Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMARIN SANCTUARY11111111 lill 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 *NEW FILE* MARINE SANCTUARY I � aEW Pp�,r 0 Department of Community 'Development ccona DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: January TO, 1978 Dennis O'Ne.il, City Attorney Beverly Wood, Environmental Coordinator Marine Sanctuary Nomination Meeting Participants: See attached attendance sheet 9 The County Administrative Office called a meeting for January 10, 1978, to discuss Orange County's involvement in the marine sanctuaries nomination process currently being undertaken by the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) in San Diego. To date both the Execu.tive Board of SCAG and the County Board of Supervisors have.gone on record in support of preparing nomination documents, subject to review of the program prior to submittal to the federal government for action. CPO has taken it upon themselves -to prepare the documents, including the areas of Orange County tentatively designated for the marine sanctuary. The purpose of this meeting was primarily" to discuss the level of staff involvement in the development of the nomination, whether any local policy decisions needed to be made at this time, and how the Orange County input would be coordinated and managed. A representative of CPO was present, and he explained that San Diego was behind their original schedule for preparing the nomination document. He indicated that the State Coastal Commission has granted approximately $9,000 for the compilation of data, but that there was no response to the RFP issued to hire a consultant to perform that task. CPO, has a second application pending before the State Coastal Commission for additional funds to supplement existing research and to develop the resource management program for the proposed marine sanctuary. CPO intends to have the nomination documents prepared and submitted to the federal government in April. The following actions were taken at the meeting:- 1. The participants at the meeting would forward to me any bibliog- raphies; reference lists, etc. which would indicate what research material was available regarding the outer continental shelf area off the Orange County Coast. I will forward them to CPO to be used by whomever will be compiling data. The participants would also forward to me copies of any resolutions of individual jurisdictions indicating local policy on OCS activities. These would be forwarded to the County and to CPO. The participants in the meeting felt that no specific resolutions were needed at this time from the local jurisdictions directly oriented to the Marine Sanctuaries program until more work has been completed by CPO. TO: Dennis O"Neil, City Attorney - 2. 3. We asked that CPO look into the possibility of adding Orange County to its grant application for assistance in coordinating our information. 4. We agreed that the nomination document should be'presented to local councils and to the Board of Supervisors when CPO has enough information to be fairly specific about the proposal. 5. The question of who would coordinate the Orange County Effort was left unanswered, but it was more or less the consensus that if SCAG was not coordinating the program, then the County representa- tives should see if there was any agency of County government who would act as the clearinghouse for information and keep the local ' jurisdictions informed. No subsequent meetings were set. CPO will keep us informed of the pending grant application and the data compilation phase of the process. They may use the existing funds to hire a CETA employee to write- the document. DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT R. V. HOGAN, DIRECTOR By /bever.ly D. Wood, Environ ental Coordinator cc: Bob Wynn Dick Hogan _ Dave Harshbarger BDW/sh Q �gW POST r z . Departleent of Community Deve4ment cqC/FOfi�`P . DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECTv PARTICIPANTS: October 19, 1977 Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney Bev Wood, Environmental Coordinator Information Session: Marine Sanctuaries See attached attendance sheet A meeting was held in Newport Beach on October 19, 1977, for the purpose of soliciting input from Orange County and Western Oil and Gas Association (WOGA) representatives concerning the proposed Marine Sanctuary nomination being prepared by the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) in San Diego. The WOGA representatives presented a slide show and discussed the extent of off -shore oil operations, the demand for oil, the necessity for continuing off -shore operations and described some of the environmental research being done in conjunction with oil operations. Discussion followed regarding the Marine Sanctuary proposal which was presented by Art Letter of CPO. San Diego (CPO) would like to submit the nomination papers to the Department of Commerce (Office of Ocean Management) in January, 1978. This leaves very little time for meaningful input from Orange County jurisdictions. However, the nomination document is intended only to define an area of interest so that the Department of Commerce can make a decision as to whether. they wish to pursue the project further.' The document is a preliminary step in the process of designating a Marine Sanctuary; and it is anticipated that more detailed information will be necessary in the next phase of the process --defining the resources, setting boundaries, etc. Keep in mind that the Marine Sanctuaries Program is merely resource management (regulation) and enforcement, and is not intended to exclude development. Art Letter stated that one of the primary reasons for pOrsuing the Marine Sanctuary designation was to assure that local, regional, and state concerns were included in the regulation of off -shore oil leasing and operations. Also, the Sanctuary status would'necessitate the qualification and quantification of the resources in the designated area and provide base data for future use (i.e. research, OCS Lease Sales, Lease Sale Agreements, etc.). After further discussion, it was suggested that a full presentation be made to the County Board of Supervisors regarding the program, and that a model resolution be drafted by County staff to be discussed and acted on by the Board of Supervisors and the local jurisdictions in support of the concept of establishing a Marine Sanctuary pending �� TO: Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney - 2. further analysis by Orange County entities and SCAG. The draft resolution and presentation may be brought before the Board of Supervisors in November, with the idea of subsequent action on the resolution by local Councils in December. I believe you have seen the background material for establishing the Marne Sanctuary. If you want further details on the program, schedule, etc., please let me know. Beverly oo d, �Enviro dental Coordinator cc: Bob Wynn Dick Hogan Dave Harshbarger lJ ell -- �.rJ,�d ril/f/Ji2t,�'Sn mJ, p�, 2�=i2 � G`' - PcF� .... . _ . ..- -•- _ -`.��-_��__%`�_'__._ l7 , �•`�• v V iJ Gh! i _ iN=�Si'G�;�( G1L•-G:✓1.� ,��� c • C..118� �,.2 �f — �i-3:5'l0 _ ,�t R. t\ A:^ :\ L t �- h Zhf_ii - _ � :-C ._t •.J P.e�I ��..5..•�.i=:.11 -_ _ _. .-,'--_•� "i 2.... O-'1 '> p __ �. /ll is r .._�='«<�,,'? � . .� '" . --.. - ... _.�` i 7`% . �" . /�;,,��,: 1��.T;•,�.�����. -r•i _ c7�Y .�" .}{`ti�ti�i. _ _�+�1�-�.."�`.•tj�i, - � 6� t`e,'�ts'�'{.Sa1�1cS'•a\�t-�1 4,•.Z..i;;�t':��- - � - - .. _. _. _ _._`-._ /j\(/0 �.9 .. . _ ...- - - -- �1�'.• % .. 7.:��? " ^'"G�'� b De'PAW of CommuviIV DA'pmenf DATE: TO: FROM: October 7, 1977 Dennis O'Neil, City Attorney Bev Wood, Environmental Coordinator SUBJECT:' CPO Meeting Regarding Marine Sanctuaries (Oct. 5, 1977) The purpose of this meeting was to explain the procedures involved . with establishing a marine sanctuary, and to be briefed on what ' CPO's work plan and tentative processing schedule is. The proposed marine sanctuary encompasses the entire coast from the Mexican• border to approximately Long Beach and extends-50 miles :seaward:." - Marine sanctuaries are established under basically five (5) categories all dealing with protection and conservation. Areas are designated to protect: (1). habitat areas (2) rare and endangered species (3) recreational resources (4) unique and exceptional resources (i.e. historical) and (5) research. Marine sanctu'ar.les.• are" n-ot intended to prevent development and Would. not be sufficient -reason to block an OCS Lease Sale entirely. Marine sanctuaries. a-r•e.better described -as.resource management areas. with strict enforcement of regulations by Local, State, and federal,agencies. CPO will be preparing a "Nomination" for the designation of a marine sanctuary which will be'submitted in January, 1978. They are soliciting input from Orange and Los Angeles Counties and they will be coordinating the project. The Orange County and SCAG representatives _suggested holding a meeting in Newport Beach on October 19th for staff .representatives of SCAG, Orange County, the coastal jurisdictions,. - South Coast Regional Coastal Commission, etc. and inviting representatives of CPO to discuss the work to date and implications of the program. After this meeting, the staff people could then.make recommendations for action (involvement) to the individual agency/jurisdiction. Bever l r blood cc: Dick Hogan Jim Hewicker B4!/dlt 0 2- j� sue, s3 c Po c (DID �,,., SLRw SaaJ �,CShir - TQiY'rt �s "4 lq- NGA4 - p�ilP vo6 OCPgrN M! IL, 7/11-233 —S'21) 1 4/ - �e2-91�7- Zo 2- 6 3 C/- vZell N0.4,4 - W4r on/A L- Q/3 s-+eg - a S'7s .'YJAR...c.— F.ss�,eiE's t�sevict 714- 44110--2/77 14AK4A.0 2yAv�Y✓Y r 172 I d F, NOMINATION OF CERTAIN OFFSHORE WATERS OF SAN DIEGO & ORANGE COUNTIES AS A MARINE SANCTUARY FINAL JUNE 1978 Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Ocean Management, 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, Washington, D. C. 20235 by: Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 (714) 233-5211 This report was financed with Federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing And Urban Development, the U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transportation Administra- tion (UMTA), the Federal Highway Administration and local funds from CPO Member Jurisdictions. MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Dal Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego / EX•OFFICIO MEMBER: California Department of Transportation / HONORARY MEMBER: Tijuana, B. CFA. I BOARD OF DIRECTORS The Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) is a voluntary association of local governments formed to assure overall area -wide planning for the San Diego Region. Voting members include the County of San Diego and the Fourteen Incorporated Cities... Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, and Vista. Advisory members include the State of California, through a memorandum of understanding with the California Department of Transportation. The City of Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico, is an honorary member of CPO. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION CHAIRMAN: Paul Graham VICE CHAIRMAN: George Bailey SECRETARY— EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Richard J. Huff CITY OF CARLSBAD Honorable Anthony Skotnicki, Councilman (A) Honorable Dr. Ronald Packard, Mayor CITY OF CHULA VISTA Honorable Will Hyde, Mayor (A) Honorable Lauren I. Egdahl, Councilman CITY OF CORONADO Honorable C. Patrick Callahan, Mayor (A) Honorable Lewis Hardy, Councilman CITY OF DEL MAR Honorable Richard G. Rypinski, Councilman (A) Honorable Hervey L. Sweetwood, Mayor CITY OF EL CAJON Honorable Merrill Groat, Councilman (A) Honorable John Reber, Mayor CITY OF ESCONDIDO Honorable Art Danell, Councilman (A) Honorable Jerry Harmon, Councilman CITY OF IMPERIAL BEACH Hazel Bailey, Councilwoman (A) Honorable Jackie Palmer, Councilwoman STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (Ex Officio Member) Adriana Gianturco, Director (A) J. Dekema, District Director CITY OF LA MESA Honorable George Bailey, Councilman (A) Honorable Richard Augustine, Councilman CITY OF LEMON GROVE Honorable W. Dale Bailey, Councilman (A) Honorable James V. Dorman, Mayor CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Honorable Jess E. Van Deventer, Councilman (A) Honorable J. Louie Camacho, Councilman CITY OF OCEANSIDE Honorable Paul Graham, Mayor (A) Honorable Wm. D. Bell, Mayor Protem CITY OF SAN DIEGO Honorable Larry Stirling, Councilman (A) Honorable Tom Gade, Councilman CITY OF SAN MARCOS Honorable Robert Harman, Councilman (A) Honorable Richard R. Denovar, Councilman CITY OF VISTA Honorable Bernard Rappaport, Mayor (A) Honorable Dan Carr, Councilman COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO Honorable Roger Hedgecock, Board of Supervisors (A) Honorable Lucille Moore, Board of Supervisors TIJUANA, B. CFA (Honorary Member) Lic Xicotencatl Leyva Mortara, Mayor t u I I I I I 11 11 11 I I I 11 As of June 12, 1978 11 1 t I I �1 I I F1 SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS June 230 1978 Mr. Samuel Bleicher, Director Office of Ocean Management National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 2001 Wisconsin Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20235 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 (714)236-5300 Subject: Submittal of the CPO report entitled: Nomination of Certain Offshore Waters of San Diego and Orange Counties Dear Mr. Bleicher: The Board of Directors of the Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) at its June 19, 1978 meeting, unanimously approved the enclosed report as amended. I am pleased to formally nominate the San Diego -Orange Counties offshore ocean area as a candidate for Marine Sanctuary designa- tion. Should the decision be made to designate the Sanctuary, you will find included our preliminary recommendations for a series of management, regulatory and financial actions within the proposed 7400-square mile area. The report was available for a sixty-day local review period. The signi- ficant local policy recommendations that resulted from that process in- clude: 1. The commercial fishing industry be exempted from Marine Sanctuary designation. 2. The ocean wastewater treatment outfalls of Oceanside, San Elijo, Encina and Point Loma be exempted from Marine Sanctuary regulations. 3. That an Executive Board be established with policy and decision making authority. 4. That the CPO Board of Directors reserves the right to reconsider their support of this nomination at the "White Paper, " Draft En- vironmental Impact Report, and draft rules and regulations steps in the designation process. I iii MEMBER AGENCIES Cilies of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Del Mar, El Cajon. Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego / EX-OFFICIO MEMBER California Department of Transportation / HONORARY MEMBER Tijuana, B CFA Mr. Samuel Bleicher June 23, 1978 We believe the designation of a sanctuary is in the best interests of San Diego and Orange Counties. CPO looks forward to your positive consi- deration of this Marine Sanctuary Nomination. Sincerely. MAYOR #ATUJLGRAHAM Chairman Comprehensive Planning Organization PG: JK: j Enclosure cc: Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr. San Diego and Orange Counties Congressional Delegations State Coastal Commission California Sea Grant San Diego Coast Regional Commission Chairmen, Board of Supervisors: San Diego and Orange Counties Mayors within County of San Diego Coastal City Mayors within Orange County San Diego Chamber of Commerce Sierra Club: San Diego Chapter Convention and Visitors Bureau Western Fishboat Owners Aux. Pacific Coast Fed. of Fisherman Assoc., Inc, Western Oil and Gas Association Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute iv I SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS I 1 June 19, 1978 I I-1 LJ COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 (714)236-5300 TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS AND RESIDENTS OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION Several years ago a discussion began within the region on the possibility of oil and gas production development off the San Diego Coast in an area known as the Southern California Bight. One of the developments of this discussion has been an increased awareness of the Bight and its species and recreation, aesthetic and economic importance to the region. This document is the first step in a process to establish a marine sanctuary off the Southern California coastline. This report provides a rationale for establishing the area in its own right as a sanctuary. This report provides invaluable information regarding the area nominated and the marine mammals and seabirds which occupy the area. Manage- ment recommendations are proposed on how the area should be administered. It is important that individual citizens, local governments, agencies and private organizations who are interested in this project review the document. It is my hope that you will conclude as the report does that the area should be nominated to sustain the many marine uses which it currently supports. Sincerely, PAIJL G I Chairman, CPO Board of Directors Mayor, City of Oceanside v MEMBER AGENCIES- Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado. Del Mar, El Cajon. Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego / EX-OFFICIO MEMBER- California Department of Transportation / HONORARY MEMBER- Tifuana, B CFA J PJ it i it I I SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS RESOLUTION #78-81 APPROVAL OF THE DOCUMENT ENTITLED, NOMINATION OF CERTAIN OFFSHORE WATERS OF SAN DIEGO AND ORANGE COUNTIES COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego. California 92101 (714)236-5300 WHEREAS, the Board of Directors did authorize CPO staff to prepare a Marine Sanctuary Nomination Document (Resolution 77-107); and WHEREAS, the report entitled Nomination of Certain Offshore Waters of San Diego and Orange Counties has been prepare in accordance With Resolution 77-10 an the appropriate Federal guidelines; and WHEREAS, said report was accepted for distribution by the Board.of Directors (April 17, 1978) and was distributed to relevant local, state, public, and private organizations; NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors approves the document and its submission to the Office of Ocean Management with the following amendments: 1. The commercial fishing industry be exempted from Marine Sanctuary regulations. 2. The ocean wastewater treatment outfalls at Oceanside, Encina, San Elijo and Point Loma be exempted from Marine Sanctuary regulations. 3. The Orange County Board of Supervisors and coastal cities be included as representatives on the Advisory Board; 4. The Gillnetters Organization be listed as a possible organization to have representation on the Advisory Board; S. That the staff report which addresses the comments received regarding the Nomination be incorporated into the final report; 6. That the Board of Directors reserves the right to reconsider their sup- port of this Nomination at the 'White Paper', Draft Environmental Impact Report, and draft rules and regulations' steps in the designation process. 7. The Advisory Board which was intended to maintain local support and interest in the Sanctuary and would include representatives from numerous public and private agencies would be changed to an Executive Board with policy and de- cision making authority. PASSED AND ADOPTEDthis 19th.day of June 978. CHAII;MAN IIF Attest EC T vii MEMBER AGENCIES Cities of Carlsbad. Chula Vista. Coronado, Del Mar. El Cajon. Escondido. Imperial Beach. La Mesa Lemon Grove. National City Oceanside San Diego. San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego i EX•OFFICIO MEMBER California Department of Transportation i HONORARY MEMBER Tijuana B CFA ABSTRACT TITLE: Marine Sanctuary Nomination Document, Southern California Bight AUTNOR: Comprehensive Planning Organization SUBJECT: Marine Sanctuary Nomination Proposal DATE: June 19, 1978 LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY: Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region SOURCE OF COPIES: Comprehensive Planning Organization Suite 524, Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California (714) 236-5300 NUMBER OF PAGES: 154 ABSTRACT: The document details a rationale and justification for nominating a marine area as a sanctuary under the provisions of Title III of the Marine Protection Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (P.L. 92-532, 86 Stat. 1061). The first section of the document sets forth a discussion and numerous maps detailing the relationship of the intermediate food chain to the dominant marine mammals and sea birds. The next section discusses the present uses in the proposed area. Such uses as military operations, research organizations, commercial and sportfishing, and the recreation and tourism importance of the Southern California Coastline. Also, the potential impacts to coastal areas as described. The last section of the document discusses the management of the sanctuary and presents a number of recommendations as to the overall management, enforce- ment, and local, participation. ix ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Comprehensive Planning Organization Staff Richard J. Huff, Executive Director Kenneth E. Sulzer, Deputy Executive Director Art Letter, Director, Intergovernmental Relations Jack Koerper, Associate Regional Planner - Project Manager Steve Sachs, Associate Regional Planner Rich Roemer, Graphics Consultants John Dougherty, Principal Researcher � Writer Dr. Jbseph Jehl, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute Dr. William Evans, Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute John Barbieri, Sea World The following individuals were helpful in providing assistance and information in the preparation of this report. Helen and Mike Tyler, Western Fishboat Owners Association, San Diego Dr. Elbert Alxlstrom, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla Elizabeth Stevens, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla Dan Gittings, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla Susan Covey, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla Gary Stauffer, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla Geoff Moser, National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla Michael Aceituno, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office, Bureau of Land Management, Los Angeles Donald Keene, Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Office, Bureau of Land Management, Los Angeles Leo Pinlus, California Department of Fish G Game, Long Beach Jack Welch, California Department of Parks and Recreation, Carlsbad tl I t� x Cl LIST OF FIGURES (cont.) FIGURE 22 PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALE NO. 48 ....................... 57 FIGURE 23 ANNUAL AVERAGE WINDS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT................................................. 59 FIGURE 24 SIX COAWN WIND.PATTERNS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT ..................................... 60 FIGURE 25 GENERALIZED SURFACE CURRENTS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT ..................................... 61 LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE1 PROPOSED NOMINATION AREA ............................. 12 FIGURE 2 TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT ....4..... 18 FIGURE 3 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TIM NORTHERN ANCHOVY ........ 21 FIGURE 4 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF TIM Z'IARXET SQUID ....... ...,. 24 FIGURE 5 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PACIFIC HAKE ............ 26 FIGURE 6 DISTRIBUTION OF THE PACIFIC SAURY .................... 28 FIGURE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF THE CCMdON DOLPHIN IN THE NORTHEASTERN PACIFIC BASED ON SIGHTING DATA THROUGHSEPMIBERO 1972 ................6............. 30 FIGURE 8 DISTRIBUTION OF THE CallON DOLPHIN, 1967-1976 ........ 31 FIGURE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF TILE NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN ..... 32 FIGURE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF THE PILOT WHALE ...................... 34 FIGURE 11 MIGRATION OF THE GRAY WHALE .......................... 3S FIGURE 12 DISTRIBUTION OF TIM MINKS WHALE ...................... 36 FIGURE 13 MIGRATION OF TILE BLUE WHALE .......................... 37 FIGURE 14 ROOKERIES AND FEEDING AREAS OF TILE CALIFORNIA SEALION ............................................. 39 FIGURE 15 MIGRATION OF THE ARTIC LOON ...............4.......... 42 FIGURE 16 MIGRATION OF THE SURF SCOTER ......................... 44 FIGURE 17 DISTRIBUTION OF XANTUS MARRELET ............. 6........ 45 FIGURE 18 DISTRIBUTION OF THE BROWN PELICAN .................... 47 FIGURE 19 DISTRIBUTION OF BRANDT'S CORMORANT ................... 48 FIGURE 20 DISTRIBUTION OF THE BLACK STORM PETREL ............... 49 FIGURE 21 DISTRIBUTION OF TIM SOOTY SHEARWATER ................. 50 aii I TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Cl [AFTER I SMIARY................................. 1 7 CHAPTERII NDIINATING GROUP ............ ......... ..... ....... CHAPTERIII AREA N04INATED...................................... 11 CIIAPTF.R IV PURPOSES FOR THE MARINE SANCTUARY ................... 17 CUAPTER V PRESENT AND FUTURE USES ............... I............. 55 71 CHAPTERVI MNAGBIENT'.....................•. CHAPTER VII LOCAL Ca&mjTS AND RESPONSES....................... 91 143 1 CHAPTERVIII CONCLUSION ......................................... 149 BIDLIOGRAPHY .................................................... I I I I I LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 SEABIRDS DEPENDENT UPON PROPOSED AREA ................ 41 TABLE 2 CGIPARATIVE VISITOR ATTENDANCE POR STATE BEACHES, 1972-1977.............I........6....0................ 66 TABLE 3 SERVICE FEES FOR STATE. BEACHES, 1974-1977 ............ 66 TABLE 4 POTENTIAL REGULATORY AGENCIES AND THEIR AUTHORITY .... 80 xiv Chapter I SUMMARY The National Marine Sanctuaries Program was established pursuant to Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. Under this authority Marine Sanctuaries can be established by the Secretary of Commerce for the purpose of preserving or restoring marine areas for their conserva- tional, ecological, recreational or aesthetic values. Once an area is designated as a Marine Sanctuary, activities not compatible with the basic purposes for establislunent are prohibited or restricted. In general, all other uses are allowed. To date, only two Marine Sanctuaries have been designated: the Monitor Marine i Sanctuary, surrounding the wreck of the U.S.S. Monitor off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina; and the Key Largo Coral Reef Marine Sanctuary adjacent to John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in the northern Florida Keys. Nominations under consideration include a second coral reef sanctuary at Looe Key, Florida; a killer whale sanctuary in Puget Sound; and a 1,000 square mile area of water surrounding the Palau Islands of the Trust Territories of the Pacific. President Carter in his May 23, 1977 Environmental Message to Congress stated: 11Existing legislation allows the Secretary of Commerce to protect certain estuarine and ocean resources from the ill-effects of development by designating marine sanctuaries. Yet, only two sanctuaries have been established since 1972, when the program began. I am, therefore, instructing the Secretary of Commerce to identify possible sanctuaries in areas where develop- ment appears imminent, and to begin collecting the data necessary to designate them as such under the law." It is the basic purpose of this document to identify some of the dominant living marine resources and their habitats within the area known as the Southern ' 1 California Bight. Past approaches used in dealing with threats to living resources or the environment have resulted in legislation designed specifically to protect a single component of an ecological system, such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act or the Endangered Species Act. This document uses a more systematic and coherent approach to protecting and conserving invaluable living marine resources and the habitats they occupy. This is accomplished by establishing relationships within the food chain, i.e., predator and prey, and the physical and environmental conditions that govern these relationships. For example, whales, sea lions and seabirds are some of the more visible and dominant resources which need protection, but it is also important to understand why they have come to live within certain areas and what enables them to survive and reproduce within their habitats. The Marine Sanctuary process provides this opportunity. RECUVENDED ACTIONS 1. We recommend that a Marine Sanctuary be established in the Southern California Bight. 2. habitats and species values of the Sanctuary should be paramount, but other values are included and multiple uses are encouraged. 3. The Sanctuary should be established on its own merits, and not because of a potential threat from oil exploration. 4. Overall management for the Sanctuary seems best vested in a Manager, appointed by the National Marine Fisheries Service and based at the Southwest Fisheries Centex, La Jolla. S. An Executive Board should be established to draft policies for sanctuary management. Members should include representatives of, U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Navy; Naval Ocean Systems Center; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; California Department of Fish and Game; Comprehensive Planning Organization; Regional Coastal Commission; San Diego State Center for Marine Studies; P I Counties of Orange and San Diego; Coastal Cities of both Counties; American Petroleum Institute; Sportfishing Association; Western Fishboat Owners Association; Living Marine Resources; Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and the Gillnetters Organization. ' 6. Daily surveillance and enforcement operations seem best delegated to the California Department if Fish and Game. 7. The estimated budget is $100,000 per year. These costs are probably lower than would be needed if the EIS/Appeal process were forced to forestall specific developments in the Bight. 8. The commercial fishing industry be exempted from Marine Sanctuary regulations. 9. The ocean wastewater treatment outfalls at Oceanside, San Elijo, Encina, and Point Loma be exempted from marine sanctuary regulations. 10. The Comprehensive Planning Organization Board of Directors reserves the right to reconsider their support of this nomination at the "White Paper", Draft Environmental Impact Report, and draft rules and regulations' steps in the designation process. 41 Chapter II NOMINATING GROUP Chapter II NOMINATING GROUP ' The petitioner in this nomination process is the Comprehensive Planning Organiza- tion (CPO) of the San Diego Region. CPO emerged as a formalized "council of government" in 1966, although its origins can be traced back to the early 19501s. Councils of government, which are in existence throughout the United States, work cooperatively to address major problems extending beyond any one juris- diction which can best be solved jointly. CPO is organized under a Joint 1 Powers Agreement with the City Councils of the County's 14 incorporated cities and the County Board of Supervisors. This agreement created a Board of ' Directors composed of one elected official from each of the 15 member agencies. CPO's actions are advisory to the city councils and the Board of Supervisors. Thus, CPO serves as an open forum at which planning for this region's future can be guided cooperatively by local elected officials. ' In partial response to a request for local input on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) leasing schedule from the Department of Interior, the CPO Board of Directors on July 18, 1977 proposed a preliminary designation of a Marine Sanctuary foi the offshore area from Long Beach to the Mexican border. Since that action, CPO staff with the assistance of consultants has prepared this document which is a more detailed sanctuary nomination report. The Southern California Associ- ation of Governments (SCAG) Fxecutive Committee supported the earlier proposal. This nomination is endorsed by Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin, the San Diego Regional Coastal Commission, the Orange and San Diego County Board of Supervisors, the City of San Diego, and the Convention and Visitors Bureau for San Diego. I 7 I I I j I I I II I II I! 1/ [1 II Chapter III AREA NOMINATED r II II II Chapter III AREA NOMINATED The proposed area extends from Point Vicente in the north to the Mexican border (Figure 1). Its eastern boundary is delineated by the three mile state juris- diction and encompasses the general offshore region as far west as San Nichols Island. The total area covers approximately 7,400 square miles and is within the larger area known as the Southern California Bight. The area between the mean high tide line and three miles offshore is excluded from the sanctuary. Although events within the sanctuary would have important consequences for this area, many local and state agencies have existing jurisdiction. We believe management and enforcement will be more efficient if these areas are excluded from the sanctuary. For the purposes of discussion and analysis, prior to sanctuary designation we are recommending a zoned multiple use concept designed to be consistent with existing state and federal management schemes and to provide the most effective management and enforcement of different zones within the proposed sanctuary. Zone A - This area extends from three to twenty miles offshore from Dana pt. south to the International Border. Development within this area would have a potentially dramatic impact on the many commercial and recrea- tional activities that occur there. Resources harvested by commercial fisheries are taken throughout this area. In addition to being an area of intense sportfishing activity, this near -shore zone provides spawning grounds for many species of sportfish and habitat for many marine animals. The Southern California lifestyle is strongly associated with the marine and coastal environment and is an area of intense recreational beach and boating use. As the visual zone extends approximately 17 miles offshore, there is a great incentive to maintain a clean and unobstructed environment in this area. Thus, we are recommending that this zone receive a high. degree of monitoring and surveillance. Also, we are recommending that oil and gas development be prohibited in this zone. II 11 1380 340 330 321 FIGURE 1 PROPOSED NOMINATION AREA* Point Conception Santa Barbra Anocapa Island San MI uel Island Santa Cruz Island Point Mugu a � eS 105 Miles a Los Angeles Santa floss I Island 350 45' Lat. Pt. Vicente Lang Beech 330 45' Lat, 1190 47, Long. O f Santo, Catalina, 8 t , San Clsmsnte Santa Barbara Island `�` / `•• �` 33019' Lat. �/ } ONE 1190 47' Long. ZONE B A e Oceanside San Nicholas Isl?) `-, ZONE C �jgf-----Fl • � r�1t San Clem a Islandl, e San Diego 87 Miles United St_' 320 32' Lat. i Mexico 1180 20' Long. Coronado (stands Ensenada San Isidro Point 310 1210 1200 1180 1180 -The staff of the Comprehensive Planning Organization is solely responsible for the conceptualization, delineation, and description of the sulydistdcts within the proposed marine sanctuary. 12 I II 1 Zone B - This area includes the three-mile state jurisdiction surrounding Santa Catalina, San Clemente, Santa Barbara, and San Nicholas Islands. Since there is management in these areas (i.e., U.S. Navy own San Clemente and San Nicholas Islands; while the State has jurisdiction over Santa Catalina and Santa Barbara Islands), existing management plans could be incorporated into the marine sanctuary program. Zone C - This zone includes the offshore waters not subscribed by Zones A and B. The large size of this zone dictates a moderate degree of manage- ment. Activities that may need regulation are those that could tax the area's ability to recover; these might include silting from sea -floor mining operations, energy exploration, etc. FIowever, this does not mean that such activities would necessarily be prohibited. Because of the seasonal nature of most vertebrate populations, activities that are harmful at one season may be feasible at another. For most events, mitigating circumstances are possile. 13 Chapter IV PURPOSES FOR THE MARINE SANCTUARY t Chapter IV PURPOSES FOR THE MARINE SANCTUARY The proposed area for designation extends only as far north as the northern boundary of Orange County; but in order to understand the physical processes and phenomena within that area, it is necessary to look at the larger area known as the "Southern California Bight" (Figure 2). It is the offshore area that extends from Point Conception in the north to the Mexican border. The Southern California Bight represents an atypical continental margin with a highly varied topography much different from the more familiar continental shelf -and -slope configurations (Figure 2). It is the only area of its kind in the United States and one of the few in the world. This submarine area is also often referred to as a "borderland", since it closely resembles the onshore topography of which it is geologically a part.l The "shelf" off the San Diego coast is relatively narrow, ranging in width from 2 to 6 miles north of La Jolla to 10 miles south of Point Loma. The break occurs at a depth of about 300 feet, with the slope steepening sharply to 3,000 feet. This drop-off, known as the San Diego Trough, is about 15 miles offshore and is the first in a series of offshore basins and ridges. The Channel Islands are the exposed uppermost portions of some of these ridges.2 Bordering the deep ocean basins within the borderland are other ridges (variously referred to as banks and escarpments) which, while not breaking the surface in the form of islands, are shallow enough to support complex associations of marine animals and plants. Incised into the continental shelf and slope in many locations are steep -walled features known as submarine canyons. Submarine canyons are variable: some curve as they descend, while others are nearly straight, with branches or tributaries entering the main canyon. These canyons are often favored fishing locations, because local currents tend to cause fish to concentrate nearby. It is the combination of these unique physical features with productive sur- rounding waters that provides a habitat for a large and diverse marine community 17 1 119` Its• FIGURE 2 I TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA B SANTA BARBARA oo'• ..gip 4mve 100....-... ••.. It 12 16-607 11 PPO-INNTT MUGU p.us LOSP *Chase, T., Topographical Atlas of the Central Eastern Pacific Ocean, 1968. 18 MIL! NEWPORTBEACH SAN CLEMENTE 209 I I r� i r ♦ OCEANSIDE� �t 1 �1 scsl�rs � ' ii SIN OA[60 i r L I I 11 F that is virtually unequalled in northern temperate waters anywhere in the world. The importance of all of these features to.the living resources within the Bight is immeasurable. HABITAT AND SPECIES AREAS* Although habitat areas and species areas provides separate justification for designating an area or areas a marine sanctuary, many areas in this document qualify under both purposes. It will be useful to consider them together in order to demonstrate compatibility of multiple uses. 1. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT Under the influence of steady northwest winds in the spring and early summer, the warmer surface waters are driven offshore, allowing the upwelling of colder subsurface waters. The upwelled water is rich in nutrients that stimulate the production and growth of plant plankton. This increased pro- ductivity is accompanied by an increase in the abundance of consumers such as animal plankton, which in turn attracts larger consumers in the food chain and so on until the top of the food chain is reached. The coastal and oceanic waters of the Bight contain several species of fish and one Definitions: *HABITAT AREA. "Areas established under this concept are for the preservation, protection and management of essential or specialized habitats representative of important marine systems. Management emphasis will be toward preservation. The quantity and type of public use will be limited and controlled to protect the values for which the area was created." 15 C.F.R. 932:10(a) *SPECIES AREA. "Areas established under this concept are for conservation of genetic resources. Management emphasis may be to maintain species, populations and communities for restocking other areas and for reestablishment purposes in the future. The result will be a contriution to the goal stated by the Council on Environmental Quality; that is, 'The widest possible diversity of and within species should be maintained for ecological stability of the bio- sphere and for preservation by protection of such areas as migratory pathways, spawning grounds, nursery grounds, and the constraints on these areas will be those necessary to achieve these purposes."' 15 C.F.R. 922.10(b) 19 species of squid that are intermediate links in this food chain. These species sustain a large and diverse marine mammal and seabird population wiequalled in the U. S. which makes these proposed waters an ideal area for conserving and maintaining these species. In addition to upwelling, seasonal and long-term temperature variations affect the seasonal distribution of these species as well as others. Thus, the marine mammals and birds in the Bight will adjust their foraging and activities to fit those of the prey species. a. Northern Anchovy - AJany species of fish off the California coast and many birds and mammals feed on the northern anchovy. Biologists from the Southwest Fisheries Center (National Marine Fisheries Service) in La Jolla and California Department of Fish and Game biologists believe that the anchovy is the major forage of most fish in the California current. The sportfishing industry considers the anchovy to be the last species available as forage for game fish since the sardine disappeared in the late 1940's.4 Anchovies are ocean fish that swim in large schools and are generally fowid within 100 mules of shore from Queen Charlotte Islands, British Columbia to Cape San Lucas, Baja California. Each mature female lays 20,000 to 30,000 eggs a year, and about SOv of the anchovy spawned mature in a year. Their life span is about 4 years and they grow to a length of about 7 inches.5 Preliminary results of a 1969 survey showed a population of about 5.5 million tons on the west coast of the United States overall. The central subpopulation (Point Conception to central Baja Cali- fornia), as opposed to the northern and southern subpopulation, is the largest of the three and in 1974 contained 2.5 to 3 million tons. Figure 3 shows seasonal abundances of the anchovy as taken on California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations (CaICOFi) cruises. Estimates taken on these cruises are determined by the egg and larva 2n Estimated abundance per 10 square ' meters of sea surface. Winter Quarter 1963 1 1 I 1 1 11 ..-... A, w.1 •' �u�p IN I I 1 i 1 1 1 I I1 1 I 1 , I � , I I 1 1 _ Nos. to the right represent in shore stations. Spring Quarter 1963 T� 1 1,N 1 1 (11.100) FIGURE 3 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE NORTHERN ANCHOVY (Legend) Nos. to the right represent inshore stations 11-100 - 101 - 1,000 c„mrnar nuarter 1963 ( 101 - 1,000 1 (11 -100 1 (101 -1,000 1 .111 Iw (11 -100 ) 1101 - 1,000 I Source: California Cooperative 6ceenic Fisheries Investigations 21 Fall nnarter 1963 method, which involves taking s-unples of eggs and larvae at regular stations along; the California coast and up to 300 miles at sea. The population is estimated by the number of adults required to produce the number of eggs and larvae estimated front the survey. (This method also applies to the estimates of the other species of fish and squid in this document.) The distribution of fish larvae is highly dependent upon the spawning areas of the parents and the hydrographic conditions prevailing in the area. Because most of the coastal waters in the Southern Cali- fornia Bight are transported in either a northern or southern direc- tion, larvae spawned in coastal areas tend to be retained there. Data compiled by Ahlstrom (1959) revealed that the most abundant depth range of the eggs and larvae of the anchovy is in the surface layer of the water column 8 As can be seen in Figure 3, the anchovy occurs in great abundance throughout the proposed designation area in all seasons except summer when most of the population moves northward. Other than being forage for other marine animals, the anchovy is important for a number of reasons. Historically, the Peruvian anchoveta provided close to 40% of the world fislmteal supply and was a major source of fislmteal used in the United States. The disappearance of the anchoveta (due to overfishing and a change in water temperature) caused fishmeal prices to climb from $175 a ton before September 1972 to about $700 a ton in July 1973. A partial return of the an- choveta in 1974 caused the price to decrease in April 1974. The U. S. anchovy harvest for fishmeal (known as a reduction fishery) has increased to a high of about 120,000 tons for the season ending in May 1974. The Bight accounts for 900 of the harvest.9 Anchovy has always been the major support of the live -bait fishery, with the sardine providing about 2% of the catch (before it began to disappear in the late 1940's). Anchovy now provide about 99% of the catch.10 22 Anchovy is also a potential source for the protein concentrate for ' human consumption known as "fish protein concentrate". The U. S. has produced FPC from anchovy and other fish, while Norway and Sweden have marketed it. Other countries that have experimented in the production of FPC are Canada, Chile, Bast Germany, Peru, the USSR and the Union of South Africa. The best potential market is ' in countries with protein shortages. FPC has been well received in 13 African and Asian countries.11 b. Market Squid - Probably the second most important food resource as forage for fish, mammals and birds in the proposed marine sanctuary is the market squid. It ranges from British Columbia to central Baja California, and may occur in the Gulf of California (see ' Figure 4 for seasonal distribution). In either January or February, dense schools appear in the Southern California Bight, whereas they appear in Monterey Bay about April.12 ' Fields (1965) conducted a survey which indicates the great importance of squid as intermediates in many food chains. The following references are not all directly to the market squid (as opposed to other species ' of squid), but where the predators named are found within this squid's range, it seems likely that they make it a part of their diet.13 Some ' of the fish predators are the Pacific hake, white seabass, Pacific mackerel, Pacific bonito, albacore, lingcod and halibut.14 Other fish predators include the bigeye and yellowfin tunas,15 bluefin tuna and swordfish16 and the billfishes of the Pacific.17 In addition, the extensive use of squid as bait in commercial and sportfishing shows its ' acceptability as a food by these and many other fishes.18 Toothed whales and porpoises feed upon squid.19t20 Squid are listed as a food of two species of sea lions.21 Fields states that, "sea birds of several kinds have been observed feeding on squid when the latter are accessible due to their debility following spawning, and at times great flocks congregate near spawning I' 23 FIGURE 4 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE MARKET SQUID 3-Year Period 1954.57 Estimated abundance per 1,000 cubic meters of seawater. Winter 1. Summer II ing 4 r 4�� �4- 2 4 4` 12 ..�, n• 2 — � •r W. 4 Source: Okutanl and McGowan, Scripps Institution of Oceanography Bulletin, 1969. 24 I L I I d II 'I grounds ."22 California squid fishermen know that the presence of predators, such as marine birds and the California sea lion, also indicates the presence of squid.23 c. Pacific hake - Pacific hake occur from the Gulf of Alaska to the Gulf of California. Studies on the abundance of hake larvae have shown that spawning is mainly during December to April in offshore areas along the coasts of Southern California and Baja California. Genetic studies suggest that a single population inhabits the ocean region from British Columbia to Baja California.24 According to Ahlstrom, hake larvae consistently rank second to anchovy in annual estimates of the relative abundance of fish larvae collected in the Ca1COFI survey area.25 Knowledge of the relative abundance and distribution of the dif- ferent life history stages of hake has led to the hypothesis that adult hake migrate annually along the Pacific coast. This migration involves a northward movement of adult fish in the spring and sumner to inshore feeding grounds, and a southward return movement beginning in the fall to the offshore spawning region. (Figure 5) During the winter, adults are found essentially in the offshore waters along the California -Mexico coast.26 According to Best (1963), young hake serve as food for rockfishes, albacore and flounder. Large hake serve as prey for Pacific lancet fish, bluefin tuna, sablefish, lingcod and sharks. Remains of hake were also recovered from the stomachs of sea lions, seals and por- poises.27 Flake grow relatively fast, especially during their first 4 years, and reach maturity in 3 or 4 years. Mature hake, on the average, weigh about 2.5 pounds and are 20.5 inches long.28 Presently, the major use of hake is as human food. The foreign fishing fleets harvested over 200,000 metric tons each year from 25 FIGURE 5 (LEGEND) SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF Less than 10 11 THE PACIFIC HAKE 10.100 --^^- 101 -1.000 1,001 - 10,000 Estimated abund once per 10 square motors of $oo surface. Numbers to right represent inshore stations. Winter Quarter 1966 1 (10-100) �'�• wr Mrs W IM' 1 1 i v�u.w wtw,. __ u• •-__—• ...1 (10.100) 1v \,\ •� •� (101 .1.000 ) i 1 i wxw 1 rw \ \ iring Quarter r. —� II �y� •• wsr r ti •ri t .• ___ Summer quarter shows no activity. Source: California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations. SPAWNING HAKE Source : Alvarson and Larkins ,1969. Spawning Hake ""N"""• L,•l.M• (winter) N• '�q ty/ e. . •ln MrW, swr...a wtWMY - _.i -�•^� h,-� .WMM it i f / ill Quarter 1 (10.100) r rs "`"'"' swr•w 26 1 1973-1976. The Bake population declined under such heavy fisting intensity, but with restricted foreign fishing, owing to our 200 mile Fishing Management Zone, and favorable reproductive conditions, the hake catch is expected to be sustainable at about 150,000 metric tons annually. The domestic demand for frozen fish by fast food franchises is currently about 61,000 metric tons, and it is hoped that an expanded domestic fishery on hake will supply much of that demand. The high costs of fishing no longer permit much halve to be processed as animal food, except as a by-product of a human food fishery. The major fishery is expected to take place from Moro Bay nortlward.29 d. Pacific Saury - Less prominent as forage for other fish, mammals and birds, but still important in their diets, is the Pacific saury. Data on occurrence and abundance of the saury has been obtained from plankton hauls on Ca1COFI survey cruises between February 1950 and December 1966 (Figure 6). One problem with determining actual adult Populations of the saury is that they spawn primarily outside the CalCOFI survey area and therefore arc not accurately reflected in the survey data. Another problem in the past has been that while the larvae - juveniles inhabit the upper surface waters, the method of sampling has used egg data taken by an oblique net tow (diagonally) from 140 meters depth to the surface. A more recent method of sampling using a surface -towed net has yielded much higher densities of sauries.30 The saury is a temperate water species and decreases in abundance off southern Baja California. Since Ca1COFI surveys cover only a portion of the saury's eastern North Pacific spawning range, the actual adult saury population may be several times as large as the survey figure shows.31 According to Frey, saury are eaten by marine mammals, squid and tuna.32 e. Cetaceans ' All whales, dolphins and porpoises belong to the order Cetaceans. Although at least 21 species can be found within the proposed marine I' sanctuary, 6 are common or abundant. Although they are found con- centrated in some area, they are not restricted to any one "habitat", 27 FIGURE 6 SEASONAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PACIFIC SAURY Estimated abundance per 10 square meters of sea surface. LEGEND 2 • 10 ------ 11 -20 $Ori119 Quarter winter Miarter 1963 Ile Ile AIRY EGG OCCURRENCES 1950 -1956 Smith and L, -- fI14YUI Source: California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations, Summer quarter shorn no activity. flu rT Fall Charter .. 0.•I. .n�. •rI^IIw i •1w Fp I i i I j I 1 i 1 1 but rather move and migrate freely throughout the area. Thus, the species and habitat area in this case is the entire proposed sanctuary. 1. CONMON DOLPHIN. Also known as the saddleback dolphin or the white -bellied porpoise. It is often seen in large herds of over 2,000 animals. In Southern California, they have been found to move along major features of bottom relief, such as escarpments.33 Their geographical range within the Southern California Bight is shown in Figures 7 and 8. The stomach contents of 30 common dolphins collected in a study from September to January contained approximately 63% fish and 37% squid. Of the fish, more than 93% were anchovy; and of the squid, 99% were market squid. Another study of 61 stomachs collected during the month of September showed that approximately 90% of the fish consumed were anchovy and 95% of the squid were market squid. Conversely, stomach contents collected between Marchand July revealed 2% anchovies and 3% hake. Thus, the common dolphin in Southern California waters feeds predominantly on anchovies and squid during the fall and winter (seasons when they are most abundant). During the spring and summer, they feed on a wide variety of fish, but prey mainly on those species that are the most abundant or catcha'>le. Nowever, 63% of their diet in Southern California does consist of the anchovy, Pacific hake and the market squid. Anchovy and market squid account for 98% of the total food intake from September through February. Predictably, the density of the common dolphin in California waters peaks during these seasons.M 2. NORTHERN RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN. Right whale dolphins usually travel in schools of from several hundred to several thousand and may associate with other dolphins. They are found from San Clemente Island north to British Columbia. Although primarily an open -ocean species, the Right Whale Dolphin may occur continuously across the Pacific and to within 8 miles of the mainland.35 Figure 9 shows their dis- tribution during the fall and winter over a 9-year period. 29 FIGURE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF COMMON DOLPHIN IN THE NORTHEASTERN PACIFIC BASED ON SIGHTING DATA THROUGH SEPTEMBER 1972 la I 1210 1 FIGURE 8 ' DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMMON DOLPHIN 1967 — 1976 Point Conception • Santa Barbara • Anacapa Island S t Mig Island nta Cru sland Point Mugu / f • Los Angeles Sa a Rosa I and Long Beach Sant atalina • San Clemente Sa a Barba ,land •Oceanside S�Nichola sland j yan Cleme Island � •San Diego United States / • Mexico / Coro o Isla s DISTRIBUTION OF THE COMMON DOLPHIN • Ensenada Sao Isidro Point 1200 11V lid ' Unpublished Information Dr. William E. Evans, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. M. 31 FIGURE 9 DISTRIBUTION OF THE RIGHT WHALE DOLPHIN 1967 — 1976 IV and I Quarter 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170 1.160 Unpublished Information Or. William E. Evans, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. 32 ' 3. PILOT WHALE. Pilot whales travel in groups of from a few to several ' hundred animals. Although they may be found close to shore at any time, the total population shifts inshore in early spring, following the migration of squid (their primary food) to shallower spawning grounds.36 (Figure 10) 4. GRAY WHALE. Gray whale are migratory. From May thorugh November, the majority of the animals feed in the Bering and Chukchi. Seas near ' Alaska. Beginning in December and continuing through January, in- dividual animals and small groups move southward (Figure 11) to breeding lagoons along the coast of Baja California (they bred ' in San Diego Bay as recently as 1900). At least during southward migration, most gray whales occur within 3-S miles of the Southern California coastline and are visible from shore. They are frequently seen in or near the surf and have been reported swimming into lagoons, ' bays and river mouths. Northward migration (Figure 11) begins in February and continues through April and is thought to occur slightly ' farther offshore. II II Whaling nearly brought this species to extinction near the turn of the century. The gray whale received protection by.international agreement in 1946, and its population is now increasing (there were an estimated 10,000 animals in 1970).37 S. MINKE WHALE. Minke whales are solitary animals though they may congregate in areas of food concentration in northern seas during the spring and summer. During the winter, minkes are found at least from central California to Mexico, though they are most abun- dant near the Channel Islands.38 (Figure 12) 6. BLUE WHALE. Blue whales are the largest animals ever to live on earth (north Pacific blues reach a length of about 85 feet, while Antarctic blues are up to 98 feet). In the Pacific they occur from the Aleutian Islands south at least to Mexico. Blues range freely throughout the Bight, mainly far offshore (Figure 13). The majority of the population migrates north in May, passing mainly outside the II 33 i 350 340 � 330 321 310L. 1210 FIGURE 10 DISTRIBUTION OF THE PILOT WHALE dk-poillt conception � Santa Barbara 7Sahta AnacapaIsland San Miguel Islaud uz Island Paint Mugu t / Santa Barbara San Nicholas Island 1200 San 1190 Areas of known winter concentration of pilot whales. (Note that these are not rigidly defined areas and that pilot whales maybe encountered virtually anywhere in this area during the winter). Lot Angeles r Long Beech Unpublished Information Dr. William E. Evans, Hubbs • Sea World Research Institute, 1978. 34 San Clemente \i Oceanside San Diego United States Mexico Ensenada San Isidro I Point n a - FIGURE 11 MIGRATION OF THE GRAY WHALE FEB—APRIL' ----- > Point Conception NOV — JAN 7 Santa Barbara yAnacapa Island F:-, ` la, mquel`Island <, - Santa Cruz Is d%% Point Mugu y���� •Los Angeles Santa Rosa Isla1nd`\` \ Long Beach =Santa Catalina Santa Barbara Islan San Nicholas Island San Clemente Island �\ 1� 121° Unpublished information I 1� San Clemente Vt � t t t t t •0 Coronado Islands - P Oceanside San Diego Unmated St�te Mexico FIGURE 12 DISTRIBUTION OF THE MINKS WHALE Sightings all months of the year in areas of anchovy concentration. Occurrences — Minkes scattered throughout the bight singly and in groups. Point Conception Santa Barbara Anacapa Island , $an Miguel Island Santa Cruz Island Point Mugu o • Los Angeles Santa Rosa (stand • Long Beach Santa Catalina Son Clemente Santa Barbaro Island • %• •Oceanside San Nichol Island Ash 3°40 • San Clemente Island ' 2° 1— Son Diego United Stites e' • Mexico Coronado Islands Ensenada San Isidro Point 10 1200 1190 11a" Unpublished Information Dr. William e. Evans, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. 36 FIGURE 13 MIGRATION OF THE BLUE WHALE DURING LATE SPRING AND EARLY SUMMER Point Conception Santa Barbara Anacapa island San Miguel Island Santa Cruz Island Point Mugu 10 ��—�� •Los Angeles Santa Rosa Island Long Beach Santa cCatalina San Clemente Santa Barbara Island ) \ •Oceanside San Nic las Island 30 San Clemente Isl nd • San Diego United State • o Mexico C onado Islands 120 Ensenada San Isidro Point 310 ,,.n »moo it 1210 1200 1190 i.O Unpublished information Dr. William E. Evans, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. I 37 Channel Islands and arriving off Vancouver in July or August. In winter they return to their southern grounds.39 From Fitch & Brownell, "We have been impressed with the apparent dependency of the smaller cetaceans on mesopelagic fishes, especially myctophids, which are generally conceded as being one of the most widespread and abundant, yet least utilized, fish families in the world's oceans. If the day ever arrives that man finds it eco- nomically feasible to harvest fishes from the scattering layers, uncontrolled exploitation could have a disastrous effect on our dolphin, porpoise and whale populations." Other inhabitants of the "scattering layer" are the anchovy and the other forage animals which sustain these cetaceans during the fall and winter seasons. 2. OFFSIIOU, ISLANDS According to the Marine D'I.vimial Commission, the Channel Islands and sur- rounding waters support one of the world's most diverse assemblages of marine mammals. Historically, seal and sea lion populations in the Southern California Bight were much larger, once breeding in great num- bers along the mainland coast. However, human activity has disturbed them to such an extent that they no longer breed on the mainland.41 While San Miguel Island in the northern Channel Islands supports the highest density of pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), three of the southern Channel Islands within the proposed marine sanctuary also support a large population. San Nicholas is the second largest resting ground followed by Santa Barbara and San Clemente. Smaller populations of seals and sea lions are found on Santa Catalina.42 a. Sea Lion - Bureau of Land Management baseline studies show that California sea lions are by far the most abundant pinniped in the Southern California Bight.43 Figure 14 shows seasonal rookeries, resting and generalized feeding areas. Approximately 90ro of the total 38 L FIGURE 14 ROOKERIES AND FEEDING AREAS OF THE CALIFORNIA SEA LION LEGEND PointFonception May -August Breeding Rookery .yenta Barbara Year Around Resting —� ff�� • Anecapa Island San Migu� Island Santa Cruz Point Mugu Los Angeles San ;ose Island 1•`/ Lang Beach' Sar�Catauri, �• San Clemente Santa Barbara Islan%1 �, L r,, r Oceanside San NicholasXiad 3° San Clemente Islan • San Diego ^ united St�te / o•� Mexico Limits of generalized feeding area Coronado Isl;,:tl 1320 • Ensenada San Isidro Point 311210 1200 1190 118° 117° 116° Unpublished Information Dr. William E. Evans, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. ' 39 number out of the water at any time of the year are about equally divided between San Miguel and San Nicholas Islands, while the re- maining 10% are divided between Santa Barbara and San Clemente Islands. California sea lions are rarely seen on the other islands of the Southern California Bight. 0£ 15,000 pups born in 1975, 49% were born on San Nicholas Island. The remainder were born on San Miguel (42;), Santa Barbara (5%) and San Clemente (0) Islands.44 In the fall as the total number of animals declines, the males move northward and are nearly absent from the Southern California Bight, while some of the females and imnatures migrate southward into Mexican waters. In winter, the numbers f males increases, probably due to an influx of Mexican migrants. The California sea lion is protected by both U. S. and Mexican governments (as well as the Marine Mammal Protection Act) throughout its range and continues to increase. "In terms of total numbers, the California sea lion is the most important pinniped in the Southern California Bight."46 b. Sea Birds,- The Channel Islands and surrounding waters provide essen- tial feeding, nesting and breeding areas for both resident and migrant seabirds in the Southern California Biglit.47 "Some of these birds spend most of their lives on or above the open ocean, coming ashore only in selected areas to breed and nest.i4II Within the Channel Islands, Santa Barbara Island is the northernmost extent of the nesting range of one species and the southern limit of two. The importance of the Channel Islands as the meeting place of northern and southern seabird faunas is related to their location in an area of mixing between the cold California Current with wanner masses of southern waters.49 Table 1 lists the species of seabirds that are dependent upon the pro- posed area as a migratory pathway (feeding and resting), breeding area, or as part or year-round residents. The information on the seabirds described below was developed through personal commmication with Dr, Joseph Jehl of Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute. 40 TABLE 1 SEABIRDS DEPENDENT ON PROPOSED AREA SOUTIjERN HEMISPHERE MIGRANTS Pink -Footed Shearwater Pale -Footed Shearwater New Zealand Shearwater Sooty Shearwater POST -BREEDING VIANDERERS FRGI MEXICO Manx Shearwater Royal Tern Least Storm -Petrel Xantus Murrelet Brown Pelican Craveri's Murrelet Heermann's Gull Cassin's Auklet Elegant Tern RESIDENT SPECIES Leach's Storm -Petrel Western Gull Ashy Storm -Petrel Common Murre Brown Pelican Xantus Murrelet Double -Crested Cormorant Cassin's Auklet Brandt's Cormorant Pigeon Guillemot Pelagic Cormorant NORTHORN 101ISPHERE MIGRANTS Common Loon Red -Breasted Merganser Arctic Loon Red Phalarope Red -Throated Loon Northern Phalarope Horned Grebe Pomarine Jaeger Eared Grebe Parasitic Jaeger Western Grebe Long -Tailed Jaeger Black -Footed Albatross Glacous-Winged Gull Northern Fulmar Western Gull Leach's Storm -Petrel Herring Gull Ashy Storm -Petrel Thayer's Gull Black Storm Petrel California Gull Double -Crested Cormorant Bonaparte's Gull Brandt's Cormorant Black -Legged Kittiwake Pelagic Cormorant Sabines's Gull Brant Common Tern Pintail Arctic Tern Cinnamon Teal Caspian Tern Lesser Scaup Common Murre White -Winged Scoter Cassin's Auklet Surf Scoter 41 o sr fl iiiiii W Point Conception %A Santa Barbara Son Miguel Island Island FIGURE 15 MIGRATION OF THE ARCTIC LOON Fall Island Point Mugu N.J - 0 Los Andes Santa Rose 014,4. Long Beach 1\ \ \ Same Ca Ina $•n C Santa Asrbara Island he San Nicholas Island San Clemenlb Island a � Coronado Islan 270 1200 119, Ila Unpublished information Dr. William E, Evans, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. r 42 Oceanside Son Diego _Un^tad Sta^tes�. Mexico ' � ` L* Ensenada San Isidro I Paint 1. Arctic Loon - This is one of the most common waterbirds migrating through the Southern California Bight during the spring and fall. It also winters in good numbers in this area. Although its fall migration path is not really known, large numbers pass through the general region to winter off Baja California (Figure 14). In the spring, their northward migration carries them more or less northwestward, paralleling the outer border of the proposed sanctuary. hundreds and thousands may pass by in a single day. They alight at night on the water, and have swimming evasive behavior, including diving, so they are highly susceptible to pollution. Although no relevant studies have been conducted on their diets in this area, they presumably, as elsewhere, feed primarily on small fish such as anchovies. 2. Surf Scoter - This is the most abundant sea -duck in the region. During its fall migration, as many as 30,000 (close to 50% of the West Coast population) winter in San Diego Bay. Migration is 0-5 miles offshore (Figure 16). 3. Xantus Murrelet - This small bird is characteristic of the California Current and breeds on near -shore islands from San Miguel south to probably Natividad, Baja California (Figure 17). As far as can be determined now, the largest breeding population in the world occurs on Santa Barbara Island, where 10,000-20,000 birds occur during the breeding season (peaking in May). Within the Channel Islands as a whole, 98% of the breeding population occurs within the proposed sanctuary. After nesting, this species becomes highly pelagic (open ocean) and takes its small chicks to sea. As a result, it is perhaps the most susceptible of all birds to oil pollution. It feeds on larval and small fishes, mostly from the upper levels of water. This species is a good example of a bird that is dependent upon this area, and as much as 50% of the world population may nest on a single island. Although it is not an endangered species, its distribution is such that it could be. 43 rr Point Conception u Santa Barbara FIGURE 16 MIGRATION OF THE SURFSCOTER -- - Anadapa Island San Miguel Island Santa Cruz Islan Point Mugu o. Santa Rose Island 1j= 20 r-- Fall Migration Maybe 50%± West Coast Population Winters in Vicinity of San Diego Say Los Angela / Long Bach Santa Catalina Santa Barbara Island San Nicholas Island San Clemente Island San Clemante \* Oceanside • San Diego United St -ices to Mexico Coronado Islands Ensenada San Isidro , Point 10 1200 1190 11 Vno- Unpublished Information or. Josoph Jdhl, Hubbs • See World Research Institute, 1978. II 44 � � FIGURE 17 DISTRIBUTION OF XANTUS MURRELET • = Breeding Colonies Distribution in breeding Point Conception season largely confined to • Santa Barbara • vicinity of island. Anacapa Island Post -breeding becomes pelagic and moves as far north as Van San Mi el ISI d a Cruz Island Point Mugu Couver Island. 0 • Los Angeles ante osa Isl d Long Beach Santa Barbara Island S to Catal • San Clemente So Barbar la • Oceanside San,Nicholas Is d 10 San CI a Island • San Diego Unmated State Mexico Coronado nds DISTRIBUTION OF XANTUSMURRELET �20 jenad 310 „oa 1170 116 1210 1200 1190 Unpublished information Dr. Joseph Jehl, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. 45 0 4. Brown Pelican - The brown pelican is found mostly within 10 miles of the shore and occasionally farther out to sea. As is shown in Figure 18, the two breeding colonies are located on the east end of Santa Cruz Island and on the Coronado Islands in Mexican waters. According to Anderson $ Anderson (1976), its main food is anchovies.50 The brown pelican is on both the state and federal endangered species list. S. Brandt's Cormorant - Studies shout that these birds feed in several different habitats. This bird is mainly a coastal species, feeding mainly within the kelp beds within a mile or so from shore, occasionally being seen farther out to sea in schools. of sardines, anchovies and other bait fish. Brandt's Cormorant winters around islands and nearshore to 10 miles out to sea (Figure 19). According to IIubbs et al., when feeding in the open waters of La Jolla Bay they probably feed on "such schooling fish as anchovies or sardines." In the La Jolla Bay area, this bird feeds on 35 species of fish from a wide variety of habitats, with no evidence that any predominate.51 6. Black Storm Petrel - Their only nesting colony in the United States is on Santa Barbara Island, where 20-30 birds were discovered in 1976 (Figure 20). Otherwise, this species breeds on the Coronado Islands, maintains large colonies on the San Bonitos Islands in Mexican waters and in the Gulf of California. Summer range is within 30-40 miles of the coast, rarely closer than 5-10 miles from the coast. In addition to plankton, it is also said to feed on the larvae of the spiny lobster and squid.52 7. Sooty Shearwater - This is the most abundant migrant seabird in the area. Populations from South America and New Zealand migrate here for breeding between May and September when thousands occur. This bird occurs from about 5-60 miles out to sea, as well as farther out (Figure 21). In terms of sheer numberso it outnumers all other seabirds combined. The sooty shearwater feeds mainly 46 FIGURE 18 DISTRIBUTION OF THE BROWN PELICAN • = Breeding Colonies Point conception • Santa Barbara • Anacapa Island San uel lslan a Cruz nd Point Mugu • • Los Angeles Santa len Long Beach t DISTRIBUTION OF THE Santa Catalina %Coronadolslan BROWN PELICAN Santa Barbara Island side San Nicholas Island San Clemente Island San Diego United State �. Mexico a • Ensenada San Isidro Point I° 1210 1200 119W Unpublished information Dr. Joseph Jehl, Hubbs • Sea World Research Institute, 1978. 47 FIGURE 19 DISTRIBUTION OF BRANDT'SCORMORANT 1210 1200 1190 1180 1170 1160 Unpublished information Dr. Joseph Jahl, Hobbs • Sea World Hosaorch Institute, 1978. FIGURE 20 DISTRIBUTION OF THE BLACK STORM PETREL 1 t� Breeding Area Los Angeles ft Long Beach 1210 1206 1190 Unpublished information or. Joseph Jehl, Hubbs - Sea World Research Institute, 1978. 49 San Clemente Oceanside Son Diego unted State Mexico Ensenada San Isidro Point �o FIGURE 21 DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOOTY SHEARWATER 1° Point Conception Santa Barbara Anocapa Island an Mip (island Santa Cruz Island Point Mugu 40 � • Los Angeles S a Rosa and Long Beech Sant atalina San Clemente nta Bar a Island 90% a Oceanside San Nicholas an 30 10% Se le onto islan • San Diego `._, UnRed,St�tes_ �. • e Mexico Caro o islands DISTRIBUTION OF THE SOOTYSHEARWATER 120 Ensenada San Isidro Point 31° !10 1200 1190 11V Unpublished Information Dr. Joseph Johl, Hubbs • Sea World Research Institute, 1978, 50 I I I Ll 11 j li I on anchovies and squid. however, it may make long flights without feeding. After completing its long trans -equatorial migration, it must be able to find good feeding grounds. 3. OFFSHORE BANKS As was outlined earlier, the Southern California Bight or borderland is an atypical continental margin with a highly varied topography, quite different from the more characteristic continental shelf -and -slope configuration. Bor- dering the deep ocean basins are numerous rocky outcrops forming ridges (variously referred to as banks and escarpments) shallow enough to support complex marine habitats. Although information about the offshore banks i53 inadequate to date, ongoing studies are continuing to affirm their value. Bureau of Land Management baseline studies have identified the northern half of the Santa Rosa-Cortes Ridge (west of San Nicholas Island), Osborne Bank (5 miles south of Santa Barbara Island), Forty -Mile Bank (west of San Diego), the San Clemente Escarpment and Lasuen Knoll (be- tween Santa Catalina and the Orange County coastline) as areas of great importance to seabirds.54 According to Dr. George hunt of the University of California at Irvine, in addition to islands and shallow waters within 25 kilometers of the mainland, the areas of greatest seabird density are over shallow offshore banks and ridges. Concentrations of whales and dolphins, as well as pinnipeds, have been shown to be present on Santa P.osa-Cortes Ridge during July.55 The Santa Rosa-Cortes Ridge is an area of high activity and large con- centration for the California sea lion. During the fall and winter when they are more widely distributed in the Southern California Bight, they can be found increasingly in southern waters on Tanner-Cortes Bank and San Clemente Ridge.56 51 I LJ I J I I I u Fi Chapter V PRESENT AND FUTURE USES Chapter V PRESENT AND FUTURE USES 1. C%%JERCIAL FISHING Present uses of the area cover a wide variety of activities. One of the most widespread in terms of geographic area covered is commercial fishing. The resources harvested by the coastal fisheries are taken by boats re- stricted to trips of up to a few hundred miles. The value of all commercial species of fish landed within the ports,of San Diego, Oceanside, and Newport Beach in 1975 totaled $2,809,281.57 2. SPORTFISHING Although the average salt water angler fishes from the shoreline or, at most, a few miles offshore, the party boat and the well-equipped party fishing craft can travel farther offshore for migratory fish. In 1976 a total of 976,932 fish were landed by 209,877 anglers fishing from 89 party boats in the area.58 These figures do not include fish landed by private boats and shoreline anglers. 3. MILITARY OPERATIONS Most of the coastal waters are used by the military for a variety of pur- poses. The area under proposal is within the Southern California Offshore Operating Area. This area is the major fleet operating area in the Pacific and high density operations are conducted on a daily basis in both the airspace and waterspace. Typical operations include all weather fleet training, refueling, test flights, rockets, bombs, anti-submarine warfare, all weather flight training, carrier and submarine operations and anti- aircraft and surface gunnery. In addition to surface operations, leaving San Diego Bay and extending out into the coastal waters are submarine transit lanes.59 55 4. CW18RCIAL SHIPPING TRAFFIC in the region between Point Conception and the Mexican border are numerous ports for handling container, bulk, general and liquid cargoes. Shipping for San Diego in 1975 totalled 2,351,306 tons (includes military shipping). The offshore waters of this area are used as traffic lanes for ships bound for/coming from Long Beach and Los Angeles and ports farther north.60 S. RESEARat The proposed area is the site of major biological and oceanographic research by Scripps Institution of Oceanography, Naval Ocean Systems Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, the State of California and many private research and consulting firms. An incredible amount of baseline data on biological, chemical, geological and oceanographic processes already exists. it is the unique topographical structure of this area that has attracted much research. 6. OIL EXPLORATION Oil exploration is probably the best known use of the area and a strong motivating factor behind this proposal both in the present and future. As a result of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Sale No. 35, Tanner-Cortes Banks and the offshore region between Santa Catalina Island and Los Angeles and Orange Counties are currently the sites of exploration within the proposed area. on August 23, 1977, the Secretary of the Interior announced a new OCS leasing schedule for 1979 through 1981. Lease Sale No. 48, which includes 52 tracts within the proposed area for designation, is scheduled for June of 1979. 48 tracts lie directly off the coasts of San Diego and Orange Counties, while another five are in the vicinity of Santa Barbara Island. There are also an additional 49 tracts in the Tanner-Cortes Banks area proposed in Lease Sale No. 48. (Figure 22) 56 " ` i m MI r � ""GU"42 9" " PROPOSED OCS LEASE SALE NO.48 TRACT LOCATION UNITED ItA 11 'OT0 DEPARTMENT Of THE N,1 h4,R PROPOSED SALE NO. 48 BURFAUQFIAND MAN.1,-f\IbNf PACIFIO OUTER I ONTINFNTA, •.rry •,' OFF CE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA OFFSHORE AREA �SANTABAR8AE�_ NEL-I., ... ... \lr_T�y.M1_ •-/�� -/ f -._.—+ - -1-� :Y '• / -�•': .. nY 5E.f5 ...-.._ ....._-. _,.... _.... LEGEND 1M54 urll el,.e ... ..S, N_A3AREIARA - _ _ zuv, SAb4BElS,.a: ... -� -SAN� t9SA;".. - - - - - — NDD - -- -- - %T.... _ ExlsbN feEeml lames ... - .�- •,-yam Y T• — , _-_ �Y six GEOGRAPHIC/NUMERIC TRACT IDENTIFICATION - �'.^ - �••" wr exnne.la�rn. secca-/ D CT se roa-ua f"— NfIBMB4°x/L SI//I°-ll9 .\l •\i ♦_ 119 ^J -• ,t--\^ - _ L aronsmrtsswr ruuren • •. {\/'''�,.�( ,%�•_: ' �- /qy�N.,,., C• ��ANNBANK�T -------- -- .--..--- II Iml " " m we m m This proposed action poses extreme dangers to the ecological, economic, recreational and aesthetic resources and values within the area. The possibility for environmental degradation exists not only in terms of oil spills, but air pollution as well, where in the San Diego Air Basin the cost of meeting federal air quality standards is already about $31 million annually. Additions in pollutants as a result of oil development, trans- portation and processing in both the onshore and offshore regions could add significantly to the total annual cost. Negative environmental and economic impacts can result from federal policies of withholding of grants to construct sewerage facilities in air basins which have difficulty in meeting air quality standards.61 Although the coastal area is not included in the proposed area (it is within the 341ile State Oil and Gas Sanctuary), the close proximity of the tracts in Lease Sale No. 48 renders it highly vulnerable in the event of an oil spill. Spilled oil undergoes various transformations, some physical, some chemical and some biological, when it enters the marine environment. The most important is the movement of the spilled oil through the action of wind and water currents.62 The forces and processes influencing an oil slick movement are complex, variable and not entirely understood. There is a danger of oversimplification if we assume the direction and velocity of wind and water currents to be constant and uniform.63 however, it is possible to identify the hazards that OCS oil exploration and development present given the major wind and water currents operating in this area. Figures 23 and 24 show both the annual average winds and six common wind patterns as a result of local and regional forces that come into play. Figure 25 illustrates the overall water current pattern within the Bight. A. Coastal Wetlands Within the coastal regions of San Diego and Orange Counties are extensive coastal wetlands often referred to as tideflats, marshes, lagoons and iJ 11 u I I I I 11 I I 1/ II u II 'I t FIGURE 23 ANNUAL AVERAGE WINDS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT FIGURE24 SIX COMMON WIND PATTERNS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT SANTA BARBARA 0 Type 1 LOS ANGELES Type 2 SANTA BARBARA i LOS ANGELES i I Type 3 SANTA BARBARA ��. LOS ANGELES I oto so Mrea OIEGO SANTA BARBARA Type 4 LOS ANGELES a d /'ArNko\� Type 6 SANTA BARBARA G LOS ANGELES SAN DIEGO Source: State Water Pollution Control Board, Oeaenoeraphic Survey of the Continental Shelf of Southern California, Publication No. 20. 1959, pp. 24-26. 60 I I FIGURE 25 GENERALIZED SURFACE CURRENTS IN THE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA BIGHT 9 L OOy 9F, Z OT ��T 0,9 z, O G,9 Z To loo N Kdometm Source: United States Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. Final Environmental Statement — Oil and Gas Development in the Santa Barbara Channel Outer Continental Shelf of California, Figure 11 •19, 1976. 61 estuaries. These areas provide many services in the public good as func- tioning ecosystems: flood control, data source for scientific investigations, pollution abatement, spawning grounds for both sport and commercial fish, and feeding and breeding grounds for many species of waterfowl, shore and marshbirds.64 In addition, the coastal wetlands serve as important links in migratory pathways as well as nesting and wintering -over areas for birds. There were once 26,000 acres of productive wetland habitat in Southern California.65 Estimates of wetland acreage lost to urbanization in Southern California range from 75% to 90%.66 The remaining, approximately 8,500 acres, are therefore increasingly valuable and critical to ecological balance.67 Wetlands are particularly vulnerable to damage from oil spills. when oil enters these complex environments, it is frequently trapped in small ponds, water channels and marshland. Sensitive organisms like birds, larval and juvenile fish and invertebrates concentrate in these wetlands. Although some containment and skimping of oil may be possible in the larger lagoons, once it enters small channels and marsh habitats, almost any method would be highly disruptive since it involves, at a minimum, people walking over these areas, This action disturbs vegetation and works oil into the sediments.68 Orange County has three important wetlands potentially threatened by oil spills. The salt marshes, mud flats and protected waters of Anaheim Bay, Bolsa Bay and Upper Newport Bay contain almost all of the remaining wetland acreage in the County.69 Over 100 species of birds utilize Anaheim Bay, including 23 known resident species.70 Vulnerable coastal wetlands in San Diego County include (in order of vulnerability): Tia Juana River Estuary, Santa Margarita River, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, Los Penasquitos Lagoon and Batiquitos Lagoon. All of the other wetland areas in San Diego County have been altered or degraded to some extent by human encroachment, but are still essential as wildlife habitats.71 62 I I I 11 I II B. Rocky Intertidal Rocky intertidal areas, more popularly known as tidepools, are one of the most heavily exploited of California's marine resources. In Southern California, recreational, scientific and educational pressures are especially intensive, as rocky intertidal areas exist only in widely spaced stretches along the coast.72 The intertidal zone is most important for its ecological role, as many marine species depend on it during some part of their life cycles, either for spawning, or during the juvenile or latter stages of their lives.73 Rocky shores in Orange County make up only 3 miles, or 8% of the coastline; in San Diego County there are 11 miles, or 15% rocky intertidal area.74 Thus, in the event of a large oil spill, because of the dearth and distance between intertidal areas on the mainland, repopulation could take years as it must normally come from within. Although the islands have 80% rocky shoreline, they are too far from the mainland as a source of repopulation.75 The EIS for OCS Lease Sale #35 summed it up this way: "The damage from a large case 1 oil spill could be severe to the rocky shore intertidal. Smothering should cause the principal damage to specific upper intertidal species of plants and animals where all individuals oiled will die. The toxic effect from crude oil reaching shore in three or four hours is unknown, but will not be as severe as is caused by refined oil spills. Although the entire intertidal community will not be killed, many individuals of a variety of species will be. Reproduction and repopulation will be retarded for several months, and the extinction of rare endemics is a possibility. Biological recovery will take up to five years. However, the time required for the decimated intertidal community to return to pre -spill conditions is unknown. Cleanup operations of intertidal areas could cause total destruction of the rocky shore communities and significantly harm the communities of the sandy beach areas actually cleaned." C. Kelp Beds The kelp beds in Southern California are named for the dominant algal species, Macrocystis pyrifera (Giant Kelp), which often grows in dense, forest -like stands along the coast in water from•20 to 80 feet deep.76 t W U1 Although some controversy still exists, it is generally accepted that the kelp itself is not damaged by oiling, however, kelp provides an important marine habitat for a rich and varied plant and animal community which could be very adversely affected by oil trapped and held in the fronds, or emulsi- fied and spread to submerged animals on the bottom.77 There are over 810 kinds of organisms associated with kelp beds in Southern California and Baja California. Although the majority of these species may not have any sort of obligatory relationship with kelp, they do utilize just about every nook and crevice of the plant and adjacent area, thereby increasing the total habitat available to them.78 In addition, fish and invertebrates use help for shelter, food and spawning grounds. Thus, kelp beds are vitally important to the sportfishing industry, since many sport fish are found in association with the beds.79 Kelp has been commercially harvested in California since 1910. It is an important biological as well as economic resource because it provides a habitat for other commercial biological resources such as commercial sport fish, lobster and abalone.80 California coastal kelp beds have decreased in size since the early 1900's when they covered approximately 100 square miles. Today they cover less than 75 square miles. In Southern California, the decline has been es- pecially severe where some of the major beds have all but disappeared due to temperature changes, sewer discharges and kelp grazers.81 Recreation and Aesthetics The Southern California lifestyle is strongly associated with the marine and coastal environment. The Director of the Department of the Interiorts Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) characterized the Southern California coastal and offshore area as 'one of the best known and most heavily used recreation and resort destinations in the United States". Marine recre- ation is a multi -million dollar industry and any degradation of recreational resources caused by resource extraction could produce substantial economic 64 losses.82 Major categories of vulnerable recreational resources are beaches, recreational boating (with associated harbors and marinas), and a less tangible but still integral component, visual aesthetics. Orange County, to the north of San Diego, has undergone an explosive ex- pansion of population and associated urbanization. Thus, the County is faced with mounting recreation demands. The County Planning Department notes that the County's 42 mile stretch of coastline, most of which is broad, sandy beach, is considered by many to be its most highly treasured resource. They also estimate that 20 million people annually use the County coastline for fishing, surfing, swimming and sunbathing. 83 In San Diego, the results of adding almost three quarters of a million people to the county's population in 20 years have drastically changed the character of the coastal subregion. Thus, although an enormous amount of open space is still available for public use in the mountains and the desert, the shortage of recreation areas within and in close proximity to urban centers causes the coastal area to take on increased importance.84 About 65 miles (85%) of San Diego County shoreline is classified as sandy beach. Over half (41 miles) of the beaches are publicly owned and are heavy recreational use areas, except on federally -owned lands such as Camp Pendleton.85 Tables 2 and 3 show steadily increasing visitor attendance and service fees collected at state beaches in San Diego and Orange Counties. Potentially, the greatest threat to the beaches would be the adverse impacts of an oil spill offshore of San Diego and Orange Counties. The proposed development is within 3-18 miles of the coast and extends along its entire length. Because of their great length, the beaches are impossible to protect entirely in the event of a spill. Recreational boating comprises a sizeable portion of the area's recre- ational activities. Boating activities include fishing, sailing, overnight camping, swimming and racing. The four marinas in Orange County have a capacity for 13,107 boats. Including the above, there are at least ten 65 I'MI: 1972 197.1 1974 1975 1976 1977 Doheny State Beach 638,457 536,435 708,685 525,342 468,897 474,958 San Clemente State Beach 3S5,151 329,625 321,494 298,226 3560384 338,421 San Onofre Bluffs State 197,715 212,650 316,020 302,864 564,832 477,332 Carlsbad State Beach 238,105 310,303 346,932 782,696 1,218,053 1,176,432 Cardiff State Beach 98,897 97,215 92,033 166,027 261,144 402,571 Torrey Pines State Reserve 659,635 259,102 234,190 216,335 167,627 145,7S9 Torrey Pines State Beach 417,8bl 60S,436 724,715 779,602 920,353 Wonlight State Beach 184,280 234,247 203,920 274,737 494,959 588,391 South Carlsbad State Beach 259,758 311,804 287,350 316,7S5 515,656 406,569 Loucadia State Beach 700774 1500111 134,985 284,818 210,789 229,721 San Elijo State Beach 333,823 363,912 332,969 491,904 695,8S6 773,978 Silver Strand State Beach 332,151 275,538 229,643 282,744 354,775 375,504 Border Field State Park 85,785 114,422 118,656 147,405 158,257 178,242 3,454,531 3,613,28S 3,932,279 4,814,S68 6,246,831 6,488,221 SOURCE: Department of Parks and Recreation. TABLE 3 SERVICE FEES (Includes camping, day use, dog fees, concessions)* 1974 1975 1976 1977* Doheny State Beach $155,185 $153,352 $184,447 $ 2S2,202 San Clemente State Beach 147,661 161,081 175,257 233,145 San Onofre Bluffs State Beach 121,8S4 120,636 137,918 152,843 Torrey Pines State Reserve S4,832 50,636 57,773 67,360 South Carlsbad State Beach )24,077 130,033 142,683 178,853 San Elijo State Beach 131,566 139,678 165,170 230,575 Silver Strand State Beach 42,470 45,786 61,917 71,079 Border Field State Park 3,2S2 4,119 4,431 3,168 $778,897 $805,321 $929,596 $1,189,22S SOURCE: Department of Parks $ Recreation. I I [J I I launching facilities and six partyboat landings. The most common destinations of Orange County boaters are the nearshore waters and Catalina Island.86 Recreational boating activities are very prominent in the San Diego area. The total for San Diego Bay is approximately 3,530 boats. In addition, Oceanside Small Craft Harbor has 760 boats; Mission Bay has 2,400 boats; Coronado Yacht Club (Glorietta Bay), 82 slips and 108 boats; Del Coronado Boathouse, 36 slips; and Shelter Island (yacht harbor and commercial basin) 2,300. Although much of the boating takes place within Mission Bay and San Diego Bay, destinations outside the harbors include the Baja -California Peninsula, Orange County and Catalina Island.87 The visitor industry has substantial impact on the economy of San Diego. It is the third largest sector (following manufacturing and government). In 1977, 19 million visitors left $838.4 million in San Diego. Forecasts by the San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau indicate that the visitor industry will double in dollar volume calculated in current dollars from 1978 to 1982.88 The visitor industry is essential to maintaining a stable economic climate in the San Diego area. In 1977, it furnished direct employment to 52,000 people and had a total payroll of $306 million, while employing an equal number of jobs indirectly.89 Visitors are drawn to this area by the natural resources available for recreational activities such as boating, fishing and swimming, plus the less tangible and quantifiable appeal of seeing, smelling and hearing the surf and watching the sun set over the ocean. Thus, there is great incentive to maintain a clean environment. Visual degradation as a result of air, water or noise pollutants would have an extreme adverse impact on tourism and, therefore, the economy in this area.90 67 I I 1 h I 1 1 n I I I Chapter VI MANAGEMENT L It U I i 1 I I II II II II II Chapter VI MANAGEMENT The resources of the Southern California Bight have been documented elsewhere in this report. How should the use of these resources be regulated to insure their maximum usefulness now and for future generations? In considering possible management alternatives, we find that the most attractive is to request the Secretary of Commerce to designate the area as a marine sanc- tuary under the authority of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. The Marine Sanctuary concept provides a positive approach to environ- mental management, for it recognizes that all values of coastal and marine eco- systems may deserve protection "for their own merits". The provision for long- range planning and continuous management is a critical advantage of the sanctuary concept.* There are other possible approaches. As Kifer has pointed out, some 30 bills were introduced into the U. S. Congress from 1969 to 1971 to deal with threats to ocean or coastal zones.91 These bills were largely "negative" --that is, they were designed to preclude or impede certain activities. Some of these approaches might be employed in an effort to forestall oil and gas development. For example, because the Southern California Bight harbors a rich vertebrate fauna provisions of the Marine Mammal Protection Act, Migratory *It may be unfortunate the present report was prepared under the impetus of possible oil and gas exploration in the Southern California Bight as that possibility may not always exist. It is conceivable that tracts in Lease Sale 48 may be withdrawn. If so, public interest in 'the Sanctuary may de- crease. We emphasize, however, that the values of the Sanctuary are important whether or not the area contains commercially valuable amounts of oil or any other commodity. Consequently, we suggest that approaches to the nomination that emphasize only oil and gas problems are short-sighted. 71 Bird Treaty, or Endangered Species Act might be applicable. These laws are designed to protect specific groups of animals or individual species and are not relevant to habitat values. The Environmental Impact Statement is another possibility, but it too is aimed at specific events and must be utilized each time a new development is considered. (Note that a draft EIS for Lease Sale 48 has been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management). one seeming advantage of the EIS process is that it provides for public participation and criticism, and, indeed, the adequacy of such re- ports can be challenged by the public. I3owever, both the preparation of and challenges to EIS's are time-consuming and expensive, and the process can be used by either side as a delaying rather than a planning tool, In the viewpoint of Los Angeles City Councilman Marvin Braude, the EIS has became "the tool of the bureaucrat, the legalist, and the obstructionist." This viewpoint is widely shared and public support for the process may already be on the wane. I4hile all of these alternatives may have merit in preventing specific impacts (such as oil exploration), their present implementation will not necessarily be effective in preventing future (and currently unpredictable) events that could pose even greater threats to local or regional interest. Thus, these piecemeal approaches are of short-term efficacy at best. They do not provide the posi- tive, broadly-based approach to environmental management that is implicit in the Marine Sanctuary concept and we do not recommend their use here. The use of local or regional agencies (e.g., Regional Coastal Commission Air Pol- lution Control District) San Diego Port District) to influence activities in the proposed Sanctuary is not recommended because the Sanctuary lies beyond the area of jurisdiction of these agencies (see below) and consequently the control they exert is indirect. The management tool available to these agencies is the "consistency plan" requirements for new or renovated activities. Thus, a pro- posal is not approved unless it is "consistent" with the approved plan or regu- lation. For example, the Regional Coastal Commission might rule that refineries on shore are prohibited, because they are inconsistent with the Air Quality Plan or Coastal Management Plan, but cannot directly prohibit mining and exploration. The involvement of these agencies (either singly or as a group) would result in 72 �J �I u I I I I II II [_l II II II II overlapping jurisdiction, with one group (or groups) having jurisdiction over the near -shore areas and another (the federal government) for areas beyond the three-mile limit. We see no merit in utilizing a conflict -forming, rather than conflict -resolving, situation. Thus, we endorse the concept of a Marine Sanctuary under a single management agency. It is important to point out that the term "sanctuary" may be an unfortunate choice, for it implies total prohibition. We believe that the intent of the Act is not to prevent legitimate uses but to mandate, as Former Congressman Hastings Keith has stated, "an orderly review of the activities... to assure the preservation of coastal areas and fisheries." Sound conservation measures stress the use of renewable rather than nonrenewable resources if possible, and further stress that renewable resources be used on a "sustained yield" basis. Many such resources (e.g., fish stocks) occur in the Southern California Bight, and are already being utilized. It will be the responsibility of the managing agency to determine levels at which exploitation is justifiable. There is no provision in the Act to prohibit fishing or other commercial uses in this area. 1. TYPES OF SANCTUARIES Several types of Marine Sanctuaries have been categorized by Kifer in terms of their potential values.92 These are outlined below, with reference to the Southern California Bight. A. Habitat. According to Kifer, "habitat" sanctuaries may be established "for the preservation, protection and management of essential or specialized marine or coastal ecosystems which are either one of a kind or representative of a given type".93 Because of its diverse topo- graphy, and the complex current system, the Southern California Bight area is one of extreme biological richness and includes a variety of habitats, within a relatively small area. B. Species. Many important fish stocks occur in the Bight, and some of them (e.g., anchovy) are important components in the food chain for a wide variety of birds, mammals and commercial fish species. Also many rare, If 73 endangered, or threatened species occur in the area. The biology of some is well known, and much of the basic work (e.g., California Sea Lion, California Gray Whale, Brown Pelican, many others) have been ac- complished within the proposed Sanctuary area,. C. Recreational and Aesthetic, The Bight and its islands provide impor- tant recreational values for millions of people through such activities as swimming, sailing, SCUBA diving, bird -watching, and whale -watching. Further, the beauty of the area and the adjacent shore and islands is inspiring. A. Research. The proposed sanctuary has long been used as a major research area by many organizations (e.g., Scripps Institution of Oceanography, NOSC, IOTS, CALCOFI, State of California, museums, universities, etc.) and extraordinary amounts of baseline data on biological, chemical, geo- logical and oceanographic processes are already available. Indeed, by virtue of this information, the area could easily be nominated as a research sanctuary. The universities and research centers in Southern California can be expected to provide a continuing supply of able scien- tists to continue research in the Bight. It should not be overlooked that the availability of sound baseline data encourages further detailed studies, and that many of these can be expected to have an economic impact on the entire Southern California region. E. Uniqueness. "The submerged lands offshore between Point Conception and Cedros Island in Baja California are not typical of other conti- nental shelf areas" (Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Bureau of Land Management, Lease Sale 48) . We suggest that the primary aim of the proposed Sanctuary should be to preserve habitat and species values. This designation will also insure that the other values of the area are preserved and that multiple uses are encouraged. Management emphasis should be placed "on protecting the living resources of the area so as to maintain a healthy, continuous, balanced population,'194 74 I I 1 2. REVIEW OF THE AREA BOUNDARIES The proposed sanctuary area is large and parallelogram in shape. The northern and southern borders, respectively, extend due westward from Long Beach and the US -Mexico border. The western boundary trends NW -SE and generally parallels the coastline, some 5o miles to the east. The eastern boundary is delineated by the three-mile limit. The area includes many banks, shoals, submarine canyons and ridges, as well as four islands (San Clemente, Santa Catalina, San Nicolas and Santa Barbara) , which repre- sent the tops of submerged mountain ranges. The limits of the Sanctuary have been carefully considered to provide the maximum protection for the resources therein, as well as in areas adjacent to the Sanctuary, and still to allow the establishment of an area that can be effectively managed. In comparison with other sanctuaries that have been proposed, the size of the Southern California Bight sanctuary may seem large, as it comprises ap- proximately 7,400 square miles. However, in some respects it is small, for it does not include the major values of the northern Channel Islands (Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Anacapa, San Miguel) or of Islas Los Coronados. We fully recognize that the birds and mammals that breed on these islands are wide-ranging and may utilize the Bight for extended periods, and that the continued health of the Sanctuary area is essential to their well-being. However, to include these areas would inflict additional and perhaps unneces- sary problems on management organizations, not the least of which would be the need to establish an international agreement with the government of Mexico. Further, it does not include the Tanner/Cortes banks which, because of their remoteness from sheltered harbors, will be hard to supervise effectively. We have suggested that the area within three miles off the coast be ex- cluded. Although events in the Sanctuary may have important consequences for near -shore and coastal regions, many state agencies (e.g.,, California Coastal Commission, Air Pollution Control District) are already mandated to 75 act in this area and in most cases their authority cannot logically be ex- tended farther seaward, Furthermore, in terms of enforcement, the problems of a near -shore area differ considerably from that of an off -shore situation, and we believe that management will be more efficient if these areas are dealt with independently. 3. POTENTIAL CHANGES IN THE SANCTUARY AREA The Marine Sanctuary Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate areas "for the purpose of preserving them or restoring them for their conser- vation) recreational, ecological, or esthetic values". Possible future events in the California Bight need to be predicted to determine the thrust of management programs. The history of the California Bight has been one of persistent change in relation to geological, climatic and oceanographic factors.95 Changes in the biota have also occurred and will continue, These changes are no less expected in marine than in terrestrial situations, although the patterns are much less understood. Ile suggest that management programs in the proposed Sanctuary should be directed toward maintaining habitats in such a way that changes occur at rates no greater than the adaptive responses of natural populations. Events most likely to affect this principle are man -induced, and some (e.g., the introduction of domestic animals to islands; the pollution of local waters with toxic chemicals) have already had severe consequences. Recent legislation and increased environmental awareness has reduced the possibility that some of these will recur. However, so long as the Bight area is used by man, deleterious events will take place. Those most likely to occur in the near future include: a. The exploitation of animal populations on a greater than "sustained yield" basis; b. the destruction of invertebrate populations as a result of silting from mining activities; and 76 1 C. the fouling of waters with oil or other chemicals. These changes could occur with extreme rapidity and, even though of short duration, could shift the balance of the management program from "preservation" to "restoration". oil pollution would seem to be the most serious and imminent threat. Although exploration for energy reserves may not be incompatible with the goals of the Sanctuary, the problems associated with transporting oil could be. The effects of oil pollution on marine organisms have been widely documented. Effects on marine birds, which are particularly susceptible, include: oiled birds lose buoyancy and insulation when feathers become matted; this increases the bird's metabolic requirements, adds to its weight, ' and impedes foraging and flight; . in cleaning their feathers, birds may ingest toxic substances; ' the ingestion of non -toxic oils may not kill the birds but can impede egg production; oil -stained birds may apply oil to the surface of their eggs, lowering hatchability. The susceptibility of birds to oiling is proportional to the time they spend ' on the surface; thus, waterfowl are more vulnerable than gulls. The impact of spills can be predicted with knowledge of the seasonal distributional ' patterns of each species (data in BUI Draft EIS), which allows mitigating actions to be taken. However, implications for some species are frightening. For example, 98% of the United States population (and perhaps the majority of the world population) of Xantus murrelet (a small seabird) breeds on Santa Barbara Island and feeds in water nearby. An oil spill in May could exter- minate the entire colony, which, as experience with other seabirds has shown, might require decades to become reestablished. Many species of migratory tbirds transedt the Bight once or twice annually, from as far away as Alaska, 77 4 Chile, or New Zealand. In some cases (e.g., Pink -footed Shearwater) vir- tually the entire world population may be involved and a severe spill at the "wrong" time could have international ramifications. The effects of oil pollution on other forms of life may also be severe and would affect all of the values encompassed by the proposed Sanctuary. JURISDICTION In light of the nomination of a marine sanctuary pursuant to the Marina Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, considerations ought to be made concerning the interrelationship with other jurisdictions in the nominated area. Such action should eliminate conflicts in law, management authority, enforcement, etc. Several Executive Departments and Agencies already exercise authority in the proposed Sanctuary area. The following notes those Departments and Agencies and generally defines their respective roles. Department of Commerce. The National oceanic and Atmospheric Admini- stration (NOAA) administers a number of programs in the nominated area including marine mammal protection and fishery conservation and management. With regard to the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, federal management authority is extended to the territorial sea. Furthermore, the Maritime Administration is engaged in a number of regula- tory authorities in promoting shipping in the nominated area, and issuing anti -pollution measures. Department of Interior. The Bureau of Land Management authorizes lease of OCS lands for oil, gas, sulphur and other minerals and administers these leases. In addition, the Bureau of Land Management has the authority to approve applications for "common -carrier" pipeline rights -of -way on the OCS. FE. ' The Geological Survey issues OCS orders and other orders and rules as neces- sary to effectively supervise mineral operations on the OCS and prevent damage to, or waste of, any natural resource or injury to life or property. It has ' jurisdiction over producer -owned "gathering" lines and flow lines on the OCS. The U. S. Fish and wildlife Service; Protection of fish and wildlife re- sources and their habitat in an advisory or recommendation capacity to the Corps of Engineers in the process of issuing Federal permits in navigable waters. Additionally, the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers issues permits for construction (including pipelines) on OCS and in other navigable waters. ' The National Park Service administers Santa Barbara Island. ' Department of Defense. The Department of Defense (U. S. Navy) claims jurisdiction over San Clemente Island and San Nicolas Island and enforces ' access to waters in the vicinity of the islands, which it considers 'opera- tional areas". However, the California Department of Fish and Game (appar- ently through contracted services) cooperates in studies on these islands. California Department of Fish and Game. The California Department of Fish and Game is responsible for enforcing laws regarding living marine resources on the islands and adjacent waters of the Southern California Bight, and in the areas between the islands and the mainland. Activities in near - shore waters adjacent to the Sanctuary are affected by the Regional Coastal Commission, Air Pollution Control District, and San Diego Port District. Due to a desire to eliminate international conflicts of law, the proposed Sanctuary does not overlap the US/Mexico border. Nor should management regulations conflict with international conservation regimes, etc. Regulatory agencies are reviewed in Table 4. 79 TABLE A Potential regulatory agencies and their authority FEDERAL AGENCIES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Maritime Administration DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management (ELM) Geological Survey U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service U. S. Army Corps of Engineers National Park Service Administers marine mammal protection, fishery conser- vation and management, and other programs In territorial waters. Engaged in several regulatory agencies; promotes shipping, issues anti -pollution measures. Authorizes leases of OCS lands for oil, gas and other explor- ation; approves application for "common -carrier" pipeline rights on OCS. Regulates mineral operations on OCS; makes regulations to prevent damage to natural resources. Protects wildlife values on federal lands. Authority for construction on OCS lands, navigable waters. Administers National Park areas (including Santa Barbara Island) m DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE U. S. Navy STATE AGENCIES CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME LOCAL AGENCIES * San Diego Port District Air Pollution Control District Regional Coastal Commission Claims jurisdiction over San Clemente, San Nicolas islands and 'operations areas" in the Bight. Regulations and enforcement of living resources in state waters. Controls activities in tideland and adjacent areas of San Diego Bay. Air quality on land and to 3-mile limit. Regulates development along coastal strip. *These agencies have overlapping jurisdiction which does not extend beyond the three-mile limit. Their effect over activities in the Sanctuary is indirect. f0 5. MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITY Management for the proposed sanctuary falls into two categories: overall management and responsibility for day-to-day operations. The goal of the overall management program is to provide the mechanisms for systematic data gathering, for analyzing data, for devising long-range plans and regulations to promote the Sanctuary's integrity, and for considering the boundaries of the Sanctuary (e.g., inclusion of Tanner/Cortes banks). The day-to-day operations will mainly involve monitoring of activities in the Sanctuary and enforcement of such regulations as may be necessary. It is advisable that both functions be filled by agencies that are in close proximity to the Southern California Bight. Inasmuch as the protection of habitat and species values for living resources is the major goal of the Sanctuary, responsibility for overall management is most logically vested in an agency such as the National Marine Fisheries Service with special campetence in biological and oceano- graphic processes, and especially in fisheries management. The National Marine Fisheries Service, under the Department of Commerce, is currently responsible for monitoring and managing fish and marine mammal stocks, two of the major wildlife resources of the sanctuary. The NMFS has prepared plans for managing several fish stocks (including anchovies) through the Pacific Fisheries Management Council, an organization composed of repre- sentatives from Washington, Oregon and California. The National Marine Fisheries Service maintains a major facility, the Southwest Fisheries Center, at La Jolla, California and is thus in imme- diate proximity to the proposed Sanctuary. The SWFC has a large staff of marine biologists and oceanographers and is uniquely equipped for this role. In addition, it has access to research vessels and works coopera- tively with Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The U. S. Geological Service also shares office facilities with the SWFC and can provide impor- tant information regarding offshore mining or oil exploration. The Naval Ocean Systems Center also has broad competence in many fields 9K I ' of oceanography, but little in the management of fisheries and wildlife stocks; it is also a federal agency. It has been suggested that it may be advantageous to have management res- ' ponsibilities vested in a local or regional agency that might be more directly responsive to the concerns of the public. Scripps Institution of Ocean- ography, University of California, has exceptional competence in ,biology and oceanography and is internationally known for the quality of its research; it is also in immediate proximity to the Sanctuary. However, SIO does not have the responsibilities already delegated to the NMFS and we see ' no reason to encumber SIO with those charges. We know of no governmental (e.g., Regional Coast Commission, CPO, County of San Diego Integrated Plan- ning Office, San Diego Port District) or private (e.g., Natural History Museum, Living Marine Resources, Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute) in the San Diego -Orange County area with the breadth of scientific competence in fisheries biology, ornithology, mammalogy and other disciplines that is required for the management of a biologically -oriented sanctuary. For such ' organizations to try to develop such capabilities would be extremely expen- sive and needlessly duplicative of professional capabilities that already ' exist in the NMFS. Furthermore, as the sanctuary boundaries are under federal jurisdiction, it seems most logical to have responsibility for the sanctuary under.a federal agency ' We recommend, therefore, that the general responsibility be placed in a Sanctuary Manager, appointed by the NJ FS and based at the Southwest Fisheries ' Center. Also, we recommend that an Executive Board be established with policy and decision -making authority to meet monthly to work cooperatively with the Sanctuary Manager in formulating overall plans for the area. The ' Board should include representatives of public and private organizations concerned with the Bight such as, U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Navy; Naval ' Ocean Systems Center; U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service; California Department of Fish and Game; Comprehensive Planning Organization; Regional Coastal Commission; San Diego State Center for Marine Studies; Counties of Orange and San Diego; Coastal Cities of both Counties; American Petroleum Institute; ' Sportfishing Association; Western Fishboat Owners Association; Living Marine 83 1 Resources; Iiubbs-Sea World Research Institute; Scripps Institution of Oceanography; and the Gillnetters Organization. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service conducts cooperative programs with the government of Mexico and would be ideally suited to explore the feasibility of extending the sanctuary to include the important Islas Los Coronados, The Executive Board would advise the manager on the availability of funding to support research in the Sanctuary. 6. DAILY MANAGEMENT "Once the Sanctuary is in operation, there must be some provision for day- to-day operation and for further research, so that changing conditions and priorities can be handled centrally.1196 We envision that the bulk of day-to-day management that will be required will concern surveillance and enforcement, These activities will insure that the regulations of the Sanctuary are recognized and they also will gather information of short-term events that demand immediate response. The coordination of long-term data gathering and research activities probably will not require daily attention. "Under existing legislative authority surveillance and enforcement functions must be carried out by a Federal agency."97 These functions, however, may be delegated to state or other agencies, as appropriate. The National Marine Fisheries Service is not equipped to undertake the sur- veillance and enforcement function of the Sanctuary. The United States Coast Guard has primary responsibility to enforce federal laws at sea, and for some functions of the Sanctuary (e.g., controlling fishing by foreign fleets within the 200-mile limit, detecting oil spills) is clearly the most appropriate enforcement agency. Yet, the Coast Guard has no expertise in surveying, identifying, or regulating activities pertaining to stock of living marine resources. By the same token there are no local or regional ' agencies with these capabilities. ' The California Department of Fish and Game is currently responsible for monitoring and enforcing wildlife -related activities in the Southern Cali- fornia Bight, particularly in the major fishing areas and in the vicinity of the islands where user activities are concentrated. To extend their role ' to include the remainder of the Sanctuary area seems appropriate, The de- partment also works in cooperation with the U. S, Navy to patrol and study ' islands under Navy jurisdiction and, under subcontract from the WS, is responsible for monitoring marine mammal populations. The Department is also charged with the responsibility for monitoring commercial fish catches and uses game wardens to check on sportfishing opera- ' tions. The Department currently maintains four boats (range 28-651) in the Southern California Bight area, which are stationed at San Diego and Long ' Beach. Additional surveillance could be requested, on a voluntary basis from sportfishing organizations, the U. S. Navy, the Coast Guard auxiliary, ' and commercial shipping, as well as interested citizen groups (e.g., American Cetacean Society, yacht clubs). ' 7. REGULATIONS ' Detailed plans for managing and regulating the Sanctuary area should be prepared by the Manager in consultation with the Advisory Board. Animal stocks in the Sanctuary are not uniformly distributed but tend to be concentrated near the coast, on and around islands, and over the larger banks. They may be wide-ranging at certain seasons, sedentary at others, as during breeding. Areas of high density will require greater surveillance, and regulations may need to differ from those of other areas of the Sanc- tuary. An oil spill near shore can be expected to have a greater potential adverse effect than one far at sea, as it might affect lagoons, beaches, etc. Obviously, regulations should be made with the values of adjacent areas in mind. M I We do not anticipate the need for regulations that prohibit non -consumptive uses, such as pleasure boating, diving, bird -watching, whale watching, etc. Also, the commercial fishing industry and the wastewater treatment ocean outfalls at Oceanside, San Elijo, Encina and Point Loma would be exempted ' from marine sanctuary regulations. Activities that may need regulation are those that could tax the area's ' ability to recover; these might include silting from seafloor mining opera- ' tions, energy exploration, etc. however, this does not mean that such ac- tivities would necessarily be prohibited. Because of the seasonal nature of most vertebrate populations, activities that are harmful at one season may be feasible at another. For most events, mitigating circumstances are possible. These should be determined by the Manager and Advisory Board in , consultation with provision for public input. 8. APPROXIMATE COSTS It is difficult to estimate the costs required to maintain a marine sanctuary in the Southern California Bight. however, because management of the Sanc- tuary would be an extension of programs currently operated by the National Marine Fisheries Service, and because the NMFS operates a major facility in San Diego, and because daily management responsibilities are minor, the costs might be far lower than in other areas. We anticipate that the office of Sanctuary Manager could be effectively operated for a budget of approximately $40,000/year, to include salary and benefits of a half-time manager, secretarial and duplicating costs, office rental, postage, overhead, travel to Washington, A. C. to consult with NOAA officials, telephone, etc. It would also allow for regular meetings of the Advisory Board (who would serve on a voluntary basis). Additional funds ($50,000) would be needed for contract services, particularly for increased surveillance and enforcement by the California Department of Fish and Game. Earlier we argued against the use of the EIS process in preserving the Sanc- tuary area. The argument can be extended here. If the EIS process were 86 t employed to determine the impact of a specific activity, or if a legal ob- jection was raised to the adequacy of an EIS, the costs involved for each ' action would probably far exceed the annual budget of the Sanctuary. Pre- sumably these costs would be borne by local taxpayers. In addition, the ' EIS/Appeal process is time-consuming and, consequently, frustrating. Public support for sound environmental legislation is already shaky, and public agencies must make every effort to see that all parties to an action are treated fairly and promptly. The latter seems impossible through current EIS procedures, and is therefore undesirable. L 1 U [J 1 [] M Chapter VII LOCAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES I Chapter VII LOCAL COMMENTS AND RESPONSES In April the Board of Directors for CPO accepted a draft nomination document for purposes of distribution. Subsequent to this authorization, the report was distributed to local commamities, public interest groups, the two counties, public and private agencies for their review and comment. The report was avail- able for review for approximately sixty days. CPO has received fourteen responses regarding this report. These letters are reproduced within this chapter. Also, there is a copy of the staff report ' which was prepared for the June 19th Board of Directors meeting which provides response to the comments made in the various letters. The resolution from the Board approving this document and its submission to the Office of Ocean Manage- ment is on page vii. II II II II II II 11 II �! 11 SAN DIEGO COAST REGIONAL COMMISSION MINUTES FRIDAY} JUNE 16, 1978 -• 9:00 A.M. CALIFORNIA STATE BUILDING 1350 FRONT STREET SAN DIEGOf CALIFORNIA 92101 _ COMMISSIONERS PRESENT Tim Cohelan, Chairman Roger Hedgecockt Vice -Chairman Jeffery Frautschyp State Commission Tom Cade Harriet Allen Tom Hamilton Richard Rypinski Will Hyde Gordon Williams Paul Graham COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Rita Luftig Representative EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Bruce H. Warren REGIONAL COORDINATOR Alan Friedman (Deputy[absent]) DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL Anthony Joseph Anthony Summers STAFF Chuck Damm Steve Helms Mary O'Connell CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 9:00 A.M. by Chairman Cohelan and the minutes of the Commission meeting of June 2t 1978 were approved. ATTORNEY GENERAL'S REPORT None STATE COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE'S REPORT C. Frautschy announced that the next meeting of the State Commission will be on June 20, 1978 and June 21, 1978 in Los Angeles. C.Frautschy stated the Commission will hear the Issue Identification and Work Program for the City of Oceanside as well as a number of appeals from the San Diego Region. C. Frautschy further stated that the Commission will be considering a revision of the interpretive Guidelines for the construction of sea walls. 92 `i I I 1 2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Mr. Warren reviewed the agenda and addendum material for the Commission and identified those projects for which letters and evedence in support and in opposition had been received. Mr. Warren announced changes in the agenda to wit: Final Vote items F69539 F6867 and F7075 have been delayed. Regular Calendar items F6996 and F7118 have been delayed. Mr. Warren advised the Commissionatheydonot need Planning take any further the action with regard to supportingComprehensive nomination of Marine Sanctuarys. Mr. Warren stated a resolution adopted by the Commission several months ago set forth the Commission's support of the designation of Marine Sanctuarys by C.P.O. Mr. Warren advised the Commission that he had suspended the Coastal to the State for two projects, F6917, and F6966a which also have been appealed Commission. Mr. Warren stated he suspended the permits because split notification prior to the public hearing and a possible with a Coastal Permit. Julie and Joel Brownell certified ibr the record their opposition to projects F6917 and F6966. ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS F?119 2nd story addition to managers unit of existing apartment —motel. Addition would provide relocation of bedroom, and add a sewing room and bath. SPECIAL DODITICN: That prior to the issuance of a Coastal Development Permit the applicant agrees to re —designate a painted walkway —area as parking., Resulting total of 6 spaces -are to be retained for parking. Site: 722 Diamond, north side between Mission and Ocean Blvds., Pacific Beach, San Diego (APR 415--522-09). Construction Cost: $23,000.00 Applicant: Wallace Henshaw I C)r R. E. THOMAS COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING $III NORTH SYCAMORE STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 02701 CAE TELEPHONE $34-2345 AREA CODE 714 :OUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE June 9, 1978 r O Lrn Paul Graham, Chairman Comprehensive Planning Organization Suite 524 .,n S�K.°'c Security Pacific Plaza _ ^' 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Dear Mr. Graham: On May 309 1978 our Board of Supervisors adopted a position supporting the Comprehensive Planning Organization's (CPO) proposal, for a Marine Sanctuary. We support this proposal with two modifications. One is that the Advisory Board be changed to an Executive Board with policy and decision making authorities and powers. The second is that the document be amended to include representatives from an Orange County coastal city and the County of Orange. I'M enclosing a copy of the Transmittal letter which the Board approved for your information. If you wish any additional information please contact K. Paul Raver at 834-3831. AM:mle Attachments Sincerely, R. omas 005 County Administrative Officer 94 ll •� w '.ySs;�i�y� r.•� TRANSMITTAL J �� 6CARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ORANGE CONTACT ant r oN OM: COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE K. PAUL RAVER 3831 NAM PHONE�E MF,ETtNO DATE SUBJECT SUPV, DIST. , MAY 30, 1978 ESTABLISHMENT OF A MARINE SANCTUARY SUMMARY OF REQUEST (Description for spends) The San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) will be filing Nomination Documents . for the establishment of a Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Orange County. CPO is asking .` for your Honorable Board's.concurrence'in the filing of these Documents, cop";es attached. AUV I CiONAL DATA- It should be noted that this document (page 11) proposes to exclude oil and gas develop- ment in Zone A which extends primarily along the San Diego coastline three to twenty miles offshore from Dana point south to the Mexican Border. Given this nations energy problems;', this item is being highlighted -'As. a Board policy item. PREV;OUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTIONS ON THIS SPECIFIC.ITENI: , Your Honorable Board supported the establishment of a Marine Sanctuary on December 6, 1977 - Resolution 77-1893. FUNDING SOURCES) CURRENT YEAR COST ANNUAL COST • BUDGETED? N/A 'N/A N/A ❑ YES ❑ NO WILL PROPOSAL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL? CONSISTENT WITH BOARD POLICYr 01110 IF YES, STATE NUMBER _ PERMANENT __ LIMITED TERM ! ji1] YES ❑ NEW ITEMOR EXCEPTION RECOMMENDED ACTION ' 1. Reaffirm your support for the establishment of a Marine Sanctuary. 2. Support the recommendations of the CPO with the following exceptions: a) That the Advisory Board be changed to an Executive Board with policy and decision making authorities and powers. b) That the document be amended.to include representatives from an Orange County coastal city and the County of Orange. ONCURRENCES (It apppceale) I cartify that this agenda inn t• lu 14o: i3G71GB 01; 7 7 i 1 cia OUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE May 23, 1978 R. E. THOMAS COUNTY ADMINI37RATIVE OFFICER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING MS NORTH SYCA4ORE STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 72701 TELEPHONE' S744345 AREA CODE 714 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Santa Ana, California 92701 SUBJECT: Nomination of Certain Offshore Waters of San Diego, Orange and Los Angeles',Counties As A Marine Sanctuary Gentlemen: On December 61, 1977 your Honorable Board supported by resolution the submission of nomination documents by the San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) for the establishment of a Marine Sanctuary off the coast of Orange County. Attached for your review and comment is a copy of the nomination document. The Comprehensive Planning Organization is recommending the following: 1) That a Marine Sanctuary be established extending from Point Vicente in the north, southward to the Mexican Border, and from the three mile state jurisdiction westward to San Nichols Island for an area of approximately 71400 square miles. 2) That the National Marine Fisheries Service be responsible for overall management of the Sanctuary. 3) That the California Department of Fish and Game have the responsibility for daily surveillance and enforcement operations. 4) That an Advisory Board be established to help draft policies for sanctuary management. 5) The document does not specify the membership of the Advisory Board. However, it does provide the following list of potential members: a) City of.San Diego, b) County of San Diego, c) Comprehensive Planning Organization, d) California Department of Fish and Game, e) U.S. Coast Guard, f) American Petroleum Institute, g) Naval Ocean Systems Center, h) Sportfishing Association, i) commercial I Honorable Board of Supervisors May 23, 1978 Page 2 fishing interests, j) Living Marine Resources, k) Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute, 1) Scripps Institution of Oceanography, m) Air Pollution Control District, n) Regional Coastal Commission, o) San Diego State University Center for Marine Studies, p) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, q) U.S. Navy, r) U.S. National Park Service and s) the University of Southern California. - You will note that there is along list of potential members from which to' choose and that neither Orange County nor an Orange County City are included• it the list. Your Honorable Board may wish to recommend that the County and an Orange County City be included in the document for consideration. Additionally, your Board may wish to recommend the number of persons to be on the Advisory Board and specify its makeup. For example, the Adivsory Board, which more appropriately should be an Executive Board having the responsibility for establishing policy, could consist of the following: 1 - City of San Diego 1 - County of San Diego 1 - An Orange County Coastal City 1 - County of Orange j - California Fish and Game 1•- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service i - Western Oil and Gas Association 1 - American Petroleum Institute 1 - Commercial Fishing Interest 1 - Scripps Institution of Oceanography 1 - Hubbs/Sea World Research Institute 11 - Member Executive Board Recommendations: 1. Reaffirm your support for the establishment of a Marine Sanctuary. 2. Support the recommendations of the CPO with the following exceptions: a) That the Advisory Board be changed to an Executive Board with policy and decision making authorities and powers. b) That the document be amended to include representatives from an Orange County coastal city and the County of Orange. PResectfully uitted, r R. .homas County Administrative Officer KPR:mm Attachments 97 CITY O' NEWPORT BEACH 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER (714) 640-2151 June 9, 1978 Richard J. Huff, Executive Director Comprehensive Planning Organization Security Pacific Plaza - Suite 524 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 Subject: Comments on the Draft Narine Sanctuary Nomination Document Dear Mr. Huff: The subject report has been reviewed by our staff, and the fotiowing comments are forwarded for your consideration in preparing the final report: 1. If the offshore areas adjacent to Orange County are to be included in the sanctuary, then the Advisory Board should include representation of jurisdictions, agencies, and private interests in Orange County. 2. The issue of jurisdiction should be resolved where the nomination suggests a State agency enforce regulations in Federal territory. It is not clear from the report just how this will be handled. 3. The document proposes the sanctuary program as an alternative to monitoring the EIS process for OCS lease sales, and tends to discredit the Federal environmental process. We feel this is inappropri- ate in a document of this nature and should be re- vised or deleted. Further, we are of the opinion that full participation in the EIS process would be as effective, if not more effective, in assuring that mitigation measures are incorporated into the lease agreements. Therefore the sanctuary program may duplicate efforts in this regard. 4. As pointed out in the report, there are several existing conservation programs in the designated City Hall • 3300 Newport Boulevard, Newport Beach, California 92663 N. Richard J. Huff, Executive Director comprehensive Planning Organization June 9, 1978 Page 2. area which could be consolidated and managed as part of this proposal. The management plan for the proposed sanctuary should include this objective and be stated in the nomination document. 5. There is a lack of information regarding areas ' adjacent to Orange County. Research and data gathering should be extended to the northern parts of the proposed sanctuary. The data should be more specific on existing "activities' in the ' offshore area, including oil drilling and exploration, military activities, existing preserves, etc. These comments are forwarded for your information in preparing your final report and recommendations. If we can be of further assistance, we will be glad to cooperate. Sincerely, CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH OBERT L. W NN City Manager RLW/kk 1 I 99 ' I COOPERATIVE EXTENSION' UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA ALIFORNIA c7KARINE cAD'V ISORY PROGRAMS et•ea% University of California Sea Grant College rant Telephone: (1'14) 234-4033 Messages: (714) $65-5111 June 12, 1978 Art Letter Comprehensive planning Organization 1200 Third Avenue son Olego, CA 92101 Dear Art: 1 have been going over the "Nomination of Certain Offshore Maters,..As a Marine Sanctuary" in fits and starts since I received it in early May. and It occurs to me that I'd damn well better get any comments back to you if they're to be of any use, So here are the More important items that may deserve mention: 1. The section entitled "Habitat and Species Areas" is difficult to follow. A different outline, or perhaps a clear indication of what each category in the present outline is Intended to be about, would make for a more powerful document; one should know what main points are being discussed in each subsection. 2. p, 25, last paragraph, This is somewhat out-of-date. Actually, the major use of hake is as human food. The foreign fishing fleets harvested over 100#000 metric tons each year from 1973-1976. The hake population declined under such heavy fishing Intensity. but with restricted foreign fishing, owing to our 200 mile fishery Management Zone, and favorable reproductive conditions, the hake catch is expected to be sustainable at about 1500000 metric tons annually, The domestic demand for frozen fish by fast-food fran- chises Is currently about 610000 metric tons, and it is hoped that an expanded domestic fishery on hake will supply much of that demand. The high costs of fishing no longer permit much hake to be processed as animal food, except as a by-product of a human -food fishery. The major fishery is expected to take place from Morro Day northward, 3. in view of the great suspicion and distrust voiced b y I 100 Th• tlniru•ttr of Celllonlera G•preUv, I:el•n •1•e ln4re-• eF• evelteY• b all. -IIA•ul nerd to nee, Celst, or n•Usnel .r141h. University of California and the United States Department of Agriculture cooperating I lI r r r Art Letter June 12, 1978 Page 2 4. It seems that the excuse for not including Tanner/Cortez Banks (too remote, p. 75, last sentence in paragraph M3) is a 1-ittie weak since the boundary line of Zone C (p. 12) passes only ten miles fron the top of Tanner sank. Art, 1 enclose a copy of an item from Ocean Science News that should prove of interest If you have not already seen it. Otherwise, 1 have Tittle to add, except that 1 am ready to help however I can. 1 AOF:bds Enclosure r r r r r 101 Hastily yours,; j Arthur 0. Flechsig Marine Advisor 1140 North Harbor Drive Room i1 San Diego, CA 92101 Nautilus �Cn�N (���e�Ce 5 National Press Building G A' .J Washington. DG-2OOO4 News "�8 Oti b soQ'itil ' 1: (lii' p Editor. John L Bottum FIRST Nt w�Leu cry ✓��+•-•' •- bent Director Sam Melchor ;in describing lthe mari a sanct arlies pby rogram Testifying last week before Sen. Earnest F. Ilullings (U-SC) on reauthorization Of Title III of the Marine Protection, Research At Sanctuaries Act, Bloicher told the senator what he believed 11011ings wanted to hear: " m trint s uu lu a ieti wi21 inovit.11A be nwlliple-use areas where recreational activi- ties, scientific research, commercial fishing, vessel traffic, hard mining, and oil and gas development may ail be allowed in varying degrees and under appropriate restrictions to assure the preservation of the distinctive characteristics that initially prompted the designa- aotion of the sanctuary." in a statement reflecting the opposition the Nntl. Oceanic & Atn^o- spheric Administration has found to potential sanctuaries in the Georges Dank and Florida .Keys, Dleicher also said marine sanctuaries are not "pristine arena where human uses are severely restricted or excluded. This inference has often been drawn from the term 'sanctuary,' although the law itself contains no such limitations." , "But the law says "sancta WY." and if Congress had not mount "s:mctuary." Hollings retorted, the legislation would have called for "marine areas" or some other term. The senator found particularly perplexing the question of how to have a marine sanctuary and oil and gas development. "You have oil and gas and you're way away from what we intended," he told Matcher; "...we aged the word `sanctuary` and that's what we intended, not multiple use." Dloicher ndntitled he wns "not sure there are any resources compatible with oil and gas" development, but that in certain areas -- such as offshore Alaska -- a sanctuary might be a means to control such activities. The speed with which NOAA has resnonded to the marine sanctuary urcimum displeased h another witness, Kenneth Kamlet of the Natl. Wildlife Federation, "Two sanctuaries (the, Y, U.S. S. Monitor and Key L ago coral reef, both designated in 19751 in five years is handy anything to boast about," hamlet said. Nor was he satisfied with Watcher's plans to desig- nale_tive sanctuaries in 1078 and "dispose" of about So other of the more than 170 nomina- tions received. NOAA's failure to seek any funds under the program before the fiscal year 1070 budget was submitted to Congress this year also was criticised by Kamlet, as was the "paltry half -million dollars in funding requested for FY70." Asked by Iollings what his re- -action w.•rs-to the House authorizations of $2 million in FY70 and $3 million in FY80, Dleicher said he thought that "by 1070 we will be in a position to spend $2 million" on the sanctuaries program. As for FY800 the administration has matte no commitment and "we want to use our FY78 experiehce to guide us"•in developing the FY80 budget, Dlelcher said. An aniandniont to Title Ili designed to assure protection of fishing interests in or near marine sanctuaries has been approved by the fisheries subcomtnitteo of the House Merchant Marina & FIsheries Committee (see the companion Nautilus publication, Marine_ fish Man- :"_ement, Feb), but the language is to be modified, according to a source in step. Gerry Studds' (D-NIA) office, whon the full committee considers the authorization measure. NOAA ob- -Jected to the lariguage, of the Studds amendment on several counts, including one giving the governors the right to veto certain activities NOAA would allow In sanctuaries. 111cicher is Just back from Alasir- where he met with locnl and state officials in an ef- fort to determine possible sanctuary sites. Two may be picked there and two more in Cali- fornia. Public workshops are scheduled in April in California and in 11iny in Alaska, OSN is told. The status of Palau as a possible sanctuary has apparently been put on tite back burner for the momont. A1.4o of Interest is NOAA's rejection of n request from some promi- nent persons in Florida to sink barges at the edge of Lila sand in the troy Largo area to pro- kido artificial reefs for sports fishing. dG�s?� � �es�Mef ve a✓ �Se¢ J`4� . �w I I I I I 1 i I SDB132(1158)(4-031638E165)PD 06/14/78 1157 ICS IPMRNCZ CSP 2138331391 TDRN SAN PEDRO CA 44 06-14 1159A EST PMS RICHARD J HUFF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION. DLR ' 1200 3RD AVE SUITE 524 SAN DIEGO CA 92101 THE UNDERSIGNED ORGANIZATIONS ARE OPPOSED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A MARINE SANCTUARY AS PROPOSED• .BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EXEMPT COMMERCIAL FISHING. JOHN J ROYAL FISHERMAN 'AND ALLIED WORKERS UNION LOCAL 33, ILWU OF SAN PEDRO CA ANTHONY PIASANO FISHERMAN'S COOPERATIVE ASSN OF SAN PEDRO CA AND TERRY HOINSKY FISHERMAN'S UNION OF AMERICA SIU FL -CIO NNNN e 0 'e c m 1 i 1 103 I I I STATEMENT OF CO\k;RESS%VN LIONEL VAN DEERLIN TO PUBLIC WORKSHOP ON NATIONAL MARINE SANCTUARIES PROGRAM BAHIA HOTEL - San Diego - April 18, 1978 I appreciate this opportunity to go on record in support of the proposal by the San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization to designate a Marine Sanctuary off the Southern California coast. Our 65 miles of sandy beaches in San Diego County are a priceless resource that must be protected against avoidable future damages. The beaches have had a rough winter, and in many areas been largely washed away by the recurring storms. Perhaps there is not much we can do to avert the consequences of wind and rain and other natural phenomena; we certainly should be able to prevent the heedless depredations of man. We have been fortunate in San Diego not to have suffered a catastrophe such as the oil spill that blackened the beaches of Santa Barbara in January, 1969. The consequences would be even more hideous if it happened here. Scientists such as Dr. William Evans of the Hubbs-Sea World Research Institute have made graphically clear that this is no ordinary seabed we are talking about here -- with the usual shelf -and -slope configurations. Rather, the area immediately off our shores is a literal extension of our land, a contintental borderland with its own mountains and valleys capable of sustaining an astonishing variety of life. The proposed sanctuary is part of a larger area known as the "Southern California Bight" which because of its topgraphical distinctions is unique in the United States and one of only a handful of such areas in the world. The Bight supports a remarkable food chain, no link of which can be broken without disruptive affects all up and down the line. We tamper with the chain at our peril. (more) 104 2-2-2-2-2-2 for Besides being a habitats much of our food stocks, the waters off our coast support large-scale commercial and sports fishing, commercial shipping and on -shore industrial development. our sparkling oceans also provide the backdrop for some of the most spectacular scenery in the world, a coastal strip that is a prime recreational attraction for millions of Southern Californians and visitors. I am not against development taking place in the offshore waters, so long as it is compatible with the values I have just enumerated. I believe the sanctuary prnpaaal as ,irveloped by the Cor.�+rehenHlve Plannlnt, our need for new energy sources. The sanctuary designation would permit orderly management of precious resources while allowing carefully controlled development. Offshore exploration for oil and gas would not necessarily be precluded -- but drilling for and transportation of these fuels would certainly be carefully regulated. I understand also there would be little if any adverse impact on our domestic fishing industry from establishment of a sanctuary in these waters. My own support would ultimately be conditioned on fair treatment for the fishermen, who were operating in these waters long before the oil companies and whose livelihood depends on continuing access to the harvest of the seas. I don't really envision a problem here, however; overall, this proposed sanctuary seems fully consistent with the intent of Congress in enacting the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. # 11 # # 105 No. 10 THURSDAY* JUNE 10 1978 RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE MARINE SANCTUARY NOMINATION FOR A COASTAL AREA OFFSHORE OF SAN DIEGO AND ORANGE COUNTIES on Motion of Supervisor Hedgecock, seconded by Supervisor Hamilton, the following resolution 18 adopted: (1) WHEREAS, Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 provides for the designation of Marine Sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving coastal and ocean waters for their conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic values; and (2) WHEREAS, marine sanctuary designation provides a positive environmental management system; and (3) WHEREAS, the Marine Sanctuary Nomination Document describes a proposed sanctuary area offshore of San Diego and Orange Counties (shown on the attached map) which contains valuable marine ecosystems deserving protection from such activities as offshore oil and gas production; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego supports the submission of the Marine Sanctuary Nomination of the designated area to the U. S. Department of Commerce.. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Diego, State of California, this lot day of June, 1978 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Hamilton, Moore, Hedgecock and Taylor NOES: Supervisors None ABSENT: Supervisors Bates STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of San Diego ) i, PORTER D. CREMANS, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Liego,� State of California, hereby certify that I have compared the foregoing copy with ti.% original resolution passed and adopted by said Board, at a regular meetir.,, thereof, at the time and by the vote therein stated, which original resolution is no„ on file in my office; that the same contains a full, true and correct transcript therefrom and of the whole thereof. Witness my hand and the seal of said Board of Supervisors, this 1st day of June, 1978 106 PORTER D. CREMANS Clerk of th. Board of SuWyisorr By Lorene Modte eone Deputy I I OP.ION AGENDA: (Continued) ClY0,11TTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE: I RESOLUTIONS: k 30/Request SO onti uan �es L^r imed to /78 at CItY �ger's request. i-1,2,3,516,7,8,M nt-4 to 203 I r-, Monday, June 12, 1:78 ( Gen'l - Land, Miscl. ) Approving the use of certain CITY -OWNED PARCELS as recommended in the memorandum to the Transportation and Land Use Committee from the Deputy City 'Mcnag_ , ich memorandum is dated May 9, 1978, with regard to PARCEL 7/10/78 NOS. IA THROUGH 14A with the following exceptions: Approving the TRANSFER of MANAGEMENT RESPONSI- BILITY for PARCEL NOS. 7A AND I IA from the Property Deportment to the Housing Authority; referring the matter of the use of PARCEL NO. 14A to the Navajo Community Planning group for report back to the Transportation and Land Use Committee; deferring the use of PARCEL NO. 8A pending a recommendation from the Transportation and Land Use Committee. (Initiated by the TRANSPORTATION AND LAND USE COM- MITTEE on 5-10-78. Recommendation to ADOPT. Districts 3, 4, S, 7 and 8 voted yea.) NOTE: See City Manager's memo of May 92 1978. ,%V,iITTEE ON PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RECREATION:' (Gen' 1 -Planning, Coord in S.D. Count, CFO sr 100 lol ff testi- Ir 221102 iams in 4:17 D cuss ion O onnor out 4.30 timony taken lliams out 5:00 1 No vote yet i' at the City's sition is to seek amendment to the document to exempt ;mm,.ercial fishing. scussion O'Connor in 5:02 passed to on 1) •eas-1,2,3,,7,8,1.1 6 vs-5 sent-4 Matter of a CITY POSITION on the Comprehensive Planning Organization document entitled "NOMINATION OF CERTAIN IN OFFSHORE WATERS OF SAN DIEGO & ORANGE COUNTIES AS A MARINE SANCTUARY." (Reviewed by the PUBLIC FACILITIES AND RECREATION for reso. COMMITTEE on 5-25-78. The Committee voted to refer the matter to the City Council without recommendation. Districts I, 5, 6 and 7 voted yea. District 3 excused Gbsence.) O'Connor out'5:03 (tion that the City be he its 3) No vote Adont the position in favor of the nomination of certain waters of as amended Offshore San Diego and Orange Counties as a marine sanctua- ry. public testimony (4) passed -17- provide in City's stated posi- mitted to continue wit waiver from secondary sewer treatment and not be pre- cluded by designation of the marine sanctuary within the bay. Yeas-1,3,6,7,8,D1 Nays-5 i:bscnt-2, 4 I4illlams in 5:05 public testimony (contd. on next page) 151 (contd) .5) No vote yet Adopt a resolution approving in concept the nomination as amended. O'Connor in 5:15 6) Passed Vote on 5) Yeas-1,203,4,7,8,M Nays-5,6 continue the balance of the docket items to 6-13-78 (103,104,112,113,118,200,201, 202,s-501,s-502,s-503,5-504,s-505,8-5060 5-507,S-508,5-509) Go to UC ml IM IEGO CONVENTION AND VISITORS BUREAU I June 8, 1978 Mr. Richard Huff Executive Director Comprehensive Planning Organization 1200 Third Avenue S'an Diego, CA -92101 Dear Mr. Huff: The San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau has reviewed the draft document from the Comprehensive Planning Organi- zation (CPO) entitled Nomination of Certain Offshore of S es We endorse CPO's effort to protect the esthetic, environ- mental and economic resources off the Southern California coastline and we support San Diego's nomination. DLW:vat Sincerely, Oat Dal L. Watkins Executive Director 109 n Disgo Choxnbor of Conwnero*233 A ttreet,tnn Diego, California 92101 ToWphone 714-232.0124 c June 9, 1978 Mr. Richard J. Huff Executive Director ss c� t>rq x n Comprehensive Planning Organization C4 z " ::4 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 524 e > x T m PO` Z t Q San Diego, California 92101 Dear Mr. Huff: .. i en Your letter of April 28 asked for the San Diego Chamber of Commerce comments on the CPO draft report on the Nomination of a Marine Sanctuary Area Offshore of San Diego and Orange Countieg_. The Chamber'a Energy Task Force has not followed the development of this report closely, although they havnd did thePnresentationpat themTaskrstaff in the Force meeting Mayt19aby MessrsVethe Letterpleasure of had some and Koerper. The San Diego Chamber of Commerce has some very basic concerns about the draft report and they are listed below: ,11. It appears that the primary purpose of this report is to prohibit the exploration and production of oil and gas in the offshore waters of San Diego and Orange Counties. r If this is the case, then this issue should be addressed directly rather than indirectly through a marine sanctuary study. There are proper reasons for protecting the environment, but this action is contrary to the national and future local needs for energy. 2. The area proposed is much too large to be justified on environmental or ecological grounds and probably too large to manage effectively. When compared with the existing marine sanctuaries off the east coast, this proposal includes far too large an area. 3. A report of this sort should be based more on an evalu- ation of pros and cons, on an objective basis as quantitative . as possible, firmly put, but with a flexibility to adjust to new conditions as they may develop. We agree that, as pointed out in the summary on page 88, decision on establishment of sanctuaries should be made t on their own merits. On the other hand all decisions are 110 SERVING SAN DIEGO COUNTY .1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 II Mr. Richard J. Huff June 9, 1978 2 made on the basis of a balancing of pros and cons and a quantitative basis for establishing justification for the location and extent of the sanctuaries is needed to permit this balancing for potential development activities, including oil and gas. Thus, it is necessary to know the limits of the objectives of the proposal, as well as the quantitative definitions of pejorative words sometimes used. If, for instance, an objective were to be to prevent the death of any member of any species, it would obviously be visionary and injurious to the common welfare. The other extreme, of course, is to provide no specific protection at all. Since neither extreme is reasonable, a quantitative identification of the various levels of protection is needed. These can then be balanced against the advantages of other forms of development, either natural or manmade. 4. There is no summary at the beginning of the report. And the introduction (especially the quotation from the President's message, and the succeeding material) raises questions of the type described above that should be referred to in a summary. Perhaps the summary in Chapter VI, in a broader form, could appear as, say, Chapter I. An important feature of this summary is, of course, that "multiple uses are encouraged," and this might be given some back-up in the text. 5. Further, especially with respect to Section VI-3, potential problems identified are not given balance; positions stated, often by implication, are not substantiated. I hope these comments are useful in improving the proposal. Please call me if you have any questions. You very truly Lee Grissom Executive Vice President LG:MSh cc: Frank T. Barr 1 ill P_ X 4. 3000 Bridgeway Building, Room 102, P.O.B. 1626, Sausalito, CA 94965, (415) 332.5080 30 May 1978 Mr. Richard J. Huff, Executive Director Comprehensive Planning Organization of the v r San Diego Region Suite 524, Security Pacific Plaza ° T m C! WR 1200 Third Avenue Ak w dl' San Diego, CA 92101 w s-`` A RE: Nomination of Certain Offshore Waters of San Diego & Orange Counties i as a Marine Sanctuary '^ r A Dear Mr. Huff: The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations represents 14 California commercial fishermen's marketing associations. We do not represent any association in the San Diego area, however, many of our members live in the San Diego area and other members of our association will fish during the year offshore of San Diego and Orange Counties, as well as off the Channel Islands. Our organization also has a close working relationship with at least one San Diego based fisherman's organization. Recently we had the opportunity to review the Comprehensive Planning Organization's draft "Nomination of Certain Offshore Waters of San Diego & Orange Counties as a Marine Sanctuary". We have a number of concerns with that draft which we would like to share with you. At the outset however, it should be stated that we share CPO's concern for the marine environment. The economic well-being of the commercial fisheries is dependent upon a healthy marine environment. Our organization has supported legislation protecing the marine environment including SB 1277 (Smith), the California Coastal Act of 1976 and AB 2133 (Keene), the California Wetlands Preservation Act. We are currently among the supporters of Assemblyman Hart's legislation (AB 3220), which would impose strict.liability for damages as a result of spills of oil or hazardous substances. First, we do not believe the draft to be a balanced presentation. The deletion of certain information on the species CPO seeks to protect in the proposed sanctuary could be misleading to the reader. Squid, for example, (p. 23) is more than simply a forage fish or bait fish, but is increasingly in demand as a human food fish (calamari). Presently the Pacific Fishery Management Council (one of eight regional councils created by the Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976) is preparing a Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for squid. Hake, or Pacific Whiting, (p. 25) is primarily utilized as a food fish for human consumption although most of the catch is presently taken by foreign fishing vessels (Soviet and Polish). It is thus more than merely a forage fish or merely valuable for meal. Domestic production of hake is expected to increase and gradually replace the foreign take of the species as American catcher vessels and processing plants are built. Hake is likely to be one 112 Mr. Richard J. Huff Page 2 30 May 1978 of the major species of fish within the price range of middle and lower income consumers. Currently, the National Marine Fisheries Service has a Preliminary Management Plan (PMP) for hake. The gray whale population (p. 31) is not presently threatened. While our organization does not advocate such a measure, it is interesting to note that Dr. Donald Bevan of the University of Washington's College of Fisheries and Chairman of the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Scientific and Statistical Commitee has stated that, "populations of gray whales are at a commercially exploitable level." The brown pelican (p. 43) is on both the federal and state endangered species lists, however, its population is increasing as a result of the ban on DDT. Specific provisions have also been made for the brown pelican in the Pacific Fishery Management Council's Anchovy FMP. Kelp (pp. 63-64) is important not only for the habitat of sport fishes, but also commercial species (e.g., white sea bass). Although there is little that can be done to protect the size of kelp beds from ocean currents whether or not a marine sanctuary is established, the control of kelp cutting can be effected through the Department of Fish & Game without the creation of a marine sanctuary. The values of commercial species (p. 55),briefly mentioned,fails to list the value of each of the species. further, it fails to state whether those values reflect only coastal species landed in Orange and San Diego Counties, or does this include species taken within the proposed sanctuary that would be landed in ports, such as San Pedro or Santa Barbara? We recognize that CPO's nominating document is currently only a draft and that additional information can be included regarding the various species to more adequately reflect the state of these stocks. However, we are con- cerned that the only state agency involved with CPO is the State Department of Transportation whose mission it is, from our understanding, the movement of people, not the management of natural resources or environmental protection. We are concerned also that three of the four consultants used were from Sea World. While there input was no doubt valuable, consultants from Fish & Game, National Marine Fisheries Service and Scripps would certainly aid in providing a balanced presentation. Second, we are concerned with the size of the marine sanctuary CPO has proposed. The two marine sanctuaries currently in existence are smaller; one protecting the resting site of the U.S.S. Monitor the other protecting the Key Largo Coral Reef. The ten sites nominated by state agencies for California, three of which are being given serious consideration, are all much smaller in size. We wonder if Congress had intended the marine sanctuary legislation to be used to establish large chunks of coast line as sanctuaries. The area designated for nomination in the draft of the Comprehensive Planning Organization of the San Diego Region includes not only the Orange County coast- line, but the fishing areas utilized by commercial and recreational fishermen from such ports as San Pedro and Santa Barbara. To what extent have Orange County officials been consulted; to what extent have fishermen as far north as Santa Barbara been consulted? I 113 1 Mr. Richard J. Huff Page 3 30 May 1978 Our third concern is with the uniqueness of the area. While we would certainly agree that the southern California bight is unique, we question if not the whole California coastline is unique and not worthy of protection and management. But, is a marine sanctuary intended to preserve a coastline we Californians happen to treasure, that we think unique, or is the legisla- tion intended for something more specific (e.g., a civil war ironclad, a coral reef)? Fourth, we question whether a marine sanctuary is necessary for system- atic (p. 4) and coordinated management of the proposed area. Certainly systematic management, considering predator -prey relationships and the physical and environmental conditions is needed. To the extent that system- actic management is lacking the cause we believe is due to the lack of direction and monies from both Congress and the Legislature to the concerned agencies to develop a systematic management approach. The creation of a marine sanctuary would do nothing to aid in the implementation of a system- atic approach since the monies and direction would have to come either from the federal or state governments and would be directed to those same agencies that have management responsibilities. To the extent coordinated management of marine plants and animals is lacking in the proposed sanctuary it would not be difficult for the Director of the California Department of Fish 6 Game and the Southwest Regional Director of National Marine Fisheries Service to coordinate activities. While we would agree with Congressman Robert Leggett, Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Fisheries 6 Wildlife Conservation, in his assessment of the Pacific Fisheries Management Council that the Council is myopic, we are optomistic that, with both increases and changes in membership, the Council could act to coordinate state and federal fisheries efforts. As far as coordination of the activities of the other state and federal agencies is concerned, we are not convinced that a marine sanctuary with a $100,000, or greater, budget is necessary to this coordination, nor would it necessarily be successful in implementing coordination. It appears to us that where coordination is lacking, or where jurisdictional disputes arise, that the Congress or the Administration can lend direction without creating another level of government by establishing a sanctuary. It appears to us that the number of state and federal taws (e.g., California Coastal Act, California Wetlands Preservation Act, the Fishery Conservation 6 Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish b Wildlife Coordination Act, the Ocean Dumping Act) already in effect should be sufficient to provide those pro- tections for this area CPO seeks a sanctuary for. Certainly Assemblyman Hart's legislation, if successful, will provide additional protections as would the amendment Congressman Leon Panetta is seeking for an OCS bill which would allow Congress to set aside certain areas of ocean bottom that the Bureau of Land -Management may not tease for OCS development. Also, the county and local governments can file negative nominations with the BLM on proposed lease sate sites for OCS development. Our last concern is not with the contents of itself. The CPO draft nominating document is the document we have yet seen for a marine sanctuary. federal funds from the U.S. Department of Housing the draft, but of the draft most expensive nominating Our question is, why were and Urban Development, the 114 I Mr. Richard J. Huff Page 4 30 May 1978 U.S. Department of Transportation, Urban Mass Transit Administration and the Federal Highway Administration used to finance a nominating report for a marine sanctuary? Again, we should state that no one is more concerned with a healthy marine environment and the wise management of our resources than commercial fishermen. But, we are not convinced that the establishment of a marine ' sanctuary for certain offshore waters of San Diego and Orange Counties will guarantee the protection and management of the resources in this area. We fail to see, that where protection and management can be implemented, that it could not be done under existing laws and we fail to see that the ' creation of a marine sanctuary will not merely mean another layer of bureaucracy. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have and we look forward to your response. t"\ L II Grader al Manager ZG/d j r cc: Senator James Mills Senator Omer Rains Assemblyman Larry Kapiloff Assemblyman Gary Hart Terry Leitzell, Assistant Administrator of NOAA for Fisheries Samuel Bleicher, Director, Office of Ocean Management, NOAA E.C. Fullerton, Director, California Department of Fish & Game Gerald Howard, Southwest Regional Director, NMFS Lucy Sloan, Executive Director, National Federation of Fishermen Jack Bowland, General Manager, Western Fishboat Owners Association Western Fishboat Owners Association Auxiliary Commercial Fishermen of Santa Barbara 115 T r LION of { I 3000 Bridgeway Building, Room 102, P.0.8.1626, Sausalito, CA 94965, (415) 332-SM POSITION ON MARINE SANCTUARIES The Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations represents 14 California commercial fishermen's marketing associations. The existence of commercial fishing is dependent upon a healthy marine environment, however, our members are concerned that both a need for a marine sanctuary(s) be clearly established and there be guarantees that it protects that which it is established to protect. We are interested in neither the creation of another bureaucracy nor the promulgation of additional federal employment. Our position is: 1. That no Marine Sanctuaries be established off the California coast until, and if, NR 10661 (Studds) is passed and signed into law. 2. That no Marine Sanctuaries be established off the California coast until there is presented evidence of eminent danger to the marine ecosystem as a result of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) development. 3. That no Marine Sanctuaries be established that would regulate in any manner commercial fishing; since commercial fishing is regulated off the California coast by the California Department of Fish & Game, and out to 200 miles by the Pacific Fishery Management Council --created by the Fishery Conservation & Management Act of 1976 (PL 94-265). Further, the need for a marine sanctuary(s) off the California coast must be explained in the context of these other federal laws: The Marine Mammal Protection Act; the Endangered Species Act; the National Environ- mental Protection Act; the Ocean Dumping Act; the Outer Continental Shelf Act; the Fisheries & Wildlife Coordination Act; and the Fishery Conservation and Management Act. 116 ' SIERRA CLUB SAN DIEGO CHAPTER S'��'"' HOUSE OF HOSPITALITY ' IEHRA "A CL UB G " ' 1549 EL PRADO, BALBOA PARK FOUNDED IN 1892 SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101 May 31.9 1978 Richard Huff Executive Director Comprehensive Planning Organization ' . Suite 52h Security Pacific Plaza �. -•?ate ' 1200 Third Avenue San Diego 92101 4+ a►—rnr+l Dear Mr Huff ti The San Diego Chapter of the Sierra Club has reviewed the CPO report "Nominion of Certain Offshore Waters of San Diego and Orange Counties as a Marine Sanctuary."' We welcome the opportunity to submit our comments. We commend the CPO for their efforts in identifying the need for the marine sanc- tuary and for their excellent summary of the marine life resources of the southern California coast. With the increasing stresses placed on these marine resources we support the CPO nomination for a marine sanctuary. However, the Sierra Club through a resolution passed by its Southern California Regional Conservation Com- mittee has proposed an area larger than that nominated by CPO. The boundaries of the sanctuary would run 50 miles perpendicular to and seaward from Point Concep- tion to the point on shore of the boundary of the United States and Mexico. ' Additionally, the sanctuary would include the islands of San Nicholas., San Clemente and Santa Barbara and the Tanner Banks. The northern boundary of the sanctuary off ' Pdint Conception marks the division between the two marine ecosystems of the colder northern waters and the warmer southern California marine environment. This area) of coursep encompasses the Southern California Bight' which was well described in the CPO report. We note that in Chapter V of the report there was no mention of the potential LNG terminals (either on- or off -shore) with their ING tankers as a future use of the area. These facilities can have a serious impact on the area not only in the dir- ect hazards associated with the LNG but also the indirect impacts such as air and thermal pollution. These LNG operations create conflicts as do other uses and ' points out the need for sound management of the multiple use concept. As we have indicated, the area proposed by the Sierra Club is a much larger area than proposed by CPO. We cannot concur with CPO that the Tanner/Cortes Banks ' area not be included because it will be hard to supervise due to its remoteness from sheltered harbors. Because this particular area is so unique as was des- cribed at the 18 April 78 NOAA workshops we believe that this area is worthy of being included in the sanctuary and encourage CPO to reconsider their decision. Sincerely,9 Edward M. K ura Conservation Committee 117 I CITY OF OCEANSIDE PLANNING DIRECTOR ' LOUIS N. LIGHTFOOT June 6, 1978 i1 Mr. Jack Koerper Associate Regional Planner Comprehensive Planning Organization Suite 524, Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, CA 92101 Dear Jack: ' I have reviewed the Marine Sanctuary Nomination document which you transmitted. I have no major criticisms of the document ---- it ade- quately addresses the concerns which San Diego region agencies have re- peatedly raised with regard to the OCS leasing. I do have a few minor comments which you may wish to consider in preparing your final nomination: , •-On Page 62, a number of "vulnerable wetlands" are listed, with the notation that, "All other wetland areas in San Diego County have been altered or degraded to some t extent by human encroachment, but are still essential as wildlife habitats." I believe that the term "vulnerability" in this context denotes those wetlands which are tidally influenced, and are therefore subject to direct impacts in the event of an oil spill. The San Luis Rey River and Buena Vista Lagoon (which is partially within Oceansidelz boundary) are both valuable (and vulnerable, in the broad sense) habitats, but because of the man-made barriers are not subject to a tidal influence. Perhaps the criteria for "vulnerability" should be clarified. , -You may wish to update the recreational boating information on Page 67. Oceanside Harbor has 823 berths, all of which are presently reserved for slip renters or transient usage. -A number of jurisdictions which have authority over near- ' shore areas are listed on Pages 78-79. Oceanside presently has a Tidelands Grant from the ordinary mean high water mark for a distance of three miles offshore. (Legislation is currently pending which would reduce this area to a 1866 ' foot strip.) The Tidelands Grant does convey jurisdiction to the City for this area. Does this affect the statements made in the document regarding jurisdiction? ' 118 1 CITY HALL 704 THIRD STREET OCEANSI DE, CA 92034 TELEPHONE 714-433-9000 1-t Mr. Jack Koerper - 2 - June 6, 1978 'I'm sorry that these comments are so late. I am very much interested in participating in the effort to monitor OCS activities, and hope that you will continue to solicit our comments. Sincerely, DANA HIELD WHITSON Associate Planner DHW/gfd II II 119 Western Fishhoat Owners Association Auxiliary 5187 San Aquario Drive San Diego, California 92109 June 2, 1978 c-� o Mr. Richard J. fluff, Executive Director Comprehensive Planning Organization 1200 Third Avenue, Suite 524 " >E " San Diego, CA 92101 r~.r -4=x $ � oc�tnay Dear Mr. Huff: _ "K aoC= In response to your request for comments and opinions on the proposal to establish a marine sanctuary offshore of San Diego and Orange Counties, our organization wishes to submit this statement. First, we object to the establishment of a marine sanctuary "on its own merits." We agree that exploration and drilling for oil and gas in the proposed area must be minimal and regulated. However, the concern for regulation of other activities seems to be primarily the commercial fishing activities. Fishing is already closely regulated by the California Department of Fish and Game and will soon be further monitored by the Pacific Fishery Management Council under the 200-Mile Act. Further duplication of effort and expense is unnecessary. Our original objection to the sanctuary proposal requested that commercial fishing be specifically exempted from further regulation within the sanctuary boundaries. This exemption is mandatory before we could even consider giving approval to this proposal. Other discrepancies which should be recognized and addressed follow identified by page numbers (third printing). Page 12-13. The area recommended in the proposal encompasses the area from Pt Vicente to the Mexican border and from 87 to 105 miles out to sea. Whatever happened to the 50-miles-out- to-sea proposal? According to the CPO's own publication titled, Offshore Oil Development: A Summary, "In an attempt to preserve Southern Californiaks natural ocean resources, the CPO Board of Directors has preliminarily asked the Federal government to designate a large area out to 50 miles off the coast -as a Marine Sanctuary." 120 1.1 CPO, Marine Sanctuary, June 2, 1978 Page 2 (A copy of this publication is attached.) It seems that the CPO staff has extended the area from the original 50 miles to a minimum of 87 and maximum of 105 miles seaward --a significant increase without a significant amount of publication of the change. We object to the expansion of the area over which there would be another agency issuing regulations. Page 22, second paragraph. The Peruvian anchoveta has absolutely no relation to the matter of the anchovy off southern Califonia. The reference to the Peruvian anchovy should be deleted totally. Furthermore, the sentence reading, "The U. S. anchovy harvest for fishmeal (known as a reduction fishery) has increased to a high of about 120,000 tons for the season ending in May 1974." is useless and misleading. The anchovy is NOT in danger as the March 1978 Los Angeles Times article (attached) "Anchovy Schools Growing, Survey Finds" states. Furthermore, the "Northern Anchovy Fishery" plan produced for -the Department of Commerce shows that in NO year from 1965 through 1976 (the latest for which figures are available) have the landings even reached the established quota --Table 3.2-2, reproduced from the "Northern Anchovy Fishery" (attached). True, it peaked in 1974 at about 120,000 tons but the quota for that year was set at 135,000 tons. In the next paragraph, there is a reference to the live - bait fishery "with the sardine providing about 20% of the catch O)efore it began to disappear in the late 1940's)." This is totally irrelevant. 1940 was 38 years ago --the factors affecting a species then no longer apply. For accurate information on the anchovy situation, Alex MacCall of the California Department of Fish and Game should be contacted. He has been closely involved in the anchovy study. Page 55, Section 1. COMMERCIAL FISHING. This paragraph is very unsatisfactory, both in terms of vagueness and ambiguity and in terms of questionable statistics. Of the present uses "one of the most widespread in terms of geographic area covered is com- mercial fishing." is a most misleading statement. All of the present uses listed--sportfishing, military operations, commercial shipping traffic, research, and oil exploration are widespread geographically and definitely not confined to a small area within 121 CPO, Marine Sanctuary, June 2, 1978 Page 3 the proposed sanctuary boundaries. To single out commercial fishing is misleading and untrue. The statement, "The value of all commercial species of fish landed within this area in 1975 totaled $2,809,281," is unclear. Does landed mean unloaded or delivered to any port from Pt Vicente to the Mexican border? Or all the fish that was both caught and delivered within the proposed sanctuary borders? Does it include all species caught outside the boundaries and delivered within? Does it include fish caught within and delivered to other ports north, south, or foreign? Does $2,809,281 represent the price paid to the fishermen unloading the catch or the retail value? Page 58. One of the major problems arising in any area where oil and gas exploration is permitted is the possible damage to the habitat and wildlife from leakage and/or spilling. In our original statement on April 18, 1978, at the Public Workshop (sponsored by OOM of NOAA and the California Coastal Commission) we stated that "appropriate funding would be provided to commercial fishing boat owners to cover loss and damage due to oil spills," (A copy of the statement is attached.) In this area where wind and water current patterns would carry the damage an undeterminable number of miles in all directions, a statement of financial responsibility is an absolute necessity. Page 83. In the list of organizations from which an Advisory Board would be chosen, we suggest the addition of the newly formed fishermen's association of gillnetters who fish the proposed marine sanctuary area. They are working and have worked in the area for many years and it is essential that they be represented on the planning board. Page 84. Section 6. DAILY MANAGEMENT (Third paragraph). "'Under existing legislative authority surveil- lance and enforcementafunctions must be carried out by a Federal agency. These functions, however, may b- delegated to state.or other agencies, as appropriate." If these functions MUST be carried out by a Federal agency, how may they be DELEGATED to state or other agencies? Under the present regulations the CAlifornia Department of Fish and `Game and the United States Coast Guard carry out the duties of surveillance and enforcement --why is a sanctuary and more surveillance and enforcement necessary? 122 CPO, Marine Sanctuary, June 2, 1978 Page 4 n We agree (as in the next paragraph, page 84) that the Coast Guard has the primary responsibility to enforce Federal laws at sea and is clearly the most appropriate enforcement agency. "Yet, the Coast Guard has no expertise in surveying, identifying, or regulating activities pertaining to stock of living marine resources. By the same token there are no local or regional agencies with these capabilities. What has happened to the California Department of Fish and Game --surely this is a local agency with four boats and many agents in the area (page 85, CPO, "Nomination of Certain Off- shore Waters of San Diego and Orange Counties as a Marine Sanctuary") and also regional --the entire sanctuary borders the state of California. We agree with the next paragraph (page 85) which recommends the use of the California Department of Fish and Game for enforcing the wildlife -related activities. In the next paragraph on page 85, we would recommend deleting the last sentence which now reads, "Additional surveillance could be requested, on a voluntary basis from sportfishing organizations, the U. S. Navy, the Coast Guard auxiliary, and commercial shipping, as well as interested citizen groups (e.g., American Cetacean Society, yacht clubs).". Our objection is two -fold: 1) there is no reference to "voluntary" assistance from the commercial fishing fleet --which is vitally interested in preserving the area and fish stocks for the future and 2) there should be no "additional surveillance" required; already there are three agencies involved --California Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Coast Guard, and the Pacific Fishery Management Council. More duplication of effort is unnecessary. Page 86. In the first paragraph, the reference to a "sustained yield basis" is totally unsatisfactory.. There is disagreement among biologists about exactly how the sustained yield is computed. We recommend that the second sentence read to the effect, "Consumptive uses (commercial or 'sport fishing, etc) should be permitted and regulated under the jurisdiction of the state (Department of Fish and Game) and federal (Pacific Fisheries Management Council, U. S. Coast Guard) governments. 123 CPO, Marine Sanctuary, June 2, 1978 Page 5 Further regulation by the.marine sanctuary advisory board is not necessary. Page 86, Section 8. APPROXIMATE COSTS. The anticipated figure of $40,000 per year to operate the office of Sanctuary Manager seems ridiculously low. Additional funds of $50,000 for contract services especially for Fish and Game seem low' in regard to their expenses on the present projects --has this figure been checked to determine reliability with the Department of Fish and Game? Page 87. The reference to EIS and the costs involved in "each action would probably far exceed the annual budget of the Sanctuary. Presumably these costs would be borne by the local taxpayers." OBJECTION! If this is a federal project, it MUST be federally funded. The local taxpayers should be in no way responsible for the cost of the Federal project. In conclusion, we object to the establishment of a marine sanctuary as proposed, to the failure to exempt commercial fishing from further regulation, to the above inaccuracies and vagueness of facts as presented, and to the proposed management of the sanctuary. We appreciate having the opportunity to review the proposal and to make comments on it. Thank you for consideration of our statements. Attachments: 4 Sincerely, (Mrs.) Barbara Hawbrth President 124 I 1 1 1 L II II COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION W OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION Offshore Oil Development A Summary The Proposed Lease Sales From the Pacific shores of Southern Cali- fornia west from three to 120 miles is the area of ocean floor with identified tracts proposed for the sale of oil leases in June, 1979. These leases would allow for the drilling of gas and oil, and are to be sold by the U.S. Department of the Interior. This sale of leases must be preceded by an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the potential effects of such gas and oil devel- opment. The first two chapters of the draft EIS have been prepared by the Bureau of Land Management and released for public review and comment. The remainder of the statement will be completed for review by August. Public hearings on the proposed leases will be held in October. The State of California has also released a report on the possible effects of these pro- posed offshore gas and oil developments. Both this report and the draft EIS are available for review at the Comprehensive Planning Organization. Following the October public hearings on, the draft EIS, a final Environmental Impact Statement will be published in January, 1979. The final decision by the federal govern- -"�' ment on whether or not to sell s?rz k the proposed leases will be made during the spring of 1979. �5 Alternatives The Comprehensive Planning Organization estimates that the gas and oil extracted from 26 tracts closest to the coast would supply the nation's gas needs for only 15 hours, and supply the nation's oil needs for only 36 hours at the current rate of use. CPO is preparing a Regional Energy Plan to be released this spring which will detail energy use in the San Diego region, list alter- native energy sources, and outline conserva- tion considerations. In an attempt to preserve Southern Cali- fornia's natural ocean resources, the CPO Board of Directors has preliminarily asked the Federal government to designate a large area out to 50 miles off the coast as a Marine Sanc- tuary. is request is being supported by the San Diego and Orange County Boards of Supervisors, and a number of citizen groups. Designation of the area as a Marine Sanc- tuary would mean additional protection of the waters and the shoreline by requiring special review and approval for oil and gas de- velopment's by the Federal Department of Commerce. Continued public scrutiny of all as- e�4 • pects of the pro- posed offshore lease sales and possible drilling F developments is of utmost importance. ; or ;,5-t�•' fir`:. ^��` ^''� f'�' �', '• " •,v?... %��l'�'••� `�, `. �- •• ill a.•`•a •'.:'� ,. �I• nt �••{..y 1:. :v•J� .•�i�•Y9k•"`'�r>l '4'•1.:�y �,ti II 125 Anchovy Schools Growing,. Survey Finds Scientists Optimistic About Fishing Season off San Diego BY ]CD SYLVESTER year"but above the 1872 level Otherdled a feud between sport and com- Tw.sanwnN. months have been comparable in all merciai fishermen >n CailfOrnla last Anchovies appear to be spawning three"" r eyyeirs' month. The owners of sportfisshing off Southern California in largernum• �t}pughatirmesWnatewllltptbe boats say the commercial hauls are beta than fishermen had expected last reducing the size a the schools and winter, according to scientists survey- ready until July, h nail the size of the should be eliminated or sharply cur- ing the hnporlantbaitand Commercial anchovy jopndation is already well Anclwviee are vital to sporthsher- men, whose multimillion -dollar sum- mer Industry depends not only on and yemllowtaih, but also the fish as op the aanch vy'S attracting these fish to San Diego waters. 1. A yearlong survey of the anchovy :�opulauon was begun in January by the National Marine Fisheries Service M-IA Jolla. Similar surveys are crop .ylucted every three years r�: -Early results lead scientists to be to about the flsherman's bancesfor atleast adeeentseasom Z -Dr, Paul Smith, a fishery biologist, "above the critka1100,000 tom &few that'biomam," anrJrovka pnmot even betakmforbatt. If the biomass is above 1 million 'tom, a percentage of the excess may be harvested by commercial trawlers for reduction to chicken feed and thatguew e e wwi 1 be enough Aodd as an nchovies forreductionffatdng. Bio say the winter short probably wage as caused by unusually stormy weafha Rains increased the treshwater runoff Into the Pacific, driving many fish farther out, and fishermen say storms ddveancbovies -jlAlLL Ojlanuwb ru ,, _ dt�ower than in IM, vim extraordinary Nevertlu]ee, the shortage nkiM f 5. .� «« «ter. «.... ..." H •� .. , 0 n But the demand for aochavla man additive to chicken feed has been rising sharply. Fanners say birds gain weight dramatically when the pntem- rich flab hot added to theirfood. I� 11 11 11 11 According to Alex MscCall, a ma- ' rine bllogist with the state Department of Fish and Game, anchovies are the prime 'fodder" fish for virtually every bigger fish — , meaning most of the area's market as wellasaportfWn, Although arkm4a have been ten- ' able to correlste their abundance with that of other fish, anchovies are n 11 11 li LI 126 11 n Table 3.2-2. Anchovy reduction fishery landings. (short tons) -Seasons 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 Quota, Landings No.Boats** 1965-66 171 16,672 75,000 16,843 30 1966-67 10,676 26,939 75,000 37,610 35 1967-68 5,409 1,098 75,000 6,503 41 1968-69 12,697 15,353 75,000 28,050 30 1969-70 49,851 33,616 140,000 83,473 31 1970-71 59,339 22,216 110,000 80,752 30 1971-72 21,436 31,991 - 110,000 53,449 38 1972-73 34,626 40,893 110,000 75,519 37 1973-74 $9,655 30,983 135.000 120,638 40 1974-75 N 49,926 66,504 130,000 116,430 44 1975-76 87,702 53,334* 165,000 141,036 50 Total 171 27,348 32,347 13,795 65,204 92,955 43,652 66,617 130,548 80,909 154,206 53.334* 707,752 * Through May 15, 1976 when the 1975-76 season closed. Boats landing at least one load of anchovies. I Western Fishboat Owners Association Auxiliary 5187 San Aquario Drive San Diego, California 92109 To; The Office of Ocean Management of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration The California Coastal Commission April 18, 1978 San Diego, California Public Workshop to explain the marine sanctuary program and how it will apply in California. Emphasis on the offshore area of San Diego. Statement of Barbara Haworth President Western Fishboat Owners Association Auxiliary The Western Fishboat Owners Association Auxiliary represents fishing families of the bait and jig boat fleet in San Diego and other west coast ports. Considering the fishing Industry's problems with federal legislation in the past, we wish to be assured that commercial fishing vessels will be specifically exempted from further regulation if the proposed marine sanctuary is established; and we express, also, our opposition to oil, gas, and other mineral exploration and mining in the area off Southern California. We object to such activities for several reasons. First, seepage from wells at the ocean floor level spreads over vast ocean bottom areas destroying marine life in the environ- ment. The simto-shore pipelines would present further possibilities for leakage. Second, the rigs themselves are hazardous to navigation. Third, the oil companies are already doing exploratory drilling outside the proposed sanctuary boundaries on vital fishing grounds which have been among the most productive food -fish areas off California. If the most efficient way to prevent oil and gas exploitation is a marine sanctuary, we could support such a designation provided certain specifications including the following are met. 128 A. I' ublic Workshop on Marine Sanctuaries, San Diego, California �pril 18, 1978 Page 2 ' First, commercial fishing would be specifically exempt from regulation of any kind in the final document designating the marine Fanctuary. Second, appropriate funding would be provided to commercial ishing boat owners to cover loss and damage due to oil spills. uch losses could include gear, cleanup, and fishing time. Third, no federal regulation would be imposed on commercial Lishing or on commercial fishing vessels now or in the future. federal regulation would be an unnecessary duplication of California epartment of Fish and Game statutes which already regulate the species to insure future stocks. it is vitally important that the lfishing vessels be exempt from further regulation in the area. Fourth, commercial fishermen would be appointed seats on the 'Pacific Coast Regional Management Council as well as on the advisory boards. in our past experience, capable and willing commercial fishermen have been recommended for appointment to the Council, but Ithe vacancies have been filled by people with very little or no knowledge or interest in commercial fishing. This Council will be setting the guidelines that will affect the fishermen daily; it is vital that the fishermen's views be represented. Fifth, all regulation and enforcement would be delegated to local and state agencies, i.e. California Department of Fish and 'Game. The Secretary of Commerce has been unresponsive to the commercial fishing interests on many points presented to her. As the Secretary has been ultimately responsible for the implementation of the marine sanctuaries, we hope that she will recognize the contributions the industry has made and is continuing to make to the welfare of the nation and will be more sensitive to our concerns. In summary, we are opposed to further federal regulation without 'local control and to oil and gas exploration. Fishermen, in coopera- tion with existing laws, have regulated themselves to insure future stock and to provide many varieties of food -fish. Federal regula- tion is unnecessary. 11 129 COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION OF THE SAN DIEGO REGION , Board of Directors , Agenda Report No.: R-81 ' Date 6/19/78 , SAN DIEGO/ORANGE COUNTIES MARINE SANCTUARY NOMINATION DOCCMW Introduction The Board of Directors at its April meeting accepted for distribution the draft report entitled Nomination of Certain Offshore Waters of San Diego and Orange Counties as a Marine Sanctua . Subsequent to this action, approximately 240 copies of the report nave been distributed to local communities in both counties, the counties of Orange and San Diego, other local public agencies, ' numerous non-profit or private organizations, and private individuals who have expressed an interest in this report. These groups and citizens were requested to review the report and offer any comments they wished regarding the report's factual accuracy or recommendations. Based on the comments received and staff analysis, it is my ' RECOVENDATION that the Board of Directors approve the Marine Sanctuary Nomination with the following modifications to be included in the Final Nomination Document: 1. that the commercial fishing industry and the City of San Diego's wastewater , treatment outfall be specifically exempted from marine sanctuary regulations; (City of San Diego) 2. that representation by the Orange County Board of Supervisors and Orange , County Coastal Cities be included on the recommended Advisory Board; (orange County and City of Newport Beach staff) 3. that the Gillnetters Organization also be included as a potential group to be represented on the Advisory Board; (Western Fishboat Owners Auxiliary) it is further RECaf OIDED and that the Board of Directors submit the document to the Office of Ocean Management with the following condition: I 130 1 ' R-81 2. o The Board of Directors reserves the right to reconsider their support of a Marine Sanctuary designation at the white paper, Draft Environmental Impact Report, and drafted rules and regu- San Diego) lation steps of the designation process. (City of 1 Discussion of the Comments Received Letters or resolutions have been received from: 1. County of San Diego (resolution) 2. City of Oceanside (staff letter) 3. 4. Sierra Club: San Diego Chapter Western Fishboat Owners Association Auxiliary Federation of Fisherman's Associations Incorporated S. Pacific Coast 6. San Diego Chamber of Commerce 7. City of San Diego 8. San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau fq LJ II II II II II II Verbal comments have been received from: 1. Orange County CAO Office (Staff) 2. Director, Community Development, Newport Beach (Staff) 3. U.S. Navy (Staff) The County of San Diego Board of Supervisors supported the report. The staff letter from the City of Oceanside supported the nomination with "minor" comments. The San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau endorses and supports the nomination. The significant comments and responses are categorized under the document chapter titles: . AREA NOMINATED PURPOSES FOR THE MARINE SANCTUARY PRESENT AND FUTURE USES . MANAGDF14T AREA N01INATED A en or In iv1 ual Comment Sierra Club The area nominated should be expanded to include the entire Southern California Bight and the Tanner -Cortez Banks. Western Fishboat Owners "Whatever happened to the 50-miles-out-to-sea Association Auxiliary proposal? .... It seems that the CPO staff has extended the area from the original 50 miles to a minimum of 87 and maximum of 105 miles seaward --a significant increase without a significant amount of publication of t e 11 131 R-81 3. change. We object to the expansion of the area over which there would be another agency issuing regulations," Pacific Coast Federation Expressed concern as to the size of the of Fishermans' Associations sanctuary recommended for nomination and to Incorporated what extent Orange County officials were consulted. San Diego Chamber of Commerce "The area proposal is much too large to be justified on environmental or ecological grounds and probably too large to manage effectively, When compared with the existing marine sanctuaries off the east coast, this proposal includes far too large an area." "A report of this sort should be based more on an evaluation of pros and cons, on an ob- jective basis as Vanntti�tat�ive as possible, firmly put, but witT a flexibility to adjust to new conditions as they may develop." Thus, it is necessary to know the limits of the objectives of the proposal, as well as the quantitative definitions of pejorative wor scmet es used. If, for instance, an objective were to be to prevent the death of any member of any species, it would obvi- ousTy be visionary and injurious to the common welfare. The other extreme, of course, is to provide no specific protection at all. Since neither extreme is reasonable, a quantitative identification of the various levels of protection is needed. These can then be balanced against the advantages of other forms of development, either natural or manmade. Response As the comments reveal, there are feelings on both sides that the area is either too large or too small. The area as delineated on page 12 is the consultants' and staff best estimate and recommendation as to the area to be nominated as a marine sanctuary. The first delineation of a sanctuary supported by the Board was fifty -miles by one hundred and fifty miles (Resolution k77-77). This sanctuary was developed as an initial recommendation of the Board; void of in- depth technical knowledge regarding habitat and species. The consultants were not held to that delineation; consequently, based on the seasonal migration patterns of the eighteen species and the bottom topography, it was determined that the original area should be enlarged westward. Further, the management recommendations utilize the existing management structure and management practices for the area. 132 R-81 4. President Carter in his Environmental message stated: "I am, therefore, instructing the Secretary of Commerce to identify possible sanctuaries in areas where develop- ment appears imminent, and to begin collecting the data ncessary to them as such under the law." This is exactly what this document is intended to do for San ' Diego and Orange Counties. This document will initiate the data collection process leading to'a marine sanctuary designation. The document also provides an oppor- tunity to provide local policy recommendations such as the zones within the sanctuary. The zones were developed to allow different degrees or levels of restriction or management. Zone A is the most restrictive; and Zone ki $ D are already effectively managed and would require no further level of regulation. In any type of development there are unknowns and the zones provide a differing level of regulations to protect the coastline from those unknowns. The Tanner -Cortez Banks and the area north of the proposed sanctuary were not ' included because it was felt that these areas were inappropriate for the purposes of either management and enforcement of sanctuary regulations or most critical towards meeting San Diego and Orange County concerns. Orange County officials have been briefed on a regular basis and authorization from the Board of Supervisors ' was attained for CPO to proceed with this nomination. PURPOSES FOR THE SANCTUARY en or In ivi ual Comment Pacific Coast Federation of A concern that the draft did not present Fisherman's Associations a balanced discussion of the species which Incorporated could be misleading to the reader. A comment questioning the uniqueness of the area in relationship to the whole California coastline. Western Fishboat Owners The discussion of the Peruvian anchoveta Association Auxiliary on page 22 has absolutely no relation to the matter of anchovy off the coastline. Chamber of Commerce It appears that the primary purpose of tILis report is to prohibit the exploration and production of oil and gas in the offshore waters of San Diego and Orange Counties. If this is the case, then this issue should be addressed directly rather than indirectly through a marine sanctuary study. There are proper reasons for protecting the environment, ' but this action is contrary to the national and future local needs for energy. I! II Response The discussion related to the species was intended to develop the link between the various species and the bottom topography and not why the area is used for II tic! R-81 5. , 1 commercial fishing use. The criteria used in this nomination are habitat and ' species and the direct linkage between the two had to be discussed and demon- strated for the nomination to be accepted. The IIUBBS.SWR1 scientist inform us that the night area is quite unusual with only one of two or three areas like it in the world. The Bight is distinct from the rest of the California coastline. The discussion of the Peruvian anchoveta was included as a historic and economic example of the drastic fluctuations of a species that is harvested within the Bight. Our information indicated that the Bight accounted for 90% of the anchovy harvested and it was felt that this discussion of species fluctuations was relevant. If there is other information which is germane to this topic, it could be included in :future analysis. The section of the report entitled "potential Changes in the Sanctuary Area" (pages 76 and 77) stated the negative impacts of oil and gas development to the ' marine environment. At the bottom of page 71 the statement is made "....the values of the Sanctuary are important whether or not the area contains com- mercially valuable amounts of oil or any other commodity." The development which appears most imminent to the OCS in Southern California is oil and gas development and it is addressed directly and not indirectly. Oil and gas development from Lease Sale #48 is a likely possibility and cannot be avoided in discussing a , sanctuary for the same area. PRESENT AND FUTURE USES _Agency or in—Hvidual Comment - -- Western Fishboat Owners The paragraph on page 55, Section 1, is un- Association Auxiliary satisfactory, both in terms of vagueness and ambiguity and in terms of questionable statistics. The statement regarding the total dollar value of fish landed within the area is unclear. U. S. Navy Expressed concern that their military op- erations within the proposed area would be curtailed or further regulated. Response r The paragraph is an overview of the subject, as are the other paragraphs focusing on present uses. It was not intended to be a detailed discussion of the topic; rather, it was intended to highlight the use and identify its importance to the San Diego -Orange County area. The dollar amount stated in the paragraph is the total from fish landed in the Ports of San Diego, Oceanside, and Newport Beach. The source for the figure is the California Department of Fish and Game (1975). 134 R-81 6. ' Staff has assured the Navy representatives that it is not the intent of the ' nomination document to increase the regulations on the current users of the area, only to coordinate and manage in a single, comprehensive approach the activities within the area. The intent of the regulations would be to manage 1 future development which would adversely affect the area's ability to recover to its present state. MANAGDENf Auncy or Individua Comaent I Staff, Orange County The Orange County Board of Supervisors and Staff, City of Newport Beach Coastal Communities should be represented on the recommended Advisory Council. Western Fishboat Owners They recommend that a newly formed associ- Association Auxiliary ation of gillnetters be listed as an organi- zation to be represented on the Advisory Council. A concern as to why a State Agency was recommended for enforcement in Federal waters. An objection as to why there was no reference made to "voluntary" assistance from the commercial fishing fleet in surveillance of the area. ' A statement disagreeing with the use of "sustained yield basis" as a species manage- ment tool. A statement that the recommended anticipated costs seem too low. A concern that local taxpayers would incur the costs of implementing the program. t Pacific Coast Federation of They "question whether a marine sanctuary is for systematic and coordinated Fisherman's Associations Incorporated necessary management of the proposed area." This state- ment is written in the context of the Federal and states' agencies and laws which pre- scribe specific functions and responsibilities. ' Chamber of Commerce Further, especially with respect to Section VI-3, potential problems identified are not given balance; positions stated, often by implication, are not substantiated. 1 135 R-81 7. ' City of San Diego The commercial fishing interests be exempted r from any marine sanctuary regulation. The City of San Diego wastewater treatment outfall be exempted from any further regu- lation resulting from the Marine Sanctuary proposal. Response The joint comment from the Orange County representatives identifies an over- sight on the part of CPO staff. The Orange County Board of Supervisors and coastal cities should be included on any advisory board established to oversee the Marine Sanctuary. The same is true of the Gillnetters Association as recom- , mended by the Western Fishboat Owners Association. The reasons why a State Agency was recommended as the enforcement agency are ' discussed on pages 84 and 85. In the past, the Federal government has allowed state enforcement in a sanctuary where they have demonstrated expertise and capability (e.g., Key Largo Coral Reef Sanctuary). "Voluntary surveillance assistance" was not specifically discussed because it has not been developed in either of the existing sanctuaries. Also, the marine sanctuary regulations are silent as to whether or not this as a possibility. , This suggestion should be carefully analyzed and discussed prior to designation. "Sustained yield basis" is the existing species management tool. It was felt ' that because of its familiarity with the fishing industry and the officials who administer the species regulations it would be unnecessary to recommend any change. The recommended anticipated costs are designed to b resources to implement the program. Since propert nor large numbers of new staff are not required, it would be sufficient. Also, it is anticipatedthat Federal revenues and not State or local revenues. y e a minimal outlay of financial acquisition (purchase of land), was felt that this cost these costs would come from The comment regarding "systematic and coordinated" management goes to the essence of the marine sanctuary proposal. It is because of the multiple uses and laws that affect the area that the sanctuary is being proposed. One of the products of the sanctuary would be to eliminate overlapping and confusing regulations and to bring to the area a balanced management approach. Presently, the activities are not coordinated or managed comprehensively; it would be the intent to coordinate these activities, eliminate overlapping and conflicting regulations, and analyze very carefully any new development. A series of background papers have been developed which discuss in more detail the potential problems. The background papers will be available shortly. The City of San Diego by City Council resolution conceptually supported the nomination with the amendments that commercial fishing interests and the City's I 136 11 R-81 wastewater treatment outfall be exempted from any additional regulations which would result from the marine sanctuary nomination. Staff concurs with these exemptions and recommends that they be incorporated into the final report. GENERAL CMIEWS Agency or Indivi ual Comment 1 Chamber of Commerce There is no summary at the beginning of the report, and the introduction (especially the quotation from the President's message, and the succeeding material) raises questions of the type described above that should be referred to in a summary. Perhaps the swmnary ' in Chapter VI, in a broader form, could appear as, say, Chapter I. An important feature of this summary is, of course, that "multiple uses are encouraged", and this might be given some back-up in the text. City of San Diego The City Council, having given conceptual approval, insists on reviewing the Marine Sanctuary proposal at the significant desig- nation steps. Their next formal review of this project will occur when the 111iite Paper" is published. County of San Diego The County, through its department of Sani- tation and Flood Control, is seeking a modification of the proposed EPA secondary treatment waiver regulations including modification of the rebuttable presumption provisions to provide instead for a case -by - case consideration in instances of sensitive ' marine areas. ' Response The Chamber's suggestion is a useful one which staff will carefully consider prior to the submission of this document to the Federal government. The City of San Diego's reluctance is understandable given the diverse interest of the current users of the area. Staff shares this concern and is recommending 1 this policy change to the Board of Directors. Staff has analyzed the relationship between the effluent discharge at the Pt. Loma ' plant and the impacts of the Marine Sanctuary designation. The outfall discharge is currently operating within the appropriate environmental guidelines and does not degrade the water quality or adversely impact the species. We feel this is compatible with the purposes and objectives of a Marine Sanctuary. qRIICRAZDJ- HUFF Executive Director 137 1 ADDENDUM TO CPO STAFF REPORT R-81 Intr,x:uction The staff report R-81 (San Diego/Orange Counties Marine Sanctuary Nomination Document) discussed the written and verbal comments staff has received as of June 12, 1978. Since this date we have received additional correspondence re- garding the document. Written comments have been received from: 1. Congressman Lionel Van Deerlin 2. California Sea Grant Marine Advisory Programs 3. Orange County Board of Supervisors 4. City of Newport Beach S. Joint telegram from: A. John J. Royal Fisherman B. Allied Workers Union Local 33 ILWU of San Pedro Ca. C. Anthony Piasano Fisherman's Cooperative Assn, of San Pedro Ca. D. Terry Hainsly Fisherman's Union of America SIU FL -CIO Based on these comments and staff analysis, it is my further RECO1ENDATION that the Baord of Directors amend resolution #78-81 to include the recommendation from the Orange County Board of Supervisors that: o the Advisory Board which was intended to maintain local support and interest in the Sanctuary and would include representatives from numerous public and private agencies would be changed to an Executive Board with policy and decision making authority. Discussion The significant comments are categorized under the headings of "general" or "programmatic" comments. General Comments AGENCY OR INDIVIDUAL Ca`t`IG,"'1T , John J. Royal Fisherman These organizations are opposed Allied Workers Union Local 33 to the establishment of a marine Anthony Piasano Fisherman's Coop. sanctuary as proposed, because Terry Hainsly Fisherman's Union it does not exempt commercial fishing.- 11 138 ' ' Congressman Van Peerlin RESPONSE - His support is "conditioned on fair treatment for the fisherman, who were operating in these waters long before the oil companies and whose livelihood depends on con- tinuing access to the harvest of the seas." Staff is recommending that the commercial fishing industry be exempted from marine sanctuary regulations which should satisfy the above comments. PROGRMNUIC CWENTS AGENCY l,lA"➢`' 1 ' e e section entitle -'Habitat li ea rant and Species Areas' is difficult to follow. A different outline, or perhaps a clear indication of what each category in the present outline is intended to be about, would make for a more powerful document; one should know what main points are being discussed in each subsection." IT. 25, last paragraph. This is somewhat out -of date. Actually, ' the major use of hake is as human food. The foreign fishing fleets arvested over 200,000 metric tons each year from 1973-1976. The hake population declined under such heavy fishing intensity, but with restricted foreign fishing, owing to,our 200 mile Fishery Management Zone, and favorable reproductive conditions, the hake catch is expected to be sustainable at about 150,000 metric The domestic demand tons annually. for frozen fish by fast-food fran- chises is currently about 61,000 metric tons, and it is hoped that an expanded domestic fishery on hake will supply much of that demand. ' The high cost of fishing no longer permit mach hake to be processed as animal food; except as a by-product of a human -food fishery. The major fishery is expected to take place from Morro Bay northiard." II 139 r "It seems that the excuse for not ' including Tanner/Cortez Panhs (too remote, p. 75, last sentence in paragraph 83) is a little weak since the boundary line of Zone C (p. 12) passes only ten miles from the top of Tanner Bank." City of Newport Beach (Staff) ' If the offshore areas adjacent to Orange County are to be included in the sanctuary, then the Advisory Board should include representation of jurisdictions, agencies, and private interests in Orange County." "The issue of jurisdiction should be , resolved where the nomination sug- gests a State agency enforce re- gulations in Federal territory. It is not clear from the report just how this will be handled." "The document proposes the sanctuary program as an alternative to monitoring the EIS process for OCS lease sales, and tends to discredit the Federal environmental process. We feel this is inappropriate in a document of this nature and should be revised or de- leted. Further, we are of the opinion that full participation in the EIS pro- cess would be effective, if not more effective, in assuring that mitigation measures are incorporated into the lease agreements. Therefore the sanctuary program may duplicate ef- forts in this regard." "As pointed out in the report, there are several existing conservation pro- grams in the designated area which could be consolidated and managed as part of this proposal. The manage- ment plan for the proposed sanctuary should include this objective and , be stated in the nomination document." Orange County hoard of Supervisors "Support the recommendations of the , (Transmittal letter) CFO with the following exceptions: a) That the Advisory Board be changed to an Fxecutive Board with policy and decision making authorities and powers., b) That the document be amended to include representatives from an Orange County coastal city and the County of , Orange." 140 'RESPONSE The first comment offered by Calif. Sea Grant staff is one which staff will consider prior to final publication. The next comment regarding the use of hake is new information which will be incorporated into the final report and into subsequent Federal reports regarding this nomination. It's unclear whether this would sig- nificantly change the recommendations because the comment is germane to only one of the free-swimming species. The comment regarding the Tanner/Cortez Banks is similar to the comment offered by the Sierra Club. Staff analysis of this comment is dis- cussed on page 4 of the staff report. The first comment from the staff of Newport Beach is addressed on page 7 0£ the staff report and is a recommended amendment in resolution #78-81. The second comment, state enforcement within Federal jurisdiction is discussed on page 7 of the staff report. Further, the proposed amendments to Title III of the Marine Sanctuaries Act state: "The Secretary may, whenever appropriate, utilize by agreement the personnel, services, and facilities of other Federal departments, agencies, and instrumentalities, or State agencies or instrumentalities, whether on a reimbursableor a nonreimbursable basis in carrying enforce responsibilities esponsibilitiesnt ion under this title."(Title III, Section 302 (1) (3)) The is a viable alternative and its details will be clarified in future reports. The relationship between this document and the EIS process as stated in the City's third comment is misunderstood. The consultants were analyzing the EIS process as an alternative for local municipalities and groups to impact development on the outer continental shelf. Currently, this is one of several methods which local interests can express themselves and actively participate in the OCS decision making process. If the sanctuary is designated with the advisory council then these interests will have a locally controlled management process to work with. This proposal is a method of extending local control over a jurisdiction which is under Federal control. The last comment from the City is one in which staff concurs. As a point of clarification one of our objectives is to consolidate overlapping regulations and coordinate the numerous activities within the proposed sanctuary. Finally we concur with the two comments from the Orange County Board of Supervisors and are recommending to the Board of Directors that the report be amended appropriately. aRICI"— RD J. F Executive Direc 141 Chapter VIII CONCLUSION Chapter VIII CONCLUSION ' The proposed area is truly unique within jurisdicton of the United States and one of only a few such areas in the world. As a habitat, it supports a large and diverse marine community that overwhelmingly qualifies for protection under the Act. Designation as a marine sanctuary would not only be compatible with existing uses but, moreover, would ensure the future of coimnercial and sport - fishing, as well as research, by protecting the living resources that they depend on. As man is turning to the sea more and more each day to provide food and energy for an ever-expanding population, it is imperative that these ' resources be managed with the utmost care. Designation of the area as a Marine Sanctuary would be a positive step in that direction. It is in the National interest. 1 145 iJ i I J [1 1] BIBLIOGRAPHY 1 I II II II ,J BIBLIOGRAPHY MARINE SANCTUARY NOMINATION DOCWENT 1. San Diego Coast Regional Commission, 1974, Life in the Sea: The Marine Environment of the San Die o Coast, San Diego Coast egiona Commission, San Diego, Cali ornia, p. Z. 2. San Diego Coast Regional Commission, op. cit. 3. Chase, Thomas E., Sea Floor Too a h of the Central Eastern Pacific Oc U.S. Department a t e Interior, Fish an i li e Service, Bureau of Cc Fisheries, Circular 291, June 1968. 4. Comptroller General of the United States, Information on the California Ancho Report to the Committee on Commerce, .S. Senate, p. S. Comptroller General of the United States, op. cit. 6. Comptroller General of the United States, op. cit. 7. Richardson and Pearcy, 1977. 8. Ahlstrom, B. H., 1959, Vertical Distribution of Pela is Fish E s and L. Off California, U.S. Fis an i > e ervice, is Bul etin 0. 9. Comptroller General of the United States, op. cit. 10. Comptroller General of the United States, op. cit. 11. Comptroller General of the United States, op. cit. 12. Frey, H. W., ED., California LivingMarine Resources and Their Utilizat'. California Department o F3.s anGame, 1971. 13. Fields, W. Gordon, The Structure, Develo ent Food Relations, Re roduc' and Life History o t e Squi , Logigo Opalescens Berry, California Depai VS rlbll Q 1u -, --- 14. Clemens, W. A. and Wilby, G. V., Fishes of the Pacific Coast of Canada, Fisheries Resources Board Bulletin 8, 368 pages. 15. Blunt, C. E., Jr., Observations on the Food Habits of Lo line Caught Bi¢eve and Yellowfin Tuna rom t e Tropical Eastern Paci ic, 1955-1956, 149 16. Walford, Lionel A., 1937, Marine Game Fishes of the Pacific Coast from Alaska to the Equator, Ber e ey, niversity o--California ress, 0 pages. 17. Royce, W. F., 1957, Observations on the S earfishes of the Central Pacific, U.S. Fish and Wildli e ervice, Fish Bulletin, . 18. Fields, W. Gordon, op. cit. 19, Wilke, Ford and Nicholson, A. J., 1958, Food of Porpoises in Waters Off Japan, Jour, Mammal 39(3):441-443. 20. Squires, fl. J., 1957, Squid Illexillecebrosus (Le Sueur) In the Newfoundlan FishingArea, Journal ot" isii�erios Fesources oar o CanaE. (5j.693 728. 21. Pike, G. C., 1958, Food of the Northern Sea Loin, Fisheries Research Board of Canada Progress eport, No-. . 22. Fields, W. Gordon, op. Lit. 23. Kato, S. and Hardwick, J. E., 1975, The California Squid Fisher, FAO Fisheries Report (197) Supp. 1,150 pages. 24. Nelson, Martin 0. and Larkins, Herbert A., 1970, Distribution and Biology of the Pacific Hake, Pacific Bake, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Circular 332. 25. Ahlstrom, Elbert H., 1959, Vertical Distribution of Pelagic Fish s and Larvae Off California and Bala California,U.S.is and Wildlife Service, Fish Bulletin b :l0 - ; 1965, Kinds Abundance of Fishes in the Califon Current Region Based on Eland arvae urve�, a i ornia ooperative r �an,T ial�es Snventieatlon Report 10:31-52. 26. Nelson and Larkins, off. cit. 27. Dest, E. A., 1963, Contribution to the Biology of the Pacific flakep Wr1u Produetus (Ayres), Cal COFI Report 9-,-SI-56. 28. Frey, p. cit. 29. Flechsig, Art, 1978, Letter to CPO dated June 12, 1978. 30. Ahlstrom, Elbert H. and Stevens, Elizabeth, Report of Neuston (surface) Collections Made on an Extended Cal COFI Cruise during May 1972, Cal COFI Reports, Volume 18. 31. Frey, 02. cit. 32, Frey, oQ, cit. 33. Leatherwood, S., Evans, 14. E., and Rice, D., Whales, Dolphins andFo ois of the Eastern North Pacific Ocean, A Guide to rheir identiticatioF tr 150 34. Evans, W. E., •1976, Distribution and Differentiation of Stocks of De Delphis Linnaeus in the North Eastern Pacific A-0 d�1 SC 18 , Sci, Consult. Mar. A1amm. Bergen Nwy., 72 pages. 35. Leatherwood, S., Evans, W. E., and Rice, D., op. cit. 36. Leatherwood, S., Evans, W. E., and Rice, D., op. cit. 37. Leatherwood, S., Evans, W. E., and Rice, D., o_p. cit. 38. Leatherwood, S., Evans, Ill. E., and Rice, D., off. cit. 39. Leatherwood, S., Evans, W. E., and Rice, D., 22. cit. 40. Fitch, John E. and Brownell, Robert L., Jr., 1968, Fish Otoliths in Stomachs and Their ortance in Interpreting Feedin Ha its, Journ A,c,eries Researc Boar o Cana a, Vol. 45, No. 12. 41. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Final Environmental Statement, OCS Sale #35, 1975. 42. OCS Project Task Force, Office of Planning and Research, State of California, Offshore Oil and Gas Development: Southern California, 1977. 43. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Preliminary Draft Environmental Statement, OCS Sale #48, 1978. 44. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 45. U.S. Bureau of Land Management,, 1978, op. Lit. 46. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. Lit. 47. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1975, op. cit. 48. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 49. Aunt, George L.,, Jr., 1978, The Histo Distribution and Ecology of Marine Birds of the California Channel islands, from paper dei:LMME to symposium nn the C annel Islans at Santa Bar ara, February 27 - March 1, 1978. 50. Anderson, D. N. and Anderson, I. T., 1976, Distribution and Status of Brown Pelican in the California Current, American Bir s, Vol. 30, pp. 3-12. 51. IIubbs, Carl L., Kelly, A. L. and Limbaugh, D., 1970, Diversity in Feeding by Brandt's Cormorant Near San Diego, California Department of Fish and Game 56:156-165. 52. Palmer, Ralph S., 1967, Handbook of North American Birds, Vol. 1, sponsored by American Ornithologists Union . .13 NEV: Y:-,rk State Museum and Science Service. 53. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 151 54. Office of Planning and Research, g,. cit. 55. Norris, K. S., et al., The Distribution Abundance of ]]ircls, Cetaceans and 'inns s an t je out fern 'roeress eoort to tie rogram, 1975. 56. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 57, California Department of Fish and Game, Marine Fish Landings, 1975. 58. California Department of Fish and Game, Report of the California Partyboat Fleet, 1977. 59. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 60. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 61. Regional Air Quality Strategies for the San Diego Air Basin, April 1976. 62. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 63. Office of Planning and Research, M. cit. 64. U.S Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants -List of Species", Federal Register, XLI, September 30, 1976, p. 191. 65. Hendrickson, J., "Ecology of Southern California Coastal Salt Marshes", Proceedings of the Symposium on Plant Communities of Southern California, J. Latting, ED„ California Native Plant Society, Special Publication No. 2, p. 49. 66. California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission, California Coastal P1an, 1975; R. D. Vauer and J. W. Speth, Acquisition Priorities or t e oastal Wetlands of California, 1974; California Department o is an ame, Status Report on t oastal Wetlands of Southern California, 1969; and California Department of Fishand Game, Draft It as of Prom ent Southern California Marine Resources, 1976. 67. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 68. Lindstedt-Siva, June, Oil Spill Response Planning for Bilogically Sensitil , �01,. 69. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1975, op. cit. 70. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, op. cit. 71. Office of Planning and Research, obi. cit. 72. Office of Planning and Research, M. cit. 152 73. Frey, op, cit. 74. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 75. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 76. North, W. J. and Hubbs, Carl H:, Utilization of Kelp Bed Resources in Southern California, California Department of-Pisof-PIsh and Game, Visn Bulletin 139, 1968. 77. California Water Resources Control Board, Designatin Areas of Riolnaical Sienificance and Authorizing Notiion o t e Re, 78. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1975, op. cit. 79. Frey, op. cit. 80. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 81. Frey, op. cit. 82. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 83. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 84. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 85. Office of Planning and Research, op. cit. 86. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 19780 op. cit. 87. U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1978, op. cit. 88. Migdah , Dot, from a presentation to University of California at San Diego Extension on OCS Lease Sale #48, February 11, 1978. 89. Migdahl, op. cit. 90. Mi.gdahl, op. cit. 91. Kifer, R. R., 1975, NOAA's Marine Sanctuary Program, Coastal Zone Management Journal 2 (2) :177-188. 92. Kifer, op. cit. 93. Kifer, op. cit. 94. Kifer, op. cit 153 95. Philbrick, Ralph N. (ED,), 1967, Proceedings of the Symposium on the Biology of the California Islands, Santa mar ara tanic ardent Santa Darbara, California, pages, Kifer, M. cit. 9.7. Kifer, op. cit. 154 l `4 ' Cu N L 6 ® .-_C) U 111 ■ i iJ ice' CO December 22, 1977 03I,F= COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE Ms. Beverly Wood Dept. of Community Development City of Newport Beach 3300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach,'CA 92626 Dear Ms. Wood: �E. T COMAS COUNTY C ADMINISTRATIVE DMI STRA TIVE OFFICER ACOUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 515 NORTH SYCAMORE STREET SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: 034-2345 AREA CODE 714 19-A17 . In accordance with the provisions of Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of October 1972, the San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization (CPO) intends to file nomination documents, in late April 1978, with the Office of Ocean Management for the establishment of a marine sanctuary which will include the coastal waters off Orange County. Because the proposed marine sanctuary includes our coastal waters , CPO has invited Orange County Coastal Cities and the County to take part in the development of the nomination documents. At our suggestion, CPO has also agreed that local colleges with marine studies programs and the Western Oil and Gas Association should also take part in this effort. Accordingly, you are invited to a meeting that will be held in the New Beach City AttorneY's conference room on January 10, 1978 a�30 AM. The purpose of the meeting will be to id fy the appropriate level of local involvement, the time commitments that may be required of us, and the development of a preliminary workplan and schedule. Further, we should attempt to identify policy issues, problems, studies and reports which may be relevant to the proposed sanctuary. The more informa- tion we can bring with us to this first meeting, the more productive we can be. If you have any questions about the meeting, please contact either Ms. Beverly Wood of Newport Beach at 640-2197 or myself at 834-3831. Sincerely, O K. Paul Raver Resources Program Coordinator mh cc: Each Board Office R. E. Thomas, County Administrative Officer H. G. Osborne, Director,EMA CI U N-rY O F= G a COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE November 28, 1977 / E. T C ADMINISTRATIVE DMIN IJ/ COUNTY AOMINISYRA TIVE OFFICER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 515 NORTH SYCAMORE STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE' 834-2345 AREA CODE 714 SUBJECT: Orange County Board of Supervisors Agenda Item regarding a Proposed Marine Sanctuary. The attached letter has been filed with the County Clerk and will be placed on the Board's agenda for Tuesday, December 6, 1977. The item will be heard some time after 9:45 a. m. in the Board Hearing Room, 5th floor at 515 North Sycamore, Santa Ana. . If there is any additional information you may need, please contact me at 834-3831 or 834-2345. K. Paul Raver Resources Program Coordinator pjl Attachment R C0", Un YD DG\,,j, Bent Dept. 21977�" CON eEp,CN, / L R. E. THOMAS COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER © 1 © ti o November UN- Y OF , 1977 G E COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION OUILDINO 515 NORTH SYCAMORE STREET SANTA ANA. CALIFORNIA 92701 TELEPHONE: 834-2345 AREA CODE 714 19-B-16 E-190 Honorable Board of Supervisors County of Orange Santa Ana, CA. SUBJECT: Presentation by the San Diego Region's Council of Governments Regarding a Proposed Marine Sanctuary SUMMARY: In accordance with the provisions of Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of October 23, 1972, the San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization intends to file nomination documents with the Office of Ocean Management for the establishment of a marine sanctuary which will include the waters off Orange County. Your Honorable Board's support in concept is being requested. Gentlemen: In 1972 the National Marine Sanctuaries Program was established as provided for -in Title III of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. Pursuant to this Act the Secretary of Commerce can establish marine sanctuaries for the purpose of preserving or restoring marine areas for their conservation, recreational or aesthetic values. The Comprehensive'Planning Organization of San Diego (CPO is San Diego's counterpart to our SCAG) is proposing to file a nomination document with the Office of Ocean Management, Department of Commerce, for the estab- lishment of a marine sanctuary. The proposed sanctuary would start at San Diego's southern border, northward to San Pedro Bay and, from the shoreline seaward 50 miles. On September 1, 1977 the SCAG Executive Committee voted to support the efforts of San Diego's Comprehensive Planning Organization to establish the proposed sanctuary. On October 19, 1977 Messrs. William Schreiber and Paul Raver met with representatives of Orange County's Coastal Cities, SCAG, and the Western Oil and Gas Association to receive a briefing from CPO staff regarding the proposed sanctuary. Mr. Art Letter, representing CPO, indicated that the specific details of the proposed sanctuary had not been estab- lished, but that it was necessary, in order to meet established federal time lines, to file nomination documents with the Office of Ocean Management by January 1978. 0 Honorable Board of Supervisors November 23, 1977 Page 2 On August 23, 1977, the Secretary of Interior announced that Lease Sale #48, which includes 21 tracts off Los Angeles and Orange County coasts and an additional 26 tracts off San Diego, has been scheduled for sale in June of 1979. It is CPO's contention that the Marine Sanctuary procedure may be the most appropriate means of conducting marine related studies, and ultimately instituting management programs that respond to local and state concerns over oil and gas development in our coastal waters. The County of Orange has long been interested and active in protecting its shorelines and asserting itself in matters concerning the use of its offshore waters. In 1955, for example, the County supported the Shell - Cunningham Act legislation which established an oil drilling sanctuary along Orange and San Diego County shorelines. --Then on August 10,-1971, the Board adopted Resolution 71-898 authorizing the expenditure of funds for the employment of a Legislative Consultant in Washington, D.C., "...to assist in securing legislation to curtail offshore oil drilling on Federal Tidelands seaward of the marine sanctuary established..." by the State. In November 1971, Supervisor Caspers presented testimony before U.S. Senate and House Committees. The Supervisor was addressing proposed federal legislation that, if enabled, would have prohibited granting of oil, gas and other mineral exploration or extraction leases by the federal government. Of concern to the Board was the fact that the Shell -Cunningham Act allows the State Lands Commission to authorize oil,or gas exploration on the State-owned tide and submerged lands, if such oil or gas is threatened due to drainage from wells sunk on adjacent federal lands. On February 4, 1975, the Board adopted Resolution 75-167 expressing concern over proposed Federal Oil Leases and the need, prior to any offshore oil drilling, for further studies and new technology. Later that year, in November, the Board authorized the expenditure of $4,000 to critique the Federal Oil Lease EIS and for legal costs incurred by the. Center for Law in -the Public -Interest in litigati.on--concerni-ng the proposed oil leases. It does appear that the Marine Sanctuary Program will afford local govern- mental and the oil industry the opportunity to work together to insure the proper development of our gas and oil resources without degregating the ocean environment. It is not the objective of the Comprehensive Planning Organization to precl_fishing or oil exploration and extraction in the waters off Southern California. Rather, by filing the nomination documents it is their apparent objective to determine if the Marine Sanctuary Program is the most effective and least bureaucratic means of managing the waters off Southern California. Please contact Paul Raver at 834-3831 for further information concerning this letter. Honorable Board of November 23, 1977 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Supervisors 1. Support the submission of Marine Sanctuary nomination documents by San Diego's Comprehensive Planning Organization for the establishment of a marine sanctuary off the coast of Orange County. 2. Prior to the submission of the final formal submittal documents to to the Department of Commerce, the Administrative Office is directed to submit said document to the Board of Supervisors for review and policy decision. Respectfully submitted, I certify that Section 29 of the Board Rules of Procedure has been coinpli'ed with. r�(inistrative Officer KPR:mh Attachment cc: Orange County Coastal City Managers Southern California Association of Governments San Diego Comprehensive Planning Organization South Coast Coastal Commission Western Oil and Gas Association r ` • • r r 4 SAN DIEGO REGION'S COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS November 21, 1977 Mr. R. E. Thomas County Administrative Officer Orange County Administration Building 515 North Sycamore Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Dear Mr. Thomas: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING ORGANIZATION Suite 524 Security Pacific Plaza 1200 Third Avenue San Diego, California 92101 (714) 233-5211 The purpose of this letter is to request that staff from the Comprehensive Planning Organization be provided with an opportunity to make a presenta- tion to the Orange County Board of Supervisors. The intent of the presenta- tion is to solicit your active participation in CPO's proposal to file a Marine Sanctuary Nomination Document with the Office of Ocean Management, De- partment of Commerce. The Marine Sanctuary as presently proposed en- compasses an area of •7500 square miles from approximately Long Beach south to the International Border and from the mean high tideline seaward fifty miles. It is our intent to file the appropriate documents early in 1978. This proposal has the support of the CPO Board of Directors and has been previously approved by the Executive Committee of the Southern California Association of Governments. The Marine Sanctuary proposal, we believe, is the best mechanism by which Southern California_.coastal. counties and cities can work with the Federal Government and the oil and gas industry to balance oil and gas development activities on the outer continental shelf with local economic and environ- mental protection needs. Protection of Southern California's unique ocean a and coastal resources and the related tourist and marine industries are the primary local factors to be weighted against our national energy needs. I look forward to hearing from you regarding this request. If you have any questions please contact Art Letter of the CPO staff. Sincerely, RICHARD J. Executive Director RJH:AL: j cc Paul Raver, Senior Analyst, County Admin. Office Bill Schreiber, Chief Executive Assistant, Supervisor Schmit Mark Pisano, Executive Director, SCAG MEMBER AGENCIES: Cities of Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Coronado, Dal Mar, El Caton, Escondido, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, San Diego, San Marcos, Vista, and County of San Diego / EX-OFFICIO MEMBER: California Department of Transportation / HONORARY MEMBER: Tijuana, B. CFA. 0 Magcard Letter #f&9/70 sent to the followon 10-10-77- y 7 Mr. Floyd G. Belsito City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Mr. Al Theal City Manager City of Laguna Beach Mr. Robert L. Wynn City Manager City of Newport Beach Mr. Gerald C. Weeks City Manager City of San Clemente 11�, /41 Mr. James B. Mocalis V, City Manager City of San Juan Capistrano Mr. Dennis Courtemarche City Manager• City of Seal Beach Mr. Brian Farris Southern California Association of Governments 600 N. Commonwealth Avenue, Ste. 1000 Los Angeles, California 90005 Mr. Harry Wright Western oil and Gas Association 609 South Grand Avenue Los Angeles,• California 90017 4ryt.l N rA r 1 3 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 a 19 20 21 22 23 24 C 25 t, 26 N N 27 ® 28 fWA:hp RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 6, 1977 On motion of Supervisor Diedrich, duly seconded and carried, the following Resolution was adopted: WHEREAS, the National Marine Sanctuaries Program was established pursuant to Title 3 of the Marine Protection, Research and Sanbtu'aries Act; and '. WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Planning Organization of San Diego County is prpposing to file nomination documents.with the Office of Ocean Management, Department of Commerce for the establishment of a marine sanctuary starting at San Diego County's southern border and proceeding northward to San Pedro Bay for a distance of 50 miles seaward of the shoreline; and WHEREAS, the Southern California Association of Governments Executive Committee has voted to support the"efforts of San Diego to establish the proposed sanctuary; and WHEREAS, it appears that the marine sanctuary program will afford local government and the fishing and oil industries the opportunity to work together to insure the proper use of ocean resources without damage to the marine environment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of-Supervisors'of Orange County hereby expresses its support for the submission of Marine Sanctuary nomination documents by the Comprehensive Planning Organization) of San Diego County for the establishment of a marine sanctuary which would include'the coastal waters seaward of the Orange County coastline. Resolution No. 77-1893 Support Proposed Marine Sanctuary 1. Y � t 1� 2 3 4, 13 14 u.. b;7 15 Wbb u� "- 16 bi= �0 17 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that prior to the submission of the final rmal documents to the Department of Commerce, the Administrative ficer is directed to submit said documents to this Board for review and e making of any appropriate policy decisions. AYES: SUPERVISORS RALPH A. DIEDRICH, THOMAS F. RILEY, PHILIP L. ANTHONY, LAURENCE J. SCHMIT, AND RALPH B. CLARK o WOES: SUPERVISORS NONE ~ "G1 (ABSENT: SUPERVISORS NONE 22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ss. 23 COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, JUNE ALEXANDER, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of Orange County, California, 24 hereby certify that the above and foregoing Resolution was d1i,1.'a1id.;reqularly adopted by It said Board at a regular meeting thereof held on the 6�rti� ��".•day•nfi,''-December , 25 I19 77 , and passed by a unanimous vote of said Q9 Fr- iu 26 r.: •' IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han�l�ard seal this 6th -'.: day of December 1977 , 27 liC�C L •'R L x �'J 28'.• JUNE ALEXANDER ,,; Clerk,of•-,the Board of Supervisors -04 of Or r�4te•Caln.ty;''Cal'ifornia '�.1 h ti i. •.`.