as to the cal effects of kelp harvesting and the impacts of non-. ecological effects of mechanical kelp harvesting point pollution on kelp beds. techniques on kelp beds. Yearly harvests of peren- nial giant kelp do riot deplete the resource and the effects, if any, of nonpoint pollution remain unclear. NOAA may consider focusing research efforts on the study of kelp ecology and hapacts; on Is distribution and aburdancein the Sanctuary. 29 4arbor Excluston Comment NOAA Response Issue Clarification issue Clarification Harbor exclusion from Sanctuary boundaries is The FEIS includes a specific section on harbors. As supported, but should be discussed more completely stated in the DEIS, harbors are excluded from the in the FEIS. Sanctuary boundaries and these areas are clarif ied in the FEIS. In the case of Moss Landing Harbor, the Sanctuary will have overlapping jurisdiction with the Moss Landing Harbor District in Elkhorn Slough, east of the Highway 1 bridge. Harbor Redefinition Harbor Redefinition Exemptions exist for routine anchoring, fishing, NOAA chose to exclude harbors from the Sanctuary navigation, and harbor maintenance. Why are boundaries because of their special use require- harbors excluded and riot exempt? ments. By excluding harbors, as opposed to creating a long list of exemptions from regulations, NOAA intends to provide a simpler regulatory regime. One harbor in the study area has jurisdiction extend- Routine harbor maintenance activities that are ing past the jetty system and encompassing the outside of the harbor exclusion area as defined in the Federal navigation channel. The harbor exclusion FEIS but within the Sanctuary are exempted from the area should be redefined to allow internal harbor specific regulation impacting their use. For example, management and entrance responsibilities, including dredging of navigation channels at existing rates and dredging. magnitudes, the placement of navigation aids, and construction of docks and piers are all allowed within the Sanctuary. 30 issue 9: Linkages With Elkhorn Slough Comment NOAA Response Sanctuary Linkage Sanctuary Linkage The Sanctuary should include all waters in the NOAA agrees is important to coordinate closely Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Re- with the ESNERR to ensure the success of both serve (ESNERR), and this relationship should be programs. The Sanctuary includes all waters in the formalized. It is important to create a link between Slough up to the Reserve boundaries. NOAA agrees the Monterey Bay Sanctuary and the Reserve, even that links should be fostered since missions and it this means exempting Moss Landing Harbor. A goals are similar. The mission of the Sanctuary MOA should be developed between NOAA and the Program is to identify, designate and manage areas Moss Landing Harbor District to assure the success of the marine environment of special national signifi- of the two program. cance due to their conservation, recreational ecologi- cal, historical, research, educational, or esthetic qualities. The mission of the National Estuarine Reserve Research System is to establish and manage, through Federal-State cooperation, a national system of estuarine research reserves representative of the various regions and estuarine types in the United States. Regardless of their similarities, the two programs must remain administratively separate because: 1) the management of National Marine Sanctuaries are under Federal jurisdiction and the NERR's system, while dependent upon pre-existing State protection of the specific sites, is a Federal/State partnership; 2) funding is appropriated under two different Acts', and 3) ESNERR was designated under the Coastal Zone Management Act whose regulations prohibit the overlap of boundaries between Sanctuaries and Reserves. After consultation with the Moss Landing Harbor District, NOAA has determined the Most appropriate method of linking the two sited is to exclude Moss Landing Harbor east of the Colregs line and west of the Highway 1 bridge, and to include the waters of Elkhorn Slough east of the Highway 1 bridge to the boundary of the ESNERR with overlapping jurisdic- tion over the Moss LandJng Harbor Distict. The management plans and objectives of the Sanctu- NOAA agrees that there should be Coordination ary and the Elkhorn Slough Reserve should, be between Elkhorn Slough and the Sanctuary. NOAA coordinated. supports the exchange of information, research, education, and staff expertise between the two programs. Meeting the objectives of both Program as well as implementing the management plans can be coordinated through the Sanctuary Advisory committee, and the ESNERR Advisory Committee, and NOAA encourages Sanctuary and Reserve staff to actively participate in this Process. 31 Issue .10: Nearshore: DeVelopment Comment NOAA Response Protection of Coastal Lands from Development Protection of Coastal Lands from Development There is a need for landward protection and controls NOAA agrees that protection and management of the on nearshore development. Adequate protection of land portion of the coastal zone is necessary for the ocean environment must include management of adequate protection of the ocean environment. the adjacent coastal and upland zones. NOAA NOAA will coordinate with existing coastal zone should extend its jurisdiction to include beaches, management authorities such as the California dunes, uplands, and wetiand habitats adjacent to the Coastal Commission and the State Lands Commis- proposed Sanctuary. sion regarding potential land and waterbased threats and impacts to the Sanctuary under the M PRSA. The physical boundaries of a National Marine Sanc- tuary encompasses marine waters up to the mean high tide line. However, NOAA intends to protect the Sanctuary from coastal development via its extra territorial discharge regulation to ensure that coastal and Sanctuary resources are protected. The impacts of increasing local transportation traffic NOAA has included a discussion of urban and adjacent to the Sanctuary should be addressed in the associated developmental impacts in the FEIS. FEIS. No excavation, drilling, pile driving, trenching, or soil The EPA has programs dealing with hazardous aeration should be allowed on lands suspected to material disposal and recovery. NOAA will work with contain hazardous chemicals, as such activities Federal, State, and local authorities and landowners might result in point or nonpoint source discharges to regarding appropriate measures for addressing the Sanctuary. hazardous chemical sites that may affect Sanctuary resources. Seawall Impacts Seawall impacts NOAA,should prohibit the construction of seawalls Activities that require drilling through, dredging, or after Sanctuary designation. It is well-documented otherwise altering the seabed of the Sanctuary, or that seawalls change wave refraction patterns, often constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure or, increasing erosion on adjacent sites, and property material on the seabed of the Sanctuary are prohib- owners should riot be allowed to build these StruC- Red. This includes seawalls. tures. Beach Nourishment Beach Nourishment Are there any limits on the amount of sit in the sand NOAA does not regulate beach nourishment pro- used for beach nourishment? Even though the sand grams. However, NOAA is concerned with the may be placed above the high tide mark, erosion movement of materials into the Sanctuary, including may move sift into the Bay. particle size and composition of sand. NOAA will work with the appropriate authorities to determine the impacts of beach nourishment Programs and whether these activities are consistent with the goals of the Sanctuary. 32 ISSILIO.111.: Historic.-Res'ource Protection Comment NOAA Response Resource Preservation Resource Preservation Protection of historic and cultural resources within the NOAA agrees that it is necessary to protect and Sanctuary is a significant concern. NOAA should manage historic and cultural resources within the prohibit moving, injuring, or possessing historic Sanctuary boundries. NOAA has proposed a prahb- resources within the Sanctuary. lion on moving, posessing, or injuring, or attempting to move, possess, or injure these resources. Shipwrecks Shipwrecks Sanctuary regulations should riot apply to activities The Abandoned Shipwreck Act of 1987 gives states permitted by the State within state waters under ft, the Ills Io abandoned shipwrecks in State waters. ,Shipwreck and Historic Maritime Resources Pro- Under the MPRSA, the Sanctuaries and Reserves gram. Division has managerial responsibiftes for aban- doned shipwrecks within National Marine Sanctuar- ies, including those located in State waters, for the purpose of protecting their resources and qualities. NOAA will coordinate with State agerries to ensure that historic and cultural resources, as well as riving marine resources, within the Sanctuary are protected. 33 Issue 12: Taking of Marine Mammals and Seablrds Comment NOAA Response Prohibition of Take Prohibition of Take The prohibition on the taking of marine mammals and While marine mammals and seabirds are protected seabirds within the Sanctuary is redundant to the under these Acts, NOAA believes that the higher Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Marine Mammal penalties afforded u rider the M P RSA wi 11 provide a Protection Act (MMPA), and the Migratory Bird stronger deterrent. Treaty Act (MBTA). These Acts set maximum financial penalties ranging between $2,000 and $25,000 per violation. The MPRSA (under �307) allows NOAA to assess civil penalties as high as $50,000 for each violation. The money collected is directed back into the Sanctuary Program. By directing the civil penalties into the Sanctuary Program, a more directed effort can be implemented to protect these valuable natural resources. Incidental Take Incidental Take Data has been presented for California State waters The incidental taking of marine mammals and showing that over 6,500 California sea lions, harbor seabirds will be prohibited except in accordance with, seals, sea otters, and harbor porpoises were killed in and permitted by, regulations promulgated under the gill and trammel nets between 1986 and 1987, in MMPA and the ESA. Exemptions under the MMPA addition to thousands of seabirds. Additional include a limited five-year incidental take of marine regulations and protective measures are needed for mammals, which will be in effect until 1993. The these species. ESA also has an incidental take exemption, �1539 (2) 8 (Q. NOAA will adopt the existing regulations including their exemptions in tiie Sanctuary regula- tory regime and will work with the relevant manage- ment authorities to determine whether these exerrip- tions are adequate to protect the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. In addition, numerous State laws have recently been enacted to provide further ;xotection specific to seabirds and marine mammals (see comment and response below). The Sanctuary intends to work with and enforce existing regulations rather than preempt existing regulations that protect natural resources. In some cases, NOAA is creating and implementing stronger regulations in order to protect the natural environ- ment (ie. personal water craft regulations). A figure illustrating the geographic extent and existing state regulations has been added to the FEIS, as has a 34 Taking of Marine Mammals and Seabirds Comment NOAA Response disMssion of the impacts of each regulation. Current Legislation Current Legislation Three pieces of legislation are being proposed or NOAA will track these liegiisWive issues and provide amended that have the potential to impact marine recomn*ndations to increase protection of Sanctuary mammals and birds within the Sanctuary: resources. NOAA intends. to follow these issues and 1) California's proposed SB 2563 would prohibit the legislation, and when appropriate, modify policies to use of gill or trammel nets within 30 fathoms or less protect Sanctuary resources. throughout the present sea otter range; 2) the reauthorization of the Marine Resources Protection Act (MRPA) that restricts gillnet fishing within three miles of the California Coast, and prohibits gill netting of rock fish and incidental take of marine mammals in central Caldomia; and 3) the amendments of the MMPA (1993) that may allow a continued number of incidental takes in California waters. Coordination with U.S. Fish and Willdlife Service Coordination with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The US F&WS is responsible for Southern sea otter NOAA will consult the USF&WS on Southern sea management, and should be involved in making otter management and other issues affecting both decisions which could eff ect this species. agencies. Coordination with Environmental Groups Coordbudim wft Environmefflal Groups The DEIS ignores the fact that fishing and environ- NOAA agrees, and rempizes the tact that signifi- mental organizations have successfully coordinated cant progress has been made between, emkomnen- with fisheries management agencies to limit or tal groups and fishery management agencies regard- eliminate harmful fishing methods in areas utilized by ing the protection of the marine environment. NOAA seabirds and mammals. intends to assist where possible to enhance positive relationships. 35 Comment NOAA Response Regulation and Prohibition Regulation and Prohibition Fishing should riot be prohibited within the Sanctuary Fishing will not be regulated in the Sanctuary, but it area. Instead, fisheries resource regulation should has been placed within the scope of regulations. remain under the jurisdiction of the State of Califor- Fisheries management will remain under the existing nia, the National Marine Fisheries Service, (NMFS) jurisdiction of the State of Callfomia, NMFS and and the Pacific Fisheries Management Council PFMC. However, four proposed Sanctuary regula- (PFMC). This should be clarified in the FEIS. tions could potentially indirectly affect fishing activi- ties. Therefore, to be consistent with the intent to not regulate normal fishing activities upon designation, each regulation of concern specifically exempts normal fishing activities from the scope of these regulations to the extent consistent with existing State and Federal regulations. The four Sanctuary regulations that will affect fishing in Monterey Bay are: l)-Depositing and Discharging Activities; 2) Alteration of, or Constructioh on the Seabed ; 3) Historic Resource Protection; and 4) Taking of Marine Mammals and Seabirds (See NOAA's Sanc- tuary managernent response.) Certain fish species in Monterey Bay should be NOAA agrees that certain fish species in Monterey regulated due to continuing declines. Bay may eventually need to be regulated. Fishing is included within the scope of regulations and, in the future, the Sanctuary will work with the fishermen and local management agencies as well as CDF&G, the PFMC, and the NMFS to determine whether any additional management measures that may be necessary to protect the resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area. The PFMC would have the first opportunity to promulgate regulations affecting fishing activities. Gill Not, Trammel Not, and Other Fishing Whods Gill Not, Trammel Not, and Other Fishing Methods Gill net fishing and the number of non-targeted The gill net fishery has been regulated since 1984 by species that perish in the gill net industry are a the State and Federal govemments because of the concern. Gillnets and trarnmel nets should be mortality of marine mammals and birds. Currently, prohibited throughout the Sanctuary. Bottom dredge, gill netting is row restricted to waters deeper than 20 trawl, and drag-net fishing methods should also be fathorns. in 1989, the halibut gill net f ishing was prohibited because of the damage to benthic natural closed inside 40 fathoms. Future regulations on this resources. fishery are pending which would prevent gill net fishing from occurring within 30 fathoms. This would effectively move the current gill net inshore fishery beyond the zone of distribution of shore birds and coastal mammals. The trawl fishery has also been extensively regulated and no trawlers are currently allowed within three miles of the coast. Unfortunately, there is almost no 36 Fishing Activities AD Comment NOAA Response data regarding the effects of roller trawling on benthic organisms and habitats. NOAA may consider studying the effects of bottom trawling to determine if there are negative impacts on benthic organisms and the surrounding environment. Shark Fishing Shark Fishing Commercial shark fishing should be strongly limited NOAA will work with fishermen and local manage- until enough research has been done to establish ment agencies as well as the CDF&G, NMFS, and sustainable yields for specific species. Direct quotas the PFMC to determine if additional management should be established for shark species within the measures are necessary to protect shark species. Sanctuary. NMFS wrote and released a draft shark fishery management plan for public comment this year for the East Coast and Gulf of Mexico. If a shark management plan is developed for West Coast species, the Sanctuary Manager and NOAA will be involved in the formatiulation and evaluation, and will provide recommended courses of action, NOAA may consider focusing research funds on the study of shark ecology for those species that exist within the Sanctuary. The practice of cutting off shark fins (finning) and All fishing activities in Federal waters are under the, discarding the carcasses should be banned within control of the PFMC. Fishermen in State waters are the Sanctuary. Recreational sport fishing for sharks managed by the CF&G. NOAA will work with these should be severely limited, and selling shark catch agencies to determine if any shark plans or regula- should be prohibited. tions are necessary to protect these species from this activity. Comments on the DEIS and FEIS Comments on the DEIS and FEIS The DEIS did not demonstrate fishing NOAA agrees that there is little evidence that current regulations in the Sanctuary were necessary to fisheries management initiatives are ineffective. protect fish populations. Hence, NOAA is not proposing to regulate fishing activities at this time. However, NOAA is including fishing in go scope of regulation so that if data does become available, NOAA can provide the PFMC with appropriate recommendations for PFMC action, or take appropriate direct action. What structures or materials on the seabed in Constructing, placing, or abandoning any structure or connection wilth fishing will be allowed? material on the seabed of the Sanctuary will be prohibited, except when resulting from normal routine fishing operations such as use of train and bottom trawls. 37 TISSUG 14'. -Motorized' Aircraft.. Comment NOAA Response Prohibition of Overflights Prohibition of Overflights Motorized aircraft should be prohibited from flying Flying Motorized aircraft within three nautical miles of over the Sanctuary. mean high water within the Sanctuary and at less than 1,000 feet above the Sanctuary will be prohib- ited within four zones in the Sanctuary. Generally, these zones are from Pt. Santa Cruz north, Carmel Bay south (overlapping the California Sea Otter Game Refuge), and around Moss Landing and Elkhorn Slough (see FEIS for specft area zones). Regulation of Overflights Regulation of Overflights Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs) already ad- NOAA recognizes that overflights are regulated equately protect Sanctuary resources from aircraft under the FARs. However, the penalties afforded impacts, Making additional regulations unnecessary. under the MPRSA will provide an additional deterrent New regulations may hinder cooperative emergency to the violation of existing regulations and will add a response plans, routine helicopter operations, and level of protection to sensitive Sanctuary resources rescue attempts. and qualities. The MPRSA, under �307, allows NOAA to assess civil penalties of no more than $50,000 for each violation. This regulation would not apply to overflights such as helicopter overflights and emergency responses below 1,000 feet, if necessary to: 1) respond to an emergency threatening, life, property or the environment; or 2) law enforcement arid national defense activities. All other other overflights are prohibited within these zones. Regulations should be moddied to permit the CDF&G overflights for enforcement purposes are CDF&G's Wildlife Protection Program to conduct low- exempt from the Sanctuary regulations according to level reconnaissance flights over the Sanctuary for 15 CFFt 944.5 (a). CDF&G overflights for research the purpose of law enforcement and fish and marine purposes will require a Sanctuary permit in accor- mammal surveys. Prior consuftation with Sanctuary dance with 15 CFR 944-8. staff should not be required. Any restrictions to this modification should be established through an MOA between the DF&G and the Sanctuary. Seaplanes/Airport Approaches Seaplanes/Airport Approaches Provisions should be developed governing the NOAA agrees. The zoned approach to the overflight takeoff and landing activities of seaplanes within the regulations will facilitate seaplane and airport land- Sanctuary and for designated airport approaches. ings and takeoffs. 38 Issue 15: Personal Water Craft Comment NOAA Response Prohibition and Regulation Prohibition and Regulatlon The danger water craft can pose to marine mammals NOAA agrees. Regulations have been revised to and divers, and the noise and exhaust problem restrict personal water craft throughout the Sanctuary which may pose a threat to kelp beds and other (15 CFR 944.5 (8)), but to allow personal water craft biological resources in the Monterey Bay area, to operate in specific zones. Generally, these areas necessitate a prohibition or regulation of personal are located off the harbors of Santa Cruz, Moss water craft. In addition, personal water craft should Landing, and Monterey and and their selection was be prohibited in areas of biological significance," based on a number of criteria. Each was chosen to: including those with high human-use levels such as 1) minimize conflict with other recreational users; 2) beaches; diving, swimming, and surfing areas; state avoidance of kelp beds and sea otter populations; parks; and preserves and reserves. Beside the arid 3) accessibility to launch areas and traditionally potential danger to recreationists, personal water used regions. crafts disrupt low-intensity area uses. Definition of Personal Water Craft Definition of Personal Water Craft A more precise def inition of personal watercraft is NOAA has defined personal watercraft as any needed. motorized vessel less than fifteen feet in length as manufactured, capable of exceeding a speed of fifteen knots per hour, and having 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, air boats, and hovercraft. Other vessels would not be affected by this regulation. Policy Timetable Policy Timetable NOAA should have a timetable outlining when the Regulations will go into effect approximately 30 days thrill craft policy will be evaluated and implemented. following completion of Congressional and Guberna- tonal review and approval. NOAA will publish a public notice in the Federal register stating the effective date of the regulations. Emergency Response Exceptions Emergency Response Exceptlions Exceptions to the personal water craft policy should The prohibitions listed in the regulations at 15 CFR be made when the USCG response groups or 944.5 (a) (2)-(8) do not apply to any activity neces- individuals need to use fast small boast during sary to respond to an emergency threatening life, emergencies. property, or the environment. State Consulation State Consultation The DEIS gives no role to the California Department The FEIS has been revised to include references to of Boating and Waterways (CDBW), one of the most the COBW. NOAA will continue to develop a close effective boating agencies in the nation. Consultation working relationship with all State agencies including with this department is encouraged. the CDBW. 39 Issue IS: Sanctuary Management. Comment NOAA Response Preferred Management Plan Preferred Management Plan NOAA should choose management plan 2 which NOAA's preferred management plan is a variation of proposes that full-time staffing be implemented aftemative 2. This plan would establish the Sanctuary immediately after designation. The Sanctuary is headquarters soon after designation and immediately significantly important, and the commitment of a full- provide full-time staffing of approximately five person- time and immediate staff is necessary to initiate nel to ensure that the Sanctuary program is imple- Sanctuary programs. mented quickly and efficiently. Aftemative 2 will build upon public support from the designation process and will increase opportunities for interpretation and research programs soon after designation. Addi- tional staff and satellite facilities will be phased in after designation NOAA sho uld choose management plan 1, which NOAA supports immediate Sanctuary staffing. The includes the gradual hiring of Sanctuary. staff based cumulative eff ects of increased tourism, business, on financial concerns. Because no issues were commercial, and industrial uses of the area are identified in the DEIS that would require immediate intensifying. The Bay area currently receives munici- action, full staff ing in the initial designation process is pal and industrial point source pollution as well as unnecessary. nonpoint pollution from pesticides and agricultural runoff. The Sanctuary program could play an impor- tant role in coordinating and implementing additional regulations designed to protect the area's natural resources. A full staff is required to provide the Sanctuary infrastructure necessary to address these and other issues. Sanctuary headquarters shoud be lowed in Santa Areas being considered for the Sanctuary headquar- Cruz. ters include the cities of Monterey, Moss Landing, and Santa Cruz. On an interim basis, it has been proposed that the Sanctuary share existing NOAA facilities in Monterey. NOAA proposes to eventually establish a permanent headquarters facility in one of three cities with satellite offices around the Bay. Financial Considerations Financial Considerations On-site staff should play a key role in identifying arid The MPRSA allows NOAA to develop cooperative procuring funds due to the modest Sanctuary budget. agreements with non-profit organizations to seek donations and promote educational and scientific activities. The on-sde staff will play a vital role in identifying an pursuing these relationships. Through- out the entire designation period, numerous individu- als, agencies and organizations have provided guidance, data, and-support. 40 Sanctuary Management Comment NOAA Response SRDs FY 92 budget has been increased from The program budget arid the Managers salary level between $4.746 and $5.5 million. Some of these should be increased. increased resources will be directed to the MBNMS. The Sanctuary manager position has been upgraded from a GS-12 to a GS-13 to reflect the complex responsibilities of tje MBNMS. Regulation and Management Regulation and Management The Sanctuary Manager should have limited discre- The manager will have limited discretion on regulated tion over regulated activities, and key issues should activities based on the MPRSA and the Sanctuary be dealt with in the management plan. regulations. The Sanctuary Manager reports directly to the Sanctuaries and Reserve Division (SRD). In this capacity, the Manager represents NOAA and is the primary spokesperson for the MBNMS. The management plan proposes actions tailored to specific issues affecting the Sanctuary, and will be revised to target specific issues based on the first three years of operation. The management plan should focus on regulatory Although a detailed enforcement plan has not been enforcement. There are no established provisions, developed, NOAA at present, envisions a State/ and there is uncertainty as to how regulations will be Federal cooperative enforcement system involving enforced once the management plan is implemented. the State of California, the USCG the USF&WS, the NMFS, and the EPA. Since the proposed Sanctuary would include both State and Federal waters, close coordination between State and Federal authorities would be requored. NOAA should work closely with existing marine NOAA agrees. Implementation of the management research and education facilities to enhance resource plan win require cooperation and coordination among protection, research, education, and enforcement many Federal, State and local government agencies programs. as well as private organizations and individuals. Information exchange, sharing facilities and staff, and the coordination of policies and procedures for resource protection will be features of all programs, including research, educationa and enforcement. To fill information needs, management operations NOAA develops a general budget, setting out expen- should not receive a disproportionate share of the ditures for program development, operating oosts, Sanctuary budget related to research and education. and staffing including enforcement, management, research and education. Funding priorities will be reviewed and adjusted annually to reflect evolving conditions in the proposed MBNMS, other sanctuar- ies, and National Marine Sanctuary Program priorities and requirements. 41 Sanctuary Management Comment NOAA Response The FEIS should clearly state that the CDF&G will The management plan states that the CDF&G is retain its authority to manage and regulate all uses responsible for managing living resources throughout of living marine resources within the Sanctuary. This California State waters. CDF&G is also deputized to authority should be independent of NOAA and the enforce specific Federal laws such as the ESA, Sanctuary Manager. MMPA, and Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act (MFCMA). Authority to enforce site-specific Sanctuary regulations will be delegated from SRD Headquarters. Designation of the Sanctu- ary will riot eliminate any of CDF&G's existing author- ity. Instead, the management plan envisions shared management responsibilities between NOAA, CDF&G, and other State and Federal agencies as appropriate regarding resources and uses of the Sanctuary area. The FEIS should include the roles of NOAA, the The DEIS/management plan has been revised to State of California, and the USCG following Sanctu- clearly state the post-desig nation roles of NOAA, the ary designation. State of California, Coast Guard, NMFS and other Federal and State agencies. Sanctuary Advisory Committee: Participation Sanctuary Advisory Committee: Participation Numerous organizations and individuals, representing NOAA supports the creation of a Sanctuary Advisory a wide range of interests (ie. teachers, biologists, Committee. NOAA appreciates the interest and environmentalists, industry representatives, natural willingness of numerous organizations and agencies resource managers, divers, commercial and sport that have expressed an interest in participating in the fishermen, and surfriders) requested direct involve- Committee. One of the Manager's first priorities will ment with the Sanctuary Advisory Committee (SAC). be to create the Sanctuary Advisory Comrnittee All coastal cities within the sanctuary should be according to the process and guidelines of the invited to participate in the advisory committee, and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). See the Sanctuary Manager should act as liaison between Appendix A lof FEIS, Volume I. It is NOARS goal the cities arid the committee. The SAC should be set have wide representation on the SAC, and the up like the Monterey Bay Sanctuary Steering Commit- Manager will consider the comments of all interested tee, which consists of a broad range of community parties. NOAA will draft a charter, make membership leaders working with NOAA to develop Sanctuary recommendations to the Secretary of C;ommerce, and regulations. Local, State, and Federal officials should coordinate with the General Services Administration's sit on the SAC in an ex-officid capacity arid inform review of the committee formation and accomplish- their constituents of Sanctuary developments. ments. SAC: Composition, Organization, and . Function SAC: Composition, Organization, and Function The SAC should be str" advisory in nature, with NOAA retaining full control of Sanctuary administration The SAC will function strictly in an advisory capacity, and management. it should have voting members with with NOAA retaining full control of Sanctuary man- a set term of office. The DEIS is unclear about the agement. Once the Sanctuary Manager is selected, structure, composition. and function of the SAC. terms of office, committee composition, and function NOAA should formalize the composition and function; will be defined In accordance with FACA (see FEIS define SAC powers, authorities. and duties; and appendix A). 42 Issue 17: Military Activities Comment Oil and Gas Activities NOAA should clarify the relationship between department of Defense (DOD) national defense exemptions of prohibited activities and oil and gas activities. Any national defense exemption should be tied to a presidential declaration of emergency and a presidential finding that CCS leasing and development within Sanctuary boundaries is necessary to meet emergency needs. This determination should be made by Congress, and not by a presidential finding alone. Military Training Exercises Sanctuary regulations should be designed to minimize negative impacts on operational missions. NOAA's regulations regarding defense activities as stated on pg.302 of the DEIS state that, "Activities that are not necessary for national defense..such as training exercises and routine vessel operations, are subject to all prohibitions contained in the Sanctuary regulations." This implies that training exercises are unnecessary to ensure unit readiness and should not be included in the FEIS. The statement may be interpreted to mean that boat landings and low-level aircraft operation, which are part of training exercises, would not be prohibited. NOAA Response Oil and Gas Activities The MMS in the Department of the Interior (DOI) is responsible for hydrocarbon development lease sales in Federal waters, not the DOD. MMS is not exempt from prohibited activities, including oil and gas development in the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary. If an activity is necessary for national defense or law enforcement, the the head of the agency taking theaction shall notify the Secretary of Commerce in sufficient time to permit consultation without jeopardizing national defense. If the Secretary of Commerce and the head of the agency taking the action cannot come to an agreement on the proposed action, then the President may intervene and make the final decision. The exemptions provided to DOD for defense or law enforcement activities in the FEIS do not apply to the exploration or development of oil, gas or minerals as authorized by MMS in the Sanctuary. Military Training Exercises NOAA agrees. The regulations have been revised to minimize Sanctuary impacts to DOD operational missions. The regulations have been revised to clarify Sanctuary impact on all military activities. Sanctuary prohibitions do not apply to DOD activities, however, NOAA is requiring that DOD and the Sanctuary consult to ensure that all activities carried out by DOD minimize Sanctuary impact on resources and qualities. Futhermore, DOD is liable/responsible for taking appropriate actions to respond and mitigate the harm and, if possible, restore or replace the Sanctuary resource or quality. Thus boat landings and low-level aircraft operations could occur after DOD and NOAA have consulted and agreed on how such activities could take place to minimize impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities. 43 Table 2. Abbreviations Abbreviation Meaning AMBAG Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments ARB Air Resources Board ASBS Areas of Special Biological Significance CARB California Air Resources Board CCC California Coastal Commission CDBW California Department of Boating and Waterways CDF&G California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act COE Corps of Engineers CWA Clean Water Act CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act DEIS/MP Draft Environmental Impact State rnent/Management plan DOD Department of Defense DOI Department of the Interior EIR Environmental Impact Review EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ESNEER Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine Research Reserve FARS Federal Aviation Regulations FEIS/MP Final Environmental Impact Statement/Management Plan MFCMA Magnuson Fisheries Conservation and Management Act MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MMS Mir*rals Management Service MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act IM0 international Maritime organization MOA Memorandum of Agreement MP Management Plan MPRSA Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act 44 Table 2. Index of Abbreviations Abbreviation Meaning MRPA Marine Resources Protection Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oecanic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System OCS Outer Continental Shelf OPA Oil Pollution Act PFMC Pacific Fisheries Management Council PG&E Pacific Gas and Electric RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAC Sanctuary Advisory Committee SEL Site Evaluation List SLC State Lands Commission SRD Sanctuaries and Reserve Division USCG United States Coast Guard USF&WS United States Fish and Wildlife Service WDR Wastewater Discharge Requirement 45 Table 3. Petitions Subject: Supports Boundary Alternative 5, and the protection of Sanctuary resources from potential oil spills and other harmful human activities. Support management plan 2. From: Valerie B. King Signatures: 23 Subject: Supports Boundary Alternative 5. Seeks to prohibit oil drilling with the Sanctuary. From: Live Oak High School geology class, period 6 Signatures: 19 Subject: Supports Boundary Alternative 5. Seeks to prohibit oil, gas, and mineral exploration and development. From: Kathy Roth Signatures: 31 Subject: Supports Sanctuary protection from oil drilling. From: Live Oak High School geology class, period 4 Signatures: 16 Subject: Supports Boundary Alternative 5 and protection of the Sanctuary from oil development From: University of California, University Herbarium Signatures: 16 Subjects: Opposes the Dept. of the interior's five-year lease plan for offshore oil and gas (California Lease Sale #119). Supports a California Ocean Sanctuary from Mexicao to Oregon that would prohibit drilling and toxic dumping offshore. Signatures: 5860 Subject: Supports Boundary Alterntive 5, and seeks to prohibit oil and gas development in the Sanctuary. From: Coastal Concerns Signatures: 923 46 Table 3 cont. Petitions Subject: Seeks to prohibit oil drilling off California coast. From: EA Hall School Students Signatures: 22 Subject: Supports Boundary Alternatives 5. From: Seaside Greensleeves Environmental Action Group, Seaside High School Signatures: 86 Subject: Supports creation of a large marine sanctuary. From: Seaside High School Signatures: 9 Subject: Supports Boundary Alternative 5, and seeks to prohibit thrill craft and drift nets. In general, supports NOAA prohibitions. Seeks to increase sewage treatment levels prior to discharge. From: Tandem Computer, Inc. Signatures: 40 Subject: Supports Boundary Alternative 5. From: All Saints Day School Signatures: 148 Subject: Supports Boundary Alternative 5. Seeks to prohibit offshore drilling. Supports strict regulations of vessel traffic. Seeks to prohibit thrill craft use. From: Diane Dawson Signature: 126 47 ~0 Table 4. Publlc Hearing Speakers September 12,1990 Monterey City Hall, ~6qN~6qbnt~qer~qey CA 76 Speakers (3 Unidentified) In order of appearance Sylvia Panetta representing Congressman Low Panama George Wilson Mark Del~qf~qi~ero representing U.S. Senator Pole Wilson Sloven Abbott - PE~q&G Mass Landing Plant State Senator Henry M~e~qNo David Tatman State Senator Henry M~e~8qf~8qt representing State Senator Mi~ql~on Marks Robert Davis - Pacific Grove Museum of Natural ~qH~qis~t~a~iry Assoc. Assemblyman Sam Barnes John Smiley - Big Crook Reserve Karen Kauffman - Monterey County Board of Supervisors, AM~qZAG Mary Ann ~2qM~a~th~i~e~w~s - ~qC~a~ql~2qf~2qtm~ia Mad" Plant Society Sam Kans - Monterey County Board of Sup~e~r~qmsor~s J~ar~y~w~a~s Willk~x~2qqhby - Am~en~c~en Coleman Society Mark ~qDe~qffi~ero, - ~qC~entra~qll Coast ~qReg~qi~on~i~a~qll Studies Program Peter Miller Tom Pw~qWns - Monterey County Board of Supervisors, AM~q1~q3AG ~qBi~ql Sh~i~ep~ard~son John V~onr~e~es - San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors Abe Som Ruth Freeland - City of ~qk~q4~qlont~er~ey, AM~qBAG Martha~ Norton Bud Nunn - Pacific Grove City Council Carol Moyer Bob Fisher - Carmel~-~qBy~-Th~o~-S~oa Mr. ~qV~ol~ql~on~s~qi~qd - Monterey P~e ~n~qin~s~u~ql~e Audubon Society Mr. Tak~ak~ow~a - City of Marina. AM~qBAG Kenneth Flood representing ~qh~qis dog, PRO Dr. Hughes - Monterey Water Management District Nancy D~o~ng - ~qSup~er~of Monterey Peninsula Unified School District Mr. Mu~ss~e~ql~qman - City Council of Gilroy and Morgan H~q111 M~q1~q1~qw Eberly Austin C~A~4qf~4qtn - ~qC~a~qlTr~an~a Stew ~qP~4~0~q9~q9~0 ~8qM~qw~qV~o Not~i~onkamp~or ~- Monterey Peninsula Wow Man. District John Martin~- Member, C~;~o~n~qg~r~o~ssman P~qW~qW~0qW~s S11~0~0~fi~n~qg Commit" R~qi~qd~w~ird ~qBu~s~qich Dan Ba~qldr~qi~ch - Member, Congressman P~qW~qO~8qU~S Steering Jack Wickham - ~qSi~e~qf~qfa C~q4ub Committee Sera E~6qk~n Joe S~t~a~qill~a~r~t - Sanctuary S~qt~o~or~qin~qg Comm~i~8qf~8qt~e ~2qM~9~q9 Manus Steve Webster - Monterey Say ~qA~8q*~qM~qium ~qa~qw~a~s ~qc~4~qf~qi~ern Charles D~o~ql~qm~ak POW Monism waiter Wong - Department of H~q"~4qW M~qW~0qM~2qW C~qa~4qf~4qt M~qok ~qL~A~n~0qW ~4qM~a~qg~qgi Weaver ~qC~2qk~qy ~2qR~upp~s - C~4~n~V~2qW C~a~ql~qs~om~qm ID~N~6q" ~qC~qo~x~i~ed Dan Haitl~ey - Save Our Short$ E~2qf~2qt ~qD~or~qh~' Ra~r~8q4a~ql~ql Frye Donald ~qk~q4~or~6qW Diane Steller ~2qc~qar~qoll ~8qu~qrn~qe Diane Dawson is" ~2qs~8qp~6qi~qu~qt~qo Mark Silberstein - E~0ql~2qI~6qd~qi~qorn Slough Foundation ~8qN~12qw ~16qm~qo~2qp~qs~qt~qe~qnd Ra~qch~qol Saunders - Center for Marine ~6qc~qon~qs~qe~qrva~6qd on aid Marine MI~12qM ~2qF~12qW~8qw~8qM Prowled Areas Program Kurt Shor~qs~qon Karen Fry Lynn ~8qL~8qo~2q"~4qM~qon Gr~qogwy ~8qS~0qi~qv~0qw - Director, Friends of ~8qS~qo~qa 0~0q0~4qw H~4qw~q4~qey ~4qV~8qw~qx~08qk~qr~q#~q4w Andy ~8ql~6q"~8qb~qell ~0qe~8qm~2qb~qer~qa Reiner Chris Sul~6qtridg~qe ~6qC~qo~2q" ~0qL~2qy~2q"~qn Chris ~8qHa~qrt~qs~qo~4qill ~8qP~08q~ Her~08q" ~08qM~qory N~4qis~4qhimo~qt~qo 48 ~0 Table 4 cant. Pub~qlIc, Hearing Speakers September 13,1990 Veterans Hall Aud~qitor~qk~qim, Santa C~8qm, CA 61 Speakers (11 Un~qId~qentM~qe~0qo In order of appearance Ken Christopher representing Congressmen Leon Panetta M~e~qhu~s Kramer State Senator Henry M~e~qNo ~qB~o~qb ~qC~er~ey Assemblyman Sam Farr ~4qM~ar~qg~q" Fus~sa~qd - U~qSCS Natural ~qR~eserwes Robin Levy - Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors ~qD~@~s~vid Bachman Marty ~q8arnho~qld ~- Mayor of Santa Cruz Jim Lucas - Big Stick Sw~qm~4qV ~qA~ss~o~d~qw~i~qm John Laird - Santa Cruz City Co~u~n~qd~ql, AM~qBAG Chris ~qB~r~o~adw~e~qll - Sierra Club Joe Miller - Scotts ~qV~2qd~ey City ~qC~ou~n~qd~ql ~qS~0qu~v~e M~qw~r~q1~ql - Surf Riders Foundation Joe Townsend - Santa Cruz Port ~qDi~s~qtr~qi~0qd Mark J. Palmer - Ocean Alliance Edward Brown - ~qCali~ql~ql~orn~ia C~oa~x~6qW Commission ~qU~0qM ~qR~o~th~2q%~2qW - ~qR~o~qAh~ern Cowl Boys William Nyud~en Ted A~ql~en~qb~e~r~qg ~qa~qp~r~e~se~r~di~u~2qV ~q6~1~qh ~qgr~ad~ars from ~qD~e~qlm~qw ~qL~qidd~qle Dan H~a~2qf~2qty - Save Our Shores ~qScho~8qd Harold Short Ron ~q0~1~, ad an - ~qS~qW~A~qm as A~2qf~2qtma~l~s Tr~a~ns~qpor~l~a~t~qi~o~n Ned Cu~rtery ~2qW. N~qi~c~a~t~qi Jean Adams Susan McBride Mike Hume~n~qk - Board of Trustees~, Save Our Shores Bonnie Wilson James Gald~qia~s God Suite Jane Orbuck L~aw~n~qm~qw ~qF~ra~qmh~egen - Friends of Prince William Sound Jennifer ~qDiRo~s~si Ava ~qCin~e~qm~s Wam~an Hager Ta~qp~qp~qy Tim Scott West Charles Cunningham Patty Kom Al Brady Brands L~av~e~qm ~~qB~qb~qb~0qO~qw~qm Aura Weis ~8qM~qk~qi~a~qll~qm ~qP~q4~2~1~3 Jean Byers ~qEd~qf~8q*~0qW Jennifer Taylor Sharon Unger Stacy Davis Cathy Pearson Ralph Walker John Tapley Tony Sloss ~08qM~4qi~qc~4qt~q-~2qa~8qll~qe Wows Tracy Sorted - Defenders Of ~12qW~2qv~68qd~12qf~12qt ~08qM~4qi~04q&~8q&~8qW Webber H~4qo~qry ~08qM~4qw~8qd~qn Jew ~2qFl~qeis~qs ~q- Wild~8qwn~qi~qa~8q" S~qOC~qG~8qRY Tarry Tr~qaha ~q- League at Warn~qan Vo~6qW~qs ~8qA~08qk~q. ~2qS~q&~qr~08q4~8qm~qg ~2q49 ~0 Table 4 cont. Public Hearing Speakers September 14,1990 Half Moon Say Community Seniors Center, Half Moon Bay, CA 70 Speakers (3 Unidentified) In order of appearance Casey Byer r~ep~qm~en~ti~ng Congressman Tom Campbell Joy Clemens Joe Nic~odm representing Congressman Tom Lantos Iris ~qCr~e~qigier Senator Quentin Kopp Mary Conk~ay Deborah ~qB~r~qing~ql~es~s~or representing State Senator Becky Morgan Bob Green - Na~v~ural~qi~st. ~2qF~itz~qgeral~qd Marine Reserve Assemblyman Ted L~emp~e~rt Maio ~qV~6q"~z Tom Nolan - Son Mateo County Board of Supervisors Mary Hobbs - S~2qWr~a C~qAub Jim Gonzales - City and County of San Francisco Board of Don Geary Supervisors ~qI(it Dove Helen ~qS~qk~qidel~son - Mayor of Hall Moon Bey Diane Bowen - Sie~qm~a Club David Iverson - City Council Member Ann N~o~6qf~6qtff - Natural Resource Defense Council Peter Loeb - Mayor or P~a~ci~qfl~o~ca Donald M~ayall Gary Orlin - City of Belmont Council Member Judy Holman Dan Ha~6qf~6qf~6qi~ey - Save Our Shores ~qF~6qWAndw~son Elsa Evans Joan Chri~s~qd~nas Charlene Spr~e~qtr~i~ak Mike Ezekiel Dorothy Toms - Coastal Concern ~qS~e~ql~qy ~qs~oc~qkman R~ob~e~cc~a M~a~ql~o - Coastal Concern M~ar~2qp Tom - La Honda Watershed Coun~4qd Mary Do" JA Weir - Pigeon Point Lighthouse. AY~qH Hostel Eleanor Llewellyn - Ocean Protection Coalition Susan ~qJ~er~e~au Julie Botts Roby Price Paula Arm Vouch ON" M~8q"~qW Richard S~chram~-~qB~ar~e~sf~o~r~qd~-H~qA~qR~qI~qA1~1~0 Homeowners As~soci~a~qd~qw JIM ~qN~en~s~qk~qy Ms. Cass ~qP~A~qM~6qS~O~8qM Gary S~trach~i~n - ~qCa~qj~q*~qW~qn State P~qo~2qU Rangers Association of jam ~2qW~qe~qi~qg~an Ca~ql~qi~f~or~n~i~'~a Ken ~qB~e~qd~u~qw William Morris - ~2qo~qi~ql ~6q01 C~qo~qw~i~8qf~8qt~e~. Sierra Club Jam Chambers Jack Freelande~r ~qB~or~qd~i~m Brown S~qa~qt~q-~12q4 Stader - ~12qW~16qW~20qW Care C~2q"~00qW~q- Hum&* S~qo~8qd~28q" Alan Cy~8qi~8qph~qer Sara Crandall Home - Ex~36qO~qo~qr~8qin~2qg Now Hams Outdoor Lad Dunn ~2qL~08qAy Jam*$ Matta Ch~qri~qe Church Und~qs Lewis ~q. Coyote Point ~20qW~qa~qsurn for Environmental ~6qSuldi~q*s am ~0qB~qorh~qam Jonathan Stern cloy ~12qf~12qt~08qq~08q" - Central ~2qC~16q~~qIa ~2qC~qcU~qr~qvi~8qi Of ~2qD~32q" ~12qM~08qf~08qt~q- rim ~20q" - Sierra Club ~6qS~8qt~12qW~4qi~qa Hyman - L~qe~24q" of Women VOWS A ~2qSh~qa~8qil~qenb~qerg~qer ~0qE~2qi~qg~qe~qn~qor ~8qL~4qi~qew~qellyn representing ~08q~ C~4qI~16qM Tom N~q0~q0~q6~qo~qn~q. mar" ~6qa~12qwk~40qo~qst ~2qS~qa~qn Francisco S~0qu~00qf~00qt University ~0 Table 5~. Individual Commentors 927 Individual ~4qC~2qomm~2qen~qt~2qors (20 names illegible on letters) Acevedo, Barbara Sal, A~qiyssa ~qSons~t~al~ql, ~qCh~o~s~qley Carroll, ~2qW~qil~qi~e Adams, Karoi~s ~qSa~qf~qthi~s~, Frank Bons, Eva Rea Can~o~qi~qL Sham Adelman, Leon ~qB~al~ihi~s~, Judy ~qB~o~s~qm~, Jason ~qCa~s~a~qf~qir~to~. Lowy Ad~e~ql~qmau~. Lucille ~qB~q". Kay got ~qj~o~rr~i~e~s Case, Andy ~qA~qik~ou~, Alex Serous, Michele Sm ~qJ~8qW~S ~qGa~w~a~8qf~8qt~, Dorm jean Ala, Fra~nc~qia ~qSard~ock~a~, Seth Boyce." ~. ~2qc~qie~s~qi~s COMM ~qC~S~qA Albers, ~2qGera~r~qdin~e Barlow, Ake Br~a~qg~qdon~, Davis ~qCeau~qtord, Paul Alder, Donald Barlow, Claude Breckenridge, John P~. Ch~a~qin~ey, Janice Alder, Margery Bernard~, Jeff Brighten, ~qRo~qb~o~n Ch~ai~n~ey~. WE. Alexander, Jean Barney, Debbie ~qBr~o~ql~o~in, Stephen ~qC. ~qCh~o~ql~e~nd~qi~n, ~q0~q1~4~qm A~ql~on~qgst. Pa~qt~qicia Barren, Micky ~qB~io~w . Bob Ch~a~n~c~ez. Eunice A~ql~qt~enb~e~r~qg, Edward B~e~traza, A~2qb~a Brow~q, Orion Ch~app~o~qi, Alfred Anderson, Helen B~qw~4q*~2qV~qw. Todd ~qS~t~own, Cad ~qCh~ap~so~qm Lai* Anderson, J.~qR~. Barrows, Shan Brown. Gwen Ch~qo~qm~. ~8qC~lab~o~o~qk Anderson, James ~qB~e~f~6q*~qK~qt M~e~ql~o~2qM Sow-, is Chessman~, ~qD~qo~2q* Anderson, Linda Baum, Jeff Brown, L~encu~qid ~qCh~o~osman, God ~qA~r~8q4~e~r~s~on~, Patricia Bauer, Hea~l~t~qher ~qBr~o~v~i~r~t~. P.M. Ch~o~f~t~qA~ql~ql~e~n Andrade, ~qHo~n~en~c~qia Sock Barbara Brown~. Patrice Chester., John R~. Andre~. Ramona Bel. Ann ~qa~r~qy~ar~i~qk Jeffery Chinn, Amy A~n~qd~qm~. Richard ~q81~0111, Notion ~qBulock~-W~qison, Barbara Christy. Louise ~q0. Andrews, Leslie ~qB~olin~qi~qlan~l~e~, L.L. ~qOull~ock~-W~qison, Gone Church, Chris Andrews, Richard ~qs~o~ql~qk~2q"~Z~. R.J. Burgess, Ryon C~qio~qu~ql. Bob Ang~s~qio~s~, Christopher ~qS~on~qi~c~i~qf~qf. J~o~qwn~e Burnham David C~2qf~2qtnn~qi~. M.L. Ann, Paula ~qs~qa~i~qm , Bruce E. ~qa~qw~y~q*~qw~n. Ian ~qC~qk~l~isi~ar~. ~8qM~8q" A~n~omp. A. ~6qa~n~o~qw~qd~'~qi~e~s~s~qic~a~l ~q8~1~4~2q0~S~. ~qP~8q%~2qW ~qC~q1~0~8q6~.~q411~0~1~0~1~5 Anthony, Elizabeth ~q0~ ~1~ Ur~8qall~, ~0q9~W~X~qW ~q4~8q" C~qI~M~4qA R. Aronson, ~8qNch~@~6q4 Berstein~. ~6qq~u~i~t~a~qw~2qf~2qt~2qk~in Clark ~2qv~A~qd~qm~qd ~8q0~. Ar~qmand~qi~S~, P~q&~qA ~qa~e~s~qt 0~q0~0 a am, ~0qac~qh~or~qd ~qH. Jr. ~r I ~. ~qT~6qAI~M A~rmon, Art ~qB~e~4qf~4qtnc~ouK John ~qa~t~8qm~or~, Larry ~qC~q4~0~6q0 ~q@~2q@ Askoff~. K~o~8qM ~qB~o~u~qg~2qd~. ~qv~o~ql~e~8qf~8qt ~qg~u~qo~t~t~e, Suzan" Co~qd~qd, E~2qb~8qd~qw~th Cowman~q. Jennifer A~qv~4qi~qns. Philp ~20qM~qv~qi~qsin, ~6qs~8qi~8qmran ~6qC~qo~12qm~8qw~qi~qc~qt~q, JON Saar~8qb~qs~q. ~6qL~qu~2qp~2qi~04qf~04qt ~4qBhush~qan, Judith ~0qC~qa~16qf~16qt~2qt Gregor cow June Bad", Joshua ~4qO~16qW~qc~qe~q, Monte ~6qC~8qw~qi~6qd~qer~qon~q, Hugo ~16q0~20q0~q111~q1~q. ~8qN~8qO~qV~q-~8q7 Baker, E~8ql~8qis so, ~6qj~qo~qs~qe~q. Cane. E~12qk~qab~qo~qth Co~8ql~2ql~qon~q, ~08qM~q111~36q4~q1~q1 Baker, Elie ~6qB~2qk~qx~24qA Kenneth Canal. Susan ~2qC~4qa~2qd~qw~qe~qs. Craig Baker~q, M~qS~qAdY Sm. ~2qDun~qc~qo~qn ~2qC~16q" Karen ~2qc~qo~qn~qou~6qt ~2qF~2qk~12qm Baker. Sands ~6qS~qoch~q. N~qo~qol ~6qc~qa~qt~4qi~qo~q, Monica Congaree~q. Mariana ~4qB~20qw~6qw~q' ~4qs~04qw~36qo~00qw~8qi~qs Boom, ~20q04~q(~8qw~qr~2qi~q*4~q1~1~6q1 C~q41~q11~4qt p~40qW M~2qichad ~6qC~qa~6q~~q. Nicola Sage, ~2qBa~08q"~q,~8qS~qaud~qe Rog ~q.. ~8qs~2qu~qv~qe~qn ~2qP. C~08q~~q. W~qond~2qV ~4qc~0qw~8q~~q. Th~qor~qi~0qm ~0q6111111~40q0y~q. Mu~qn~qs Wow, N~qorrna Carpenter~q. Orion ~2qC~qo~qn~4q*~4qL ~6qq~8qw~6q4~qor~qn~qa~qn ~2qS~qo~4ql~2qdo~qck~q, Barba~q- ~8qM Baum, ~12qw~08qa~qs~4qm ~6qC~qarri~6qg~q, Mary ~8qC~qo~qg~qr~qo~08qw. ~08qm~qo~qr~04qb~qell ~0 Table 5 cont. Individual Cornmentors Cots', Joan M. ~qDi Berardino, Angola F~ir~sch~e~qin, Oscar Glin, Diane Cowan, Bruce D~om~a~c, Charles Fisk, Pamela Glover, Alexander E. Cowan, ~qJ~lu~qdy Dong~an, Margaret E Fletcher, Brandon G~o~b~o~c~m. Mar~ioi Cramer, Sh~e~f~7y Donhoff~, K~aryn Fl~or~er~s, David ~qG~o~e~ser,~qj~a~qme~e Cra~nd~e~qf~ql~-H~oxie~, Sam Donovan, Katherine Flores, Miguel Go~qit~a~qin, Ernest Crane, Setty Doran, Bonnie Flares, Mir~na Goldstein, Sally Crau~qtor~, J~. Dower, Susan Fong, Dan Go~ql~o~s~qman, Bernard Crawford, Katherine Doyl, M~or~8qd Fontana, Nancy Gonzales~, Maria Crisman, Rach~o~ql Doyle, William T Foss, Mork Good, Jul~qi~s ~qCri~s~o~s~qt~o~qm~o~, ~6qM~0qW~qW~qN~S D~r~ey~qfuss, Martin J~. ~qF~oxx~. Mork Good~e~ql, Daniel Culan~s, Joy Dr~qitz~ef, Sherry ~qFr~ago. Carman Goodenough, Amanda Cummings, Mic:hae~ql Drunc~ql~o~q@ Judy ~qFr~ago, Dan Gordon. Lynn Cu~r~qich~, John Duffy. James Fraley~, Na~t~esh~o Gott Ken Curry, Robed Dugan, Frances J. ~qFra~nd~o~er, Alex G~oya~qf~qt~, Melissa Cusa~c~. Anne-Maria Du~qgg~qins. David Fr~o~r~0q4~im~, Zachary G~raf~qfy~, Elaine Cu~t~qford, Gone Dum~n~.Jo~s~e Frank, Margaret G~rah~orn. John Cutler, William Duran, Melissa ~qF~qm~n~qk~8qM~. Louise Graham, Marion Cu~tsha~qll~, Gloria Dutch, ~qB~r~qW~qX~4q% Frederick~, Ed~lh Grande, ~q0. Do# Cutsha~qll, S. Dye, Louise Freemen. G~qi~nny Grant. Georgia Cyph~er, ~8qNl~an EA. Hal Middle School French, Edward Gray. Alan Oarnroach, Dave ~qE~qdd~qi~ngs, Owen, Jr. Fr~enct, Helen Gray, Donna Damr~o~s~ch~, Jud Edm~an~s, Su~q=nn~e Fray. Ernest Gr~e~e~n~qbl~a~qt Mad" E. Dansky~, Jeri Edwards, ~qS~0qW~*~v~n Fray, Juba Greenman. Chris Davies. Donne E~qg~qi, Diem Fry. Randal Greenwald~, Joanne Davis, Char~qiot~ql~e ~4qSch~i~or~qt W~qill~qi~on~t Fulton. Cal E. Greenwood~, Robert Davis, Irene Eid~u~rn. Jules Fu~s~ari~. Margaret Greer~. Doug Davis, John Eta, LAW G~o~qgn~-~9~. Ml~qich~a~e~qll Grow, U~q1 Davis, Rodney ~6qe~qm~4q*w~6q% E~ql~air~qm ~2qG~e~ql~ql~0q4~qm~, Dianna Gloomy, ~qs~qy~qlv~qil~l Davis, Sharon ~4q8~v~olow, Anne M. ~qG~ql~qoc~qi~a. ~qy~e~s~e~ni~a ~2qG"~N~6qO~4qW~. Dowel, Michele Es~qp~qk~v~qm~q& Ernest G~ardrAr~. ~0q8~q*~1 ~q1~q1~4~0~1~0 Dawson, Diane E~d~i~s 1~qA . P~qO~qA ~6qG~8q~ Newell G~O~0qW ~6qU~qW ~2qV~qd~qA~igl~qi~qg~n do lb~arm, Kay Evans. an G. ~qG~e~rr~o~lt~. Frank E. Gr~6qf~6qt~l is" Deem, Bruce D Evans. Elm ~16qG. Go". maw ~qG~2qd~4qW Ronald D~qebo~4ql~8qt Dan Ewing. ~2qj~qe~8qwn~qe~0qn~qe Parkes ~16qG~qe~qs~qe~8qm~qn~qa~2qu~q-~4qi. ~0qO~8qW~32q" ~8qG~qr~32qO~24qK Pea Dodo, Douglas ~20qE~qT~qO~16qW~q, M~6qk~2qt~12q" ~12qa~qs~2qi~8qm~q, O~qon ~16qG~qr~2qi~qs~qe~00qw~q, ~6qT~6qha~qs Dodo, Susan ~6qF~12qW~q@~q, Ake ~q:~q' ~2qG~qo~qt~0qtm~qa~qn~q. Cindy Gross. Andrew ~16qU Grande. 0. ~0qF~qoult. Christen Gay. Donnie Gross. Carol Doi mar Widd S~qch ~8q6 or Fedor, Judson ~8qG~08qa~4qh~qo~6qm~qs~q, Richard L ~08qGr~qo~qss~qi~qr~qi~qe~qn~q. ~8qL~2qk~08qW~qa ~4qH~q. ~6qD~qe~4ql~0qg~qad~12qf~12qt~q. N~qo~qo~4qm~qt F~qeir~qth~qa~12qf~12qt~q, ~12qN~qchw~qa~qs~8ql ~2qa~12qbs~qon~q, Arm Gruber~q, ~0qD~qan F~qeir~qW~qO~08qW~q% Dim" Gibson~q, Susan ~2qOrul~qschi~2q@cr~8qw~q, Alec O~qeR~qouss~8qi. Da~q%~2q4d ~2qG~4qh~12qb~8qy, Even J. Gu~qard~qe~qal~4ql~qo. Sandra D~qe~qsp~qa~qrd. ~6q0~16q" F~08q~~q. Linde ~12qaldr~qou~qs, ~2qF~08qf~08qt Defter. Megan F~8qw~qn~qa~qz~08q&. Cyn~12q" ~6qG~8qir~6qm ~2qU~8ql~2qy ~08qou~qs~qes. V~8qidd ~0qD~qo~2qV~qa~qe~q, ~12qM~qO~qO~2qM Rio, ~24q&~6qJ~q. ~12qG~04qan~qtl~4qi~qn~qn~4qi~qng~q. Mary ~0 Table 5 cont~. Individual Co~4qm~4qm~8qWors Guilbe~rt-H~en~ry, Mary Los Heymann, Gary Johnson, Casey Kuehn, Richard Gu~qll~qi~ez, Mandy Hill, Brea Johnson, Eric Kunchy~, Edward Gundefs~on, Carolina Hill, William A. Johnson, Harry Kw~qw~8qq~, Betty Ha~qgger~ty~-~8qRgt~or Family Hill-Lee, Sand Johnson, Linda LaDuk~e~,~qRe~n~ee Ha~qltin~e~r~. Jeffrey Hiller, Peter Johnson, Tom ~qLa~qf~r~o~n~t~z~. John Haney, Robert Hi~qll~o~n, Phy~qll~4qf~4qt Jones, Eleanor ~qLa~n~qgrw~, Mark Haring~er~, Gis~e~4qW Hitchcock Linda Jones, Elizabeth Lam~on. Carl Har~qinger, Herbert Hod~qgins. Pamela Jones, Herbert La~thr~ap, Lesley Harkway~, Carolina H~o~ql~l~cmd~ohl, ~qR. L Ju~ar~oy, Sig! Lau~sn~and~o, David Harlin, Marilyn H~o~8q*~. Susan ~qJ~u~s~qik~qs~' ~2qM~qM~2qU Lawson, Janet Hamm. Coils Holden~, J~o~qbn Koehler, Alfred Loam, Pony ~qR. Harms, Tony Holland~, Barbara K~e~sh~8qW~,Jo~an 1 ~.~7 ~t~il~, ~qj~a~qnne~s Ham, Lucy Hon~ack. ~2qWch~s~ol K~aluu~t~s~, S~ql~efa L~a~qd~.Thoma~s Hamms, ~qS.R. Home, ~2qM~a~qm ~qE~qA~M~qW~8qW K~as~ty~2qW~, Stephanie ~qL~f~f~x~qi~s~@ ~qC~o~2qf~2qt Harris, Addison Horsley, Torn ~qK~qW~4qA~qM~qM~, ~8qG~o~qo~& Lewis~, ~qH~qI~qMY Harris, Alice Lee ~qH~a~t~chkis~s, Carol Kew in* ~qL~OY~qM~. Bets" Harris, Chris Housman, Audri~o K~2qO~qw~. ~qC~A~theri~n~e ~qL~o~rt. ~qV~e~f~t~e~0qf~0qt Harris, David Housman, Lowell K~e~0q"~. Jack Lift ~i Harris, David J. Houston. Duke Kenyon, Paulette Lay. ~qJ~eann~o Harris, D~esM~ar Howard, Richard K~er~shner~, Cheryl L~q�~qy,R~ab~o~n Harris, Ester Hubb~er~, B~6qf~6qt Kessler~, Rory Liam H~a~8qm Haft, Ras A. Hu~s~c~erv~qio, Yr~s~qin~qia KNOW Vora Undo", Phu Haskell~, Carols Hulk Au~lhur King, Mur~qi~al J. ~2qU~2qv~er~, Sol~q" Hav~qle~qm ~qJ~qim Hulk Down ~2q". Valerie Uppo~0qK Irma Hawkins, Quail Hump". Lucia ~2qK~qm~2q&~.~r~qw~, Judith Live Oak H. S~ch Goo ~6qOa~s Hawley, Joan Hu~r~v~qL J~o~2qM W~. K~ql~o~s, Gary A. ~qL~iv~iing~o~0qwn, ~6qW~.~qG. Hayes, Dennis ~qH~0q~ Be" ~qK~2qb~0q~~. Mary ~2qU~w~8qW~, Lincoln Hay~es~,Jan~ot ~2qb~or~0qm ~qI~qM Knopf, ~6qW~2qq G~orti~c L~MM~6q& 1~2q4~0:~q11~01~q1~0in~e Ha~qy~qf~or, ~qL~ouis~s ~ql~6qW~qM~0qW~qY ~qJ~a~-~~qd~2qb ~q91~1~2q0~. ~6q%~4qW Hobart~, Alan ~qk~2qm~o~qm~qy~. ~8qM~S~8q& ~qV~qA~0111~0~1~r~, ~qC~qo~N~qd H~ebef~qt Joan ~qi ~qgh~- own ~4qN~O~qR~M~qW~k ~qV~A~M~4qM ~8qU~qlp~a~r~. ~4q*~qo~c~o~8qw H~okh~qWs, Dan 11~M~O~8qO'~s~. ~qL~qY~qM ~qK~qA~qj~o~0qW ~qP~2qW H~. ~qL~8qq~qm~qc Paw. Helms, David ~qtr~qo~qll~qand~q, cur" Know. Victoria a. Laws. Look HI~qemel, Albert Ivy. ~2qL~qo~qo K~qak~qossoulls, A~qn~6qg~08q" ~8qL~q1~q0~q0~q0~q6 ~12qO~04qb~12qb H~qen~qn~4qi~6qg, Laur~8qi~qs i~ql~qack~qs~qon~q. ~6qP~qW~2q&~qW~q-~q1d K~20q~~q. George ~08qU~2qM ~12q0~q1~q01~q0 Homing. Dan J~.~qe~8qm~6qb~qs~qon~q, ~12qM~8qW~qO~qR~12qM K~qol~8qi~qob~qo~8ql~6qf~q. Lana Ly~2q". Dr. K~qa~36q" H~qe~qr~qs~24qK D~qo~qr~0qthy Jacobson~q. Margaret ~2qK~qa~qv~8qwhy, ~4qE~2qd~qm~qard ~08qK ~08qMI~qN~qO~8qW~00qW ~6qO~8qr~12qm H~qem~qon~qid~qe~qz~q, A~qn~2qgi~2ql Jacques~q, Josh Kozak Chuck Maclellan~q. El~qe~qon~8qw H~qem~qan~qid~qez~q. H~qo~qr~0qm~qe~8qli~qr~0qx~08q* Jon", Mason Kr~q#~08qA Marilyn M~12q". ~12qf~12qt~8qy~12qf~12qt Hershey. Davis Jon", Gomm ~08qW~16qqW~q, Allen ~08qM~4qn~00qf~00qt~q. ~08qQ~qV~08qd Heft, Brian ~8qj~qo~qr~qi~2qm~6qm A. ~08qK~12q*~qA~qr~04qw~q% #A ~12qm~8qu~8qi~qv~q. cow Hess~q. ~12qf~12qt~8qb~qort ~04q%~qn~qn~4qin~6qgs, Cara" ~08qOt~8qm~q. ~04q%~4qMTY ~08qM~qM~12q"~q'~6q^ Marie ~0qH~qourn~qon. Donna j~qann~4qi~08qm~qs~q. U~q)~04q" ~0qK~qr~04qA~qs~qur~qe~q, Judith ~2qh~2qi~ql~8qt~qs~8qyr~qno~qw-~8q@~6q= Alex ~0 Malkin, ~qOe~qbra Melvin, Unda Nelson, Lynn P~oll~ogr~qin, Helen Mallard, Anne E. Mendota, Rosemary Nelson, Margaret Pennington, Edith Mancha. Vanessa M~enoff~, Barbara Netz~l~oy, Ralpkh Peoples, Michelle Mandt, Cheryl Mark, M~qw~th~a Newman, Carol Joan Pepera, N~qick~ol~e Mankowski~, Susan Meyers, Howard N~qk~q*~o~qds~. Wiliam. F. Persa~. Ellen Manoog~qian, Jon~e Milg~a~l~e. Linda Nico~ql~et, Travis P~e~t~e~rhans~, Laura Manor, E~ss~qb~orno Mi~ql~qin, Sherry Ni~es~on, Thomas M~. P~e~t~e~rhans, Michael Manuel. Juan Miller, John N~qks~&~4 Patrice Peterson, James Marcu~ssen~, Murief Miller, T.E. Nis~qp~s~qt. An" Peterson, June Marde~ql, Mary Millet. Mrs. ~qE~8qA No~qlt, Jon P~e~qm Andrea Marguerite. Joseph ~4qm~qj~6qw~qk ~8qM~o~f ~j~qi Norris, 8~q9 N. Phillips, Diane Marino, Gar" Mil~u~s~, Sue Norris~. Nancy Philips, Dolly Marit~a~qm, Family ~8qM1~1~1~2q4 M~ari~qd~e Norton, Ad~ell~e Phillips~. Jesse Martinez, Angelic Mingo, Laura Nov~qbakhtic, A. Philips. Jimmy Jr. Marsh, Susan Mitchell~, ad C~qrNeil, L.M.W. Phillips, Jim Marshall. Jeff ~2qM~o~nj~ara~s, ~qB~qf~qt~V~qiZ ~2qO~eh~t~w~n, Juan Jon Pike. Richard J. ~8qM~ar~qt~qi~n~a~ql~, ~2qM~qy~U~qm~a M~onning, Elizabeth OH~ar~s. ~0q8 it Po~id~es~qta~. Jane Martinez, Monica Moon, Patricia Ok~2qk~qk~aw~sk~qi~. Leah Pope" Paul ~2qMar~t~u~s~, Marjorie Mom. Mkh~a~6qW ~6qO~2qw~qf~old~, Beverly P~o~qp~oka. Rebecca Mattson, Phyllis Morah~. Molly O~ql~e~skl~, Nancy Popp. Elizabeth M~ou~ql~e. Nancy Moran, Cara O~qlv~a, Mary Jeanne Parlor~, Ed M~qa~i~ql~e, Nancy Moran, Janet O~qlv~e~qira, Yu~ql~2qf~2qt ~qP~o~n~er. Mary may, Tom Morgan. Donald Olmsted~, Jew P~o~6qW D~q*w~qWd C Mayor, Kate Morris~, Dan Olson~. Marsha ~qPo~4qf~4qt~. Richard Maya, ~2qu~s~e M. Morris, Marilyn Orrn~e, Derek Pow& ~qCar~a~ql McBride, Lori E. M~qw~0q*~. Martha ~6qO~4qm~0qW Frank ~qP~.~0~1~0q9~q0 ~qC~a~r~n~6qf~6qt McClain. Gloria Monte. Charles ~2qO~r~qt~o~ql~qm~, I ~M a ~2qA~q*~6qW. E~6qX mc~qCo~qf~qfr~ay, K~or~r~qi Moos, ~qF~qich~ar~qd ~2qO~s~4qw~qm~. Jay ~qO~qL ~qPy~qw Laura M~c~qC~r~ay. Thomas mou~qlu, Ly~qm ~2qO~w~qw~qk A~n~2q*~qm ~qc~hlil~a~8qw~. ~ lots- M~c~qFar~qland~-~qBr~ow~n. Jan ~2qM~o~w~qbr~ay~. ~qi~6qd~qw OEM I- I ~2qW~. ~2qQuin~0qo~ti~ql~4qk Linda M~cG~oe, Joseph m~e~eks~qy~qm~o~a~v~qic~4q& Alex P~OCIIII~S~. a" ~2qR~a~qb~8qK Cod M~cG~qlashan, Chuck Mullion~. Juan" ~qF~6q"~4qk Ca~f~oli~n~e ~qP~A~2qW~W~2qW~S~, ~qV~a~n McGowan, Brooke M~qu~2qf~2ql~qor~q, Frederick Paled~8q"~q. mass" R~qa~qd~qu~q, Mary McGowan, Sh~qo~qfTy Murdoch. M~0qkh~qa~qel ~2qP~qa~2qt~qe~12qV~8q0~q6~q. Kathleen Row. Am~8qi~qs McLoughlin, Marilyn D. ~12qMur~44qf~44qt~q, ~72qM~.~36q" P~qa~6qbr~8qa. Car~12qdin~qe R~qt~28qA McMahon, D~8qi~qetr~qa ~12qM~qu~qf~qf~qa~2qy~q, Mario ~2qP~qe~qn~qco~8q"~2qt Me" R~8qwirz, JO~16qW McNabb. Cynthia ~12qM~2qY~6qM~q. Gerald ~2qPar~qo~8qd~qo~qz, Big ~2qR~qe~qm~qsd~qa SkIn~qey M~qc~12qou~qs~8qm, Ned ~12qM~16qpr~qs~q. Sheryl P~qa~2qd~8qw. Bonnie Randal~q. M~qo~6qgh~qa~qm M~qod~qer, Allen Nakagawa. ~8qN~qo~qok~qo ~8qP~qar~0qt~qi~qer~q, jam ~8qR~qe~qn~4qt~8ql~6qo. R~qon~qe ~0qm~qa~qg~4qk~qr~20q4 N~qon~qc~4qy Parker, S~8qw~quh ~2qR~qa~qw~4qm~q2~8qm~q. Gunner Meeks~q, ~4qJ~qos~qe~qd~qe P~qe~4qa~qm ~8q= , C~2qa~2qr~12qd An~qn ~2qp~qi~qe~q"~4qI~8qb ~00q*~2qD~qo~4qk~04q*~8qt A~qnn~qo~0ql~4qi~qe~qs ~08qm~qs~4qt~qa~qr~qod~qe~qr~q, Lucile N~2qq~12qf~12qf~qa~qr~q. Robyn Payne~q. Bonnie Reader Stephanie Malin, ~6qO~qen Nelson. ~20q&~08qk p~8qa~qod~q. Cynthia Melvin, Jay ~0qN~qe~4ql~qs~qa~qi ~q. Frances Payne, Richard ~32qS~4q4 Table 5 cont. Individual Commentors Reibel, David Sabedo, Patricia Short, Harold Stewart, Sandie Reithknecht, Angie Salmon, Jean Short, Irene Still, Cas Renzel, Emily Sammel, Patrica Showers, Paul Storseth, Juhree Richards, Alice Samuel, George Silva, Nicole Strong, Craig Rick, David Samuelson, Ralph Silver, Daniel Strong, Robert Riegel, Lou Sanchez, Edgar Siners, Ella Stuart, Louise Riemer, Akola Sanchez, Rosurite Sing, Craha Swan, Salt Roberts, Ruth Sanchez, Salvador Skogen, Marion Swan, Wayne Roberts, Steve Sanders, Joyce Siegel, Shannon Synder, Helen Robertson, Mary Sanders, Rick D. Sloss, Anthony Szindi, George Robinson, Debbie Sanely, Leslie Smallem, Martin Taggarg, Thelma Rocha, Rose Sapper, Maya Smith, Celeste Taggart, Janet Rocka, Monica Sathrop, Emily Smith, Colleen Tanner, Felicia Rodreguez, Dalilah Saucedo, Silvia Smith, Evony Tenzing Norgay, Norbu Rodriguez, Esmeraida Saxon, Roberts Smith, Michael Vincent Tenzing Norgay, Terry Rodriguez. Patty Scalmanini, Stephen G. Smith, Virginia Tershy, Bernie Rodriguez, Robert Scarr, Dee Smyth, Ken Thelen, Dustin Rodriguez, Sonia Schanfsma, Jan Snyder, Silas S. Thelen, Joan Roo, Wayne Schaumann, Leif Solano, Connie Thelen, Joseph Rolander, Lori Schick, Debra Somers, Jane Thorn, Craig Rolski, Jessica Schiedeck, Jacqueline Sorci, Justin Thom Susan Rolthafel, Sydnee Schmidt, Carla Anne Spak, Margaret Thomas, Joseph Rooney, Chris Schorr, Andrew Spar, Camille Thomason, Elain R. Rosales, Dsael Schrechenberger, Eric Spencer, Joan Thompson, Katherine Rosenblum, Larry Schubart, Peter J. Spencer, Mark Thompson, Lucinda Rosenthal, David S. Schuetrum, Viola Spitzer, Cameron Thompson, Rosemary Roseulund, Isabelle Schuler, Dean Spotts, Richard Thoresen, Kitty Ross, Melissa Schwing, Franklin B. Spring, Robin Thrift, Richard Row, Bonnie Scott-Von der Muhll, Celia Springshead, Erica Thrift, Jean Row, John Seltridge, Nancy Staatz, Hillary Towers, Carol Rowe, Catherine Selkirk, Ronnie Sanford, Kate Towers, Jim Royce, Jonathan Selleck, Kim Stafford, Miloe Tonison, Nan Royce, Marjorie Sepulveda, Wilfredo Stallings, Faith Tooney, William Jr. Royce, Newton Servos, Kurt Stanley, Paul Torrey, Cristy Rugg, Barbara Sharp, Tom Staub, Brenda Trejo, Judith Rush, Elizabeth Sharri, Franesco Steele, Paige Tuzzo, Salvatore Russel, Cindy Shaver, Frank Stein, Alan Vaca, Javier Russel, L. Marie Sheldon, Scott Steiner, Ellen Van Houton, James Russell, Cindy L. Shelton, Alan W. Stainle, Kathleen Ann Van Tyle, Eugenia Russell, Sharon Shepard, Barbaranne Sterddino, John Van Tyle, Louis Rustin, J.P. Sheradown, Sally Sterling, Marion VanBlaricorn, Glenn R. Ruth, Ferdinand Sherman, Michael Stetzel, Claudine H. Vanderwarf, Barbara Smith, Michael Shiraishi, Sheri Stewart, Bob VanderWarf, Bill 55 Table 5 cont. Individual Commentors VanHoulten, Eleanor Willis, Linda Vargas, David Wilson, Eileen Vauncia, Rebecca Wilson, Joe Vazquery, Michael Wilson, Randall Velasca, Veronica Wilson, Vandenberg, Deb Verdin, Torres Winslow, Patrica Veronica, Claudia Wod, Irene Verrou, Gloria Wood, Harold W. Vialo, Elena Wooldridge, Diane Vik, Laura Word, Airva Vincent Kristina Wortiksa, George J. Vitela, Steven Wright Virginia Volenzuela, Matt Wright Annessah Vondrak, Jane Wright David Waage, Candace Wright Tina Wagner, Amy Yancey, Barbara Wahlier, Robert Yancey, James Waldron, Helen Young, Brett Walker, Candace Young, Caryl Wallerg, Carol Young, Daniel Walton, Ian Young, Dorthy E. Weaver, Maggie Young, George Weeks, Robert Young, Mary Ann Wegrich, Mark Zachalev, William Weimer, Marge Zarate, Lauria Weingart, Kathleen Zaucha, Annie Weinstein, Barbara Zavetti, Marilyn Weir, Robert Zepede, Lorena Weiss, Steve Zingale, Tom Weiss, Connie Zite, Terrence Weissman, Robert Zlatunich, Julie Wendand, Ann Zunks, Sally Westbrook, Charles Westbrook, Natalie Wett, Irving Wilet, Beverly Wilis, Janie Wilkinson, Liza Williams, Beverly W. Williams, Gordon Williams, Scott Williams, Wendy Willis, Catherine 56 NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CTR LIBRARY 3 6668 14110435 8