![](graphics/5line.gif)
|
Part
IV Table of Contents
II. Section:Regulatory
Alternatives
A.
Introduction
[Part
IV TOC]
This section analyzes the environmental consequences of the ten
activities included within the scope of the Sanctuary regulations.
For each activity there is an analysis of the impact of a specific
Sanctuary regulatory alternative compared with the status quo
alternative, to natural resources and to human uses, including
identification of the preferred Sanctuary action. (There are also
two regulations proposed (preferred Sanctuary action) whose purpose
is to facilitate enforcement of the other Sanctuary regulations:
the regulations prohibiting possession of resources and interference
with enforcement).
Table 27a & 27b,
summarizes the overall environmental consequences of all regulations
for each of the seven proposed Sanctuary boundaries. This comparative
analysis is based in part on: (1) a quantitative understanding
of the resources and uses encompassed within each boundary (see
Table 26) and; (2) a qualitative
assessment of the predicted impact to the human uses, resources
and qualities within each boundary from all Sanctuary regulations
considered together (i.e. cumulative impact) as well as under
the status quo.
Overall, the proposed final regulations and designation are intended
to: (1) improve resource protection by instituting new regulatory
measures and by supplementing present surveillance and enforcement
actions; (2) minimize negative impacts to human uses, particularly
to those deemed consistent with the purposes of the Sanctuary
and; (3) provide for a manageable area including such factors
as its size, its ability to be defined as a discrete ecological
unit, its accessibility, and its suitability for monitoring and
enforcement activities.
It is important to note that as NOAA promulgates these regulations,
the Agency must work within the constraints of Title III of the
MPRSA. Specifically, section 304(c) provides that NOAA cannot
terminate valid leases, permits, licenses or rights of subsistence
use or of access existing as of the date of Sanctuary designation
but can regulate the exercise of such authorizations and rights
consistent with the purposes for which the Sanctuary was designated.
B.
Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities
[Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
Part of the rationale for including boundary alternatives that
would permit oil and gas activities in areas adjacent to the
Sanctuary would be based on the assumption that the status quo
regulatory and administrative offshore oil and gas regime is
adequate in preventing significant adverse impacts of oil and
gas activities on the environment. Oil and gas offshore operational
technology has advanced considerably since the 1960's (Baker,
1985) and the experiences from past blowouts and spills have
served as the catalyst for the present day, relatively strong
Federal OCS oil and gas regulatory regime.
However, it is still possible that adverse environmental
impacts may occur within the Sanctuary as a result of oil
spills, synergistic effects of various discharges from oil
and gas activities associated with nearness to a drilling
site, or sublethal effects from low-level exposure to these
wastes discharged from oil and gas activities.
Offshore hydrocarbon exploration, development and production
activities, including the transshipment of oil to the mainland,
may cause unforeseen and potentially substantial discharges
of oil (chronic and catastrophic discharges) into the marine
environment in a number of ways. Sanctuary uses, resources
and qualities are at risk from the adverse impacts of: (1)
well blowouts caused by equipment failure or damage and geologic
hazards, (2) oil spills and pipeline leaks, (3) noise and
visual disturbances caused by drilling, the presence of drill
rigs or platform, work crews, supply boats, and helicopters,
(4) pollution associated with aquatic discharges, and (5)
short-term pipeline construction upheaval.
Table 28 summarizes the
known threats to marine resources and qualities which result
from offshore oil and gas activities. Estimates of the magnitudes
of these threats (where possible) is given below.
Table 27: Environmental consequences
of regulations
Table 27 (Cont.)
Table 28: Summary of threats
to marine mammals
According to MMS (1987) the estimated mean number (Est. Mean
#) and probability (Prob.) of each source of spill in the
Central California planning area, using a Poisson distribution,
is as follows:
Spills from OCS Sources in Central California |
Est. Mean #
|
Prob.
|
Platforms |
0.30
|
|
Pipelines |
0.00
|
|
Tankers |
0.39
|
|
SUBTOTAL |
0.69
|
0.5
|
|
Spills From Other Sources in Central
California |
Est. Mean #
|
Prob.
|
Current 5-Year Plan OCS Transport |
0.36
|
0.3
|
Other Domestic Transport |
1.51
|
0.78
|
Imported Transport |
1.42
|
0.76
|
TOTAL SPILLS: ALL SOURCES |
3.98
|
0.98
|
If oil companies discover major hydrocarbon resources during
exploration, then an unknown amount of additional sales with
associated development could occur with a corresponding increase
in the probability of an oil spill. Likewise, the reverse
may be true if less hydrocarbon resources are discovered than
estimated. In addition to oil spills a wide variety of pollutant
discharges are normally associated with OCS oil and gas development:
drill cuttings and muds, sewage and trash, formation waters,
marine corrosion products, and air pollutants (e.g. petroleum
aerosol and exhausts).
Hazards to living resources from oil development operations
can result from the on-site discharge of drill cuttings and
drilling muds which may adversely affect benthic biota as
well as fishery resources, seabirds and marine mammals. An
estimated 302,000 barrels of muds and cuttings and 225 million
barrels of formation waters would be discharged during the
lifetime of potential OCS development off central California
(MMS, 1987).
In 1983, the Marine Board of the National Research Council
conducted a study of drilling discharges. The study found
that these discharges present minimal risk to the marine environment.
The Marine Board did note, however, that drilling discharges
do have an impact on the immediate benthic environment (National
Research Council - Marine Board, 1983). However, more recent
research (EPA, 1985) has shown significant benthic impacts
from platform discharges up to two miles from drilling sites.
Air pollution discharges normally associated with hydrocarbon
activities disperse rapidly into the atmosphere or ocean waters,
and thus pose relatively minor threats to Sanctuary resources.
Oil and gas platforms, rig, and related activities produce
both a visual intrusion on the scenic qualities of the area's
seascape and disturbances due to construction activities and
to the sound and movement of boats and helicopters (U. S.
Bureau of Land Management, 1979). The continuous human activity
associated with oil and gas development may disturb marine
birds and marine mammals; particularly during sensitive nesting,
pupping and migration seasons. If such disturbances are very
close to shore, pinniped stampedes or sudden flights by nesting
birds can occur (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1979).
During critical breeding periods such reactions could result
in increased mortality rates in young marine birds and marine
mammals (U.S. Bureau of Land Management, 1979). A higher general
level of human intrusion feasibly could discourage pinnipeds
such as the Steller sea lions from ever fully recovering at
their breeding areas on Año Nuevo. Although the likelihood
of this occurring has not been scientifically substantiated.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Oil and gas industry development in the area would potentially
increase with the production of oil and gas for the Nation's
energy needs. The necessary infrastructure for such development
would involve coastal development and urbanization to provide
support facilities for the offshore platforms. An increase
in use may also have the indirect effect of displacing traditional
uses such as fishing around areas used by the platforms Sightseeing
may also be obstructed due to the aesthetic disturbance of
the platforms.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative 2 (Preferred)
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
By excluding hydrocarbon activities from the Sanctuary, the
proposed final regulation establishes a "time and space" buffer
area between oil and gas activities and particularly sensitive
island and nearshore habitat areas.Table
29 describes how NOAA's proposed Sanctuary provisions will
help mitigate the impacts of offshore oil and gas activities.
There are stipulations on oil and gas leases imposed by MMS
in environmentally sensitive areas, and MMS regulations (30
CFR Part 250) address many safety and environmental concerns.
However, considering the known vulnerability of the marine
flora and fauna to oil spillage and the difficulty of containing
oil spills in the
Table
29: Potential oil and gas development impacts
open ocean, a prohibition of oil and gas development is necessary
to achieve formal acknowledgment, and better and more coordinated
long- term stewardship of the region's significant offshore
resources.
The proposed development of the OCS to the north of Monterey
Bay poses concern due to the southward flowing current for
much of the year, and the close juxtaposition of the breeding
and resting habitat at Año Nuevo. The predominantly
northward flow in coastal areas south of Point Sur may also
move spilled oil into the Sanctuary from future exploration
in the Santa Maria Basin.
The proposed prohibition on oil, gas and mineral activities
throughout the preferred boundary alternative diminishes the
threat of possible oil spills impacting the resources and
qualities of the Monterey Bay area. The large size of the
preferred boundary alternative ensures that in the event of
an oil spill from OCS development outside of the Sanctuary,
the oil would have to undergo a minimum amount of weathering
before reaching sensitive nearshore and intertidal areas.
The weathering process would allow the more toxic fractions
of the petroleum to evaporate and would permit some natural
dispersion to occur. Also, San Francisco Bay-based contingency
crews would have more time to reach the spill site and deploy
containment and/or diversion equipment either at sea or around
entrances to highly vulnerable Bays and sloughs.
The proposed final regulation's prohibition of hydrocarbon
activities throughout the Sanctuary would prevent certain
discharges of contaminants due to routine rig and platform
operations, which would occur if the tracts were leased and
developed. The exclusion of oil and gas activities would eliminate
concern for any adverse environmental impacts that may occur
within the Sanctuary as a result of synergistic effects of
various discharges, nearness to a drilling site, or sublethal
effects from low-level exposure to these wastes discharged.
While discharges outside the boundary may reach the proposed
Sanctuary, their impacts will be minimized by dispersion and
dilution. Further, discharges or deposits from beyond the
boundaries of the Sanctuary that subsequently enter the Sanctuary
and injure a Sanctuary resource or quality are prohibited.
Prohibition of hydrocarbon activities would enhance the offshore
area's aesthetic wilderness qualities as well as those of
the adjacent mainland coastal region due to the benefit of
reducing discharge of pollutants to the atmosphere. Examples
of this enhancement are the indirect benefits accruing to
the Point Reyes National Seashore (a Class I area under the
Clean Air Act) and the Golden Gate National Recreation Area.The
prohibition of oil and gas activities within the Sanctuary
pursuant to future leases would reduce the potentially adverse
aesthetic impacts from oil and gas platforms, rigs, pipeline
construction, and other activities, and serve to preserve
the wilderness character of the area's waters. While the significance
of undisturbed views and wilderness is difficult to quantify
in monetary terms, their protection is nonetheless important,
particularly those in proximity to heavily populated urban
areas such as the San Francisco Bay metropolitan region and
considering the popularity of the Route 1 scenic drive along
the Monterey Bay and Big Sur coastline. The area has never
been exposed to offshore oil and gas development and no platforms
have ever been visible from the shore.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
NOAA's proposed prohibition of future oil and gas exploration
and development within the Sanctuary boundary would lessen
the noise and human activity in coastal and offshore waters.
It would also decrease the need for additional supply boats
to enter the nearshore waters and overflights of helicopters
that incidentally approach nesting or resting marine mammals
or birds.
Given the wealth of sensitive renewable natural resources
within the proposed Sanctuary, the high tourism and commercial
fishery value of the area, and the present indications of
low National oil and gas resource potential, it is NOAA's
judgment that the net economic effect resulting from a restriction
on hydrocarbon operations is most likely positive. The net
economic effect of the proposed regulation depends largely
on: the amount of hydrocarbon reserves foregone, dollar value
of the oil, the estimated value of the renewable resources,
and the economic value of the tourist industry.
It is thought that the proposed regulation would have positive
economic effects in the long-run by contributing to the preservation
and health of renewable sources of income, such as fishing
and recreation, due to the long-term protection to such activities
from potential oil spills, discharges and visual and acoustical
disturbance. In addition, the Sanctuary research and education
programs would have long-term benefits by enabling natural
resource managers to make better informed decisions regarding
the preservation, enhancement and possible additional economic
benefits of the area's natural resources and uses. This regulation
would however, eliminate any use of the area by the oil and
gas industry.
MMS estimates that the high case conditional mean estimate
of the undiscovered, economically recoverable oil resources
for the entire Central California Planning area is 530 million
barrels and 930 billion cubic feet of gas (Cooke and Dellagiarino,
in press). The FEIS for the proposed 5-Year OCS Oil and Gas
Leasing Program Mid-1987 to Mid-1992 (MMS, 1987) states that
one sale in the Central California planning area will produce
approximately 153 million barrels of oil and 286 billion cubic
feet of gas. As of 1989, it is estimated that the portion
of the Central California Planning Area included in the preferred
Sanctuary boundary has a conditional resource potential of
370 million barrels of oil and 580 billion cubic feet of gas
with an estimated net economic value of 560 million to 1.1
billion dollars (Personal Communication, MMS, July, 1991).
It is possible that the proposed prohibition would reduce
U.S. Treasury income from offshore lease sales and leasing
royalties. The total amount of lost revenue estimated by MMS
from these conditional resource estimates may be modified
by the results of petroleum development pursuant to actual
drilling associated with some future Lease Sale, as well as
an analysis of economic feasibility and environmental and
regulatory constraints. Economic feasibility is determined
solely by the oil industry based on lease sale costs at the
time of sale, current oil prices, proposed project costs,
and environmental reviews and mitigation costs. Oil development
costs and expected returns per investment are considered confidential
information by the oil industry. Once again, environmental
and regulatory constraints are impossible to identify due
to the lack of experience of the Central California Planning
Area with offshore oil and gas development.
All of the above estimates are based on conditional estimates
of resources and no estimates of reserve quantities can be
determined until drilling occurs. Projections on quantity
and quality of oil reserves may be modified, based on the
findings resulting from exploration in the Central California
Planning Area and other factors which may make recovery more
or less economically feasible, such as increases or decreases
in the price of imported oil or prohibitive costs of or environmental
restrictions on alternative energy sources. Thus, reliable
estimates of the amount and value of hydrocarbon resources
affected in the Central California OCS are not available.
The proposed regulation would also affect the availability
of oil and gas resources and State income from the leasing
of tracts located in State waters. Data on the quantity of
State oil and gas OCS resources in the central California
area are not available. Currently, however, there is a State
moratorium on such leasing.
C.
Discharges or Deposits
[Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
The overall consequence of the status quo to resources is that
with increasing human uses in the ocean and adjacent watersheds,
discharges and deposits into the proposed Sanctuary can be predicted
to increase thus further threatening the resources and qualities
of the area, particularly in the coastal zone, and human uses
such as fishing and recreation that depend upon high water quality.
(1)
Discharges from Point Sources
[Part
IV TOC]
The CWA furnishes some protection to marine resources from
the harmful effects of effluent discharges. Under the status
quo, however, there would probably be no specialized effort
by the USCG to enforce the CWA in the Monterey Bay area as
distinct from other offshore waters.
Further, several Bay communities now discharge partially
treated waste directly into ocean waters, portions of which
are designated as State Areas of Special Biological Significance
(ASBS). The City of Watsonville has received a waiver of
secondary treatment requirements of the Clean Water Act
(Section 301(h)) and is in the process of receiving a waiver
renewal as the Sanctuary designation is being finalized.
The City of Santa Cruz currently discharges sewage which
has received advance primary treatment. Santa Cruz has entered
into a consent decree with the California Water Quality
Control Board stating that it will meet secondary treatment
requirements by 1995.
Ocean outfalls, particularly those discharging partially
treated matter into Monterey Bay, must continue to be assessed
to determine the magnitude of their threat to sensitive
marine resources. Much of this research still needs to be
done however, an opportunity also exists to use already
collected data and apply it to the management problems.
Existing state and Federal regulatory and management arrangements
appear to be striving toward alleviating harmful waste outfall
loads over the long term in the interests of marine environmental
protection. To date, implementation obstacles have hindered
the attainment of regional waste treatment facilities sufficient
to render ocean discharges environmentally safe. For example,
a number of discrete areas along the coast of the Bay area
are known to have high levels of specific contaminants.
Local land point-source (eg. municipal and industrial dischargers)
and non-point source discharges (eg. urban runoff and agricultural
practices, much of which is upstream within the watersheds
draining into Monterey Bay) are believed to be the cause
of many of the pollutants. Questions remain as to not only
the exact nature of the source and corresponding management
measures but also the exact nature of the environmental
consequences of the discharges and any potential health
threats to humans and the environment.
One of the ecological consequences of desalination operations
is that marine organisms with broad salinity tolerances
are expected to predominate in the immediate vicinity of
the discharge plume. In addition, certain trace elements,
depending on the pH and oceanographic conditions will concentrate
in the surface layer above the plume and prove to be toxic
to plankton, fish eggs and larvae. There is also the possibility
that concentrations of these chemicals could be wind or
current driven into the intertidal zone, causing problems
for other organisms.
The intake of water from the ocean for desalination plants
will result in impingement and entrainment of marine species.
The intake and discharge may also affect marine resources
by altering shoreline currents and increasing turbidity,
causing sedimentation and consequent smothering of biota,
or lowering light levels with consequent impacts to kelp.
The high salt concentrations of the discharge and its fluctuations
may kill organisms near the outfall that can not tolerate
high salinity or fluctuations beyond its range. Discharges
would be more dense than seawater and could sink to the
bottom causing adverse impacts to benthic communities.
Mixing the brine discharge with sewage discharge may cause
the sewage contaminants to aggregate in particles of different
sizes that they would otherwise. Smaller particles would
interfere with light penetration and reduce primary productivity
and larger particles could be attractive to marine organisms
and bioaccumulate through the food chain.
It can also be assumed that increasing population demands
on the Monterey Bay coast will further degrade water quality
in the future. The continued decline in wetland and slough
habitat, beach closures for recreational users, decline
in fish catches and the closure of shellfishing beds all
indicate impacts to resources and qualities of the ocean
environment indicative of a decline in water quality from
many different sources. There is no single agency that reviews
the discharges from an ecosystem or habitat perspective.
(2)
Discharges from Non-Point Sources (NPS)
[Part
IV TOC]
Actual field and laboratory analyses done by the State on
water quality monitoring, reports for the Monterey Bay drainage
area, "values in mollusk tissues for pesticides and other
toxicant --- suggest that the continuing release from soil
to runoff of various insecticides and other agricultural
by-products remains a potential threat to the aquatic and
marine habitats of the Monterey Bay area". (Cal. State Mussel
Watch data from 86-87, Water Quality Monitoring Report No.
88-3, Division of Water Quality/SWRCB, July 1988.)
It is possible that pollutants also enter the ocean surface
of Monterey Bay from the air but magnitudes and effects
of this source are completely unknown. The California Air
Resources Board monitors ambient air quality as well as
EPA and the Department of the Interior for Federal OCS activities.
(3)
Hazardous waste, oil and trash disposal
[Part
IV TOC]
There is an unknown amount of pollutants and trash that
enter the Monterey Bay area from the ocean. These discharges
and deposits may have been transported far distances by
ocean currents or may have come from passing vessels. In
addition to reducing overall water quality and lessening
the aesthetic appeal of the area, the discharge of litter
may harm marine mammals that sometimes ingest or become
entangled in such litter (Cava, 1989, personal communication).
Pinnipeds entangled in plastic packing material or discarded
fishing lines have occasionally been seen near the Farallon
Islands and Channel Islands (Cava, 1989, personal communication).
In areas of the northern Pacific Ocean as many as 8,000
fur seals become entangled in such debris annually (Haley,
1978). The incidence of the mortality associated with this
type of mammal disturbance remains unclear.
The Marine Plastic Pollution Research and Control Act (MPPRCA)
of 1987 amends the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships to
implement Annex V of the International Convention for the
Prevention of Pollution from Ships (MARPOL 73/78), prohibiting
the disposal by ships of plastics, such as fishing lines
and bags. This protects marine animals and seabirds from
ingesting these wastes while foraging, or becoming entangled
in them, possibly leading to illness or death. The MPPRCA
regulations also prohibit, for example, the disposal by
ships of paper, rags, glass, metal bottles, crockery and
similar refuse less than 12 nautical miles from the nearest
land; the disposal of dunnage lining and packing materials
that float less than 25 nautical miles from the nearest
land; and the disposal of victual waste less than 12 nautical
miles from land (if ground, 3 nautical miles).
Discharges from fishing vessels during traditional fishing
operations such as cooling waters from boat engines and
fish wastes used in or resulting from such operations in
the study area are unlikely to harm the resources of the
study area. Discharges resulting from military activities
in the area, such as smoke markers, sonobuoys and ordnance
are slight and do not appear to pose a threat to the resources
and qualities of the proposed Sanctuary. In addition, DOD
vessels are required to be equipped with oil-water separators
and that the water effluent from these devices be limited
to 20 parts per million (PPM) oil within 12 nmi from land
or 100 PPM beyond 12 nmi from land. The oil portion is retained
on board for shore disposal.
(4)
Ocean dumping
[Part
IV TOC]
Ocean dumping and municipal outfalls can smother benthic
biota and introduce substances into the marine environment
which may affect fish, bird, and mammal resources. However,
the regulations under Title I of the MPRSA prohibit ocean
disposal of dredged material proven to be toxic to the organisms
of the disposal site. A study on the release of dredged
material over a 100 fathom contour site near the Farallon
Islands found a relatively abundant but not diverse benthic
macrofauna. The study concluded that most of the dumped
material went straight down and covered the bottom at an
average depth of about 1 foot (0.3 m). Depending on use
levels of such a disposal site, smothering and oxygen depletion
could significantly harm the benthic community in the area
(COE, 1975). However, in the case of Monterey Canyon the
continuous natural disturbance at the Canyon head (the location
of the existing disposal sites in the proposed Sanctuary)
causes a naturally resilient benthic population (COE, 1977).
Community resilience is correspondingly lower in the more
complex and stable communities of deeper water (COE, 1977).
Because of the environmental complexities of sediment, water
and biological interactions, it is necessary to analyze
the natural disturbance regime at the potential dredging
or disposal site and its relation with the associated benthic
communities for effective management.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Most regulatory decisions pertaining to dischargers are made
on a case-by-case basis with the primary intent of facilitating
the use rather than protecting the environment. Use of the
Monterey Bay area for discharges is considered as an alternative
without any special consideration of the area's nationally
significant resources and qualities. Human uses that cause
such discharge are not discouraged or caused to decrease.
Therefore, from the Sanctuary perspective, certain gaps remain
in the regulatory framework. For example, EPA approval is
needed for ocean dumping and for any location of a new ocean
outfall. EPA regulations take the ecological productivity
and sensitivity of an area into consideration. Nevertheless,
such regulations do not guarantee that EPA will prohibit the
disposal of waste in the area based on threats to Sanctuary
resources and qualities.
Desalination activities may not only provide freshwater but
with associated impacts to marine resources the activities
may also impact commercial or recreational fishing activities,
intertidal nature viewing, and public access and recreation.
New desalination plants could also lead directly to new development
projects, and a resulting increase in population migration
to coastal areas. Desalination projects that occur on a case-by-case
basis development could occur in the proximity of each plant
which may interfere with regional consideration of cumulative
impacts to the coast and adjacent ocean environments.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
The proposed final regulations prohibiting discharge or deposit
of materials or other matter (with certain limited exceptions)
without NOAA approval complements the existing regulatory system,
would enhance the area's overall recreational and aesthetic
appeal, maintain the present good water quality in the Sanctuary,
and help protect Sanctuary resources. By maintaining high water
quality in the Monterey Bay area and regulating discharge and
deposit activities from an ecosystem-wide perspective the impact
of this regulation is predicted to protect the resources and
qualities of the Monterey Bay Sanctuary above that of the status
quo.
As the Sanctuary would not be terminating any existing uses
that discharge or deposit into the Sanctuary it is only possible
to predict that the Sanctuary would have a positive impact
by restricting and potentially prohibiting future uses that
threaten the resources and qualities of the Sanctuary. For
example, it is possible to state that the prohibition on oil
and gas activities would result in an elimination of an estimated
302,000 barrels of muds and cuttings and 225 million barrels
of formation waters that would have been discharged during
the lifetime of potential OCS development off central California.
Without specific information on magnitudes, qualities and
frequencies of future disposal activities and an estimate
of the corresponding threats to the environment, no accurate
analysis can be determined on the exact beneficial consequences
of this Sanctuary regulation to the resources and uses of
the Monterey Bay area.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
The impact of these regulations is expected to be beneficial
to the users of the Monterey Bay area. The requirement of
Sanctuary review of permits for municipal outfall and dredge
disposal would ensure that these potentially harmful activities
receive special consideration from the Sanctuary viewpoint.
The regulation would not only help protect the area's resources
and qualities but therefore, also uses such as aquaculture,
research institutions, aquariums, fishing and recreation and
tourism that depend upon high water quality and uncontaminated
background seawater supplies.
Another positive effect of the regulations would be that
by working within the existing regulatory process NOAA can
provide and coordinate data from existing studies that can
be used to make better informed management decisions by all
agencies including the Sanctuary. For example, DDT and its
degradation products have been found in the tissues of all
eight species of marine fishes caught and analyzed from Monterey
Bay (Shaw, 1972). The California Department of Fish and Game
in cooperation with the California Department of Health Services
is conducting an aquatic toxicology evaluation program in
Monterey Bay (Welden, 1988). The main objectives of the program
are to determine the average chemical contaminants found in
a range of the most common commercial and sport-caught fish
in the bay and to give a current risk-assessment of the effects
of consuming them. Sanctuary management can use this data
to attempt to formulate management measures to address and
possibly mitigate the source of the pollution to assist in
achieving a more healthy and productive fishery.
Finally, users of the Monterey Bay area for discharges and
deposits would not be prohibited from, pursuant to existing
permits, conducting their activities with designation. Discharges
and deposits are subject to all prohibitions, restrictions
and conditions validly imposed by any other authority of competent
jurisdiction. In addition, NOAA may regulate the exercise
of these existing permits or other authorizations (but not
terminate them) to achieve the purposes for which the Sanctuary
was designated. (See the MOA among the State of California,
NOAA and EPA for how NOAA would administer its regulations
relating to water quality within State waters within the Sanctuary
in coordination with the State permit program.)
NOAA would also review applications for non-preexisting permits
and other authorizations (and applicants must provide timely
notice of the filing of the applications and any additional
information NOAA deems necessary) and either approve them,
approve them with terms and conditions, or disapprove them
to ensure Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected.
(Again, regarding administration within State waters within
the Sanctuary, see the MOA.)
NOAA intends to consult with scientific institutions and
local, State and regional organizations such as the Association
of Monterey Bay Area Governments, as well with the holders
of or applicants for any authorization or right and the relevant
permitting authorities of these activities to determine means
of achieving the Sanctuary purposes. The Association of Monterey
Bay Area Governments acts as a clearing house in the Monterey
Bay area for permits or licenses that require multi-agency
review and comment. An opportunity exists to coordinate the
necessary data analysis and research and consult within the
existing regulatory framework to achieve water quality that
is consonant with Sanctuary designation.
If additional conditions are necessary, NOAA will work with
the permittees and permitting authorities to determine the
necessary level of conditions to provide adequate protection
of the proposed Sanctuary's resources. Procedures to ensure
efficient administration of NOAA certification and other processes
are laid out in the proposed final Sanctuary regulations and
the MOA between the State of California, NOAA and EPA (See
Appendix G). In general, NOAA intends to work with existing
authorities to formalize the oversight and management role
of the Sanctuary and increase Federal, State and local cooperative
efforts to achieve the agencies mutual goals.
For example, the requirement of NOAA certification of existing
permits for municipal sewage outfalls will ensure NOAA consideration
of potential impacts on Sanctuary resources and qualities.
The NOAA certification process will be coordinated with EPA
and State and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs).
(See the MOA.) NOAA sign-off on future permits for municipal
sewage outfalls is necessary in order for such outfalls not
to be subject to Sanctuary regulatory prohibitions and will
help ensure protection of Sanctuary resources and qualities.
Thus, if a city or town were discharging sewage effluents
into the Bay pursuant to a valid National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued prior to the effective
date of Sanctuary designation, the city or town could continue
to discharge under the permit without being in violation of
the discharge prohibition by requesting and obtaining certification
of the permit in accordance with the proposed final Sanctuary
regulations and MOA. Sanctuary management would be empowered
to take into account when reviewing NPDES permits the sensitivity
of Sanctuary resources and qualities to municipal discharge
effluents. Such discharges would remain subject to all prohibitions,
restrictions and conditions imposed by any other authority
of competent jurisdiction.
The requirement of secondary treatment or greater, as necessary
depending on the risk to Sanctuary resources and qualities,
for new permits is only expected to have a minimal impact
as only the cities of Santa Cruz and Watsonville are currently
discharging at primary levels. The City of Santa Cruz has
already been required to upgrade to secondary treatment by
1995. The City of Watsonville is in the process of receiving
a 301(h) permit (renewal), and under the terms of the MOA
has until November 1, 1998 to achieve secondary treatment.
In reviewing existing or future permits, licenses, approvals,
or other authorizations, NOAA intends to encourage best available
management practices to minimize non-point source pollution
entering the Sanctuary. Sanctuary review of dumping and dredging
activities will be done in coordination with the Harbor Masters,
COE, EPA, and RWQCBs (which issue Waste Discharge Requirement
permits (WDR)).
WDRs include prohibitions and discharge limitations including
limited time intervals for disposal (WDR No. 88-73 and WDR
No. 88- 68). In the case of the Moss Landing WDR (No. 88-73)
and the Santa Cruz WDR (No. 88-68), there are also provisions
that if the spoils are clean enough it is encouraged that
they be used for beneficial beach nourishment. NOAA can work
within this existing process to help ensure that these requirements
are in place, enforced and adequate to protect the resources
of the Sanctuary.
Use of designated ocean disposal sites SF-12 and SF-14 under
existing Federal permits would continue.
NOAA, in cooperation with Moss Landing Harbor District the
Central Regional Water Quality Control Board and EPA would
review and monitor these activities and recommend modifications
to existing permits if there is evidence that such activities
injure or threaten Sanctuary resources and qualities. NOAA
would ensure that Sanctuary research data is applied. Ocean
disposal of any materials dredged from a site where pollution
is possible must be preceded by bioassay tests to determine
the effect on aspects of the marine environment. The test
results will determine whether any material from Moss Landing
and Santa Cruz may be legally dumped at any ocean disposal
site in the area under Title I. The Sanctuary requirement
of approval of new permits will assure review for possible
impacts without imposing undue burdens.
Any proposed renewal of dumping permits for dredge spoils
at the existing sites would be reviewed for the effects on
Sanctuary resources and qualities, e.g., the benthic environment
and any local populations of algae and kelp. The negative
impacts of ocean dumping include smothering of benthic organisms,
increase in water column turbidity resulting in potential
damage to industry that requires pollutant-free water (such
as for cooling purposes, refractories etc.), mariculture operations,
shellfish harvesting, commercial and sport fishing and the
negative aesthetics due to odor and water discoloration to
contact and non-contact water recreation. The designation/use
of new dredged material disposal sites in the Sanctuary would
be prohibited.
The Sanctuary discharge and deposit regulations may impose
additional costs by requiring the use of more expensive dredge
disposal methods or dumping sites. The regulations could also
result in additional costs if the Director were to determine
that a higher level of treatment or other, more expensive
sewage disposal methods were preferable to disposal in the
Sanctuary. It is difficult to predict accurately the economic
impact of the Sanctuary discharge and deposit regulations
without analyzing specific proposals. The application of the
regulations to dredge disposal and other dumping adds further
protection of the resources and qualities to that afforded
by the existing legislation. In addition, the COE and EPA
are in the process of establishing a new dredged material
disposal site as part of the San Francisco Bay Area's Long-Term
Management Strategy (LTMS). One of five and a portion of a
second study area would be unavailable for use as the Sanctuary
boundary encompasses these areas and designation of new disposal
sites in the Sanctuary is prohibited. However, the remaining
study areas beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary, would remain
available for eventual designation as a dump site.
NOAA will specifically work with EPA regarding the designation
of new sites under Title I, Section 102 of the MPRSA near
the Sanctuary and specifically the issuance of permits to
avoid possible negative impacts to either GFNMS or MBNMS.
Consultation with EPA regarding the designation of any new
ocean disposal site near the Sanctuary will undertake to determine
if there "is identifiable progressive movement or accumulation,
in detectable concentrations above normal ambient values,
of any waste within 12 nautical miles of any shoreline [or]
marine sanctuary designated under Title III of the [MPRSA]"
[emphasis added], (40 CFR 228.10(c)(1)(i)). If the
effects of the activities at the disposal site are determined
to be categorized in Impact Category I then the required Impact
Analysis, generated by EPA, may be used by EPA as a basis
for modifying the disposal site's use.
The effects of the discharges from desalination will depend
on the particular constituents of the discharges and the conditions
of the ocean area where the discharges will occur. Impacts
to marine resources need to be studied both in the field and
laboratory. Particular studies would be focused at the location
of the outfall including dilution studies, inventory of organisms
in the area and pre- and post-operational monitoring.
Finally, the Sanctuary would investigate all of the proposed
desalination activities on a cumulative basis with regard
to their combined impact on the entire Sanctuary ecosystem.
D.
Historical Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
Many cultural and historical resources are known to exist in
the area but few have been specifically examined and protected,
particularly verification of sites and significance of shipwrecks.
Generally, the area's potential as a baseline indicator of regional
environmental conditions of interest to marine scientists and
archaeologists appears under-utilized.
To date, surveys of the study area's submerged lands for
historical resources have been limited. The Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), now MMS, for example, conducted a 1979 survey
of the shipwreck literature in central and northern California
as part of its EIS for lease Sale #53. This agency is required
by law to consider potential disturbance and damage mitigation
actions for significant underwater historic resources if there
are nearby oil and gas activities.
The California State Lands Commission has a computer inventory
of numerous sites of historical resources within State waters
of the preferred Sanctuary boundary. It has an agreement with
the University of California at Berkeley to provide further
research to determine their historical significance.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Current activities would continue under the status quo without
any special protection to historical sites beyond state waters
and to the ecological impacts of taking historical resources
throughout the Sanctuary. There would be no special requirements
for private sector users such as treasure salvors and recreational
divers or public sector agencies such as the Navy, to consider
the historic and ecological consequences of their impact from
a Sanctuary perspective.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
This regulation is aimed at protecting historical resources
(as defined in the program and Sanctuary regulations, this term
includes cultural, archeological and paleontological resources).
As discussed earlier, the regulations provide for the possibility
of issuance of a NOAA permit for various reasons, e.g., research
or to further salvage or recovery operations in connection with
an abandoned shipwreck in the Sanctuary title to which is held
by the State of California.
NOAA will thus be able to ensure that all parties affecting
historical resources within the Sanctuary conduct their activities
in a systematic fashion according to recognized archeological
procedures. NOAA will also be able to ensure that the activity
is conducted consistent with the NHPA and that the proposed
user consult with the California State Historic Preservation
Officer.
As part of the Sanctuary management regime NOAA intends to
research the number and type of historical resources within
the boundaries of the Sanctuary, building on the research
of others. This research will further our understanding of
how to protect these resources so that they are available
for future generations. Historical resources are defined as
resources possessing historical, cultural, archaeological
or paleontological significance, including sites, structures,
districts, and objects significantly associated with or representative
of earlier people, cultures, human activities and events.
Thus any inundated prehistoric aboriginal sites and associated
artifacts, as well as shipwrecks would be included in the
resource protection regime of the proposed Sanctuary.
NOAA will also seek National Register listing of appropriate
identified resources located in the Sanctuary under the National
Historic Preservation Act. The State has indicated that it
will also do so, with regard to resources in State waters.
Listing would make available grant and survey funds from the
Secretary of the Interior (Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service) to be used to identify resource distributions and
assess their significance. Placement on the National Register
also ensures careful review of proposed Federal activities
which could adversely affect identified resources. However,
listing does not prevent removal or damage of the resource
by non-Federal entities.
Historical resources in the marine environment are fragile,
finite and non-renewable. This prohibition is designed to
protect these resources so that they may be researched and
information about their contents and type made available to
the public.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
The proposed final regulation should not significantly affect
existing activities within the Sanctuary. However, new coastal
development activities such as desalination and discharge
outfall construction would need to consider the proximity
of historic resources to their proposed activity to avoid
potential injury to these valuable resources. Users such as
Navy salvage operations, recreational divers and treasure
salvors would have to obtain Sanctuary permit if their proposed
activity would violate the Sanctuary prohibition.
NOAA can also impose penalties of up to $50,000/violation
for infractions of this regulation to implement NOAA's responsibility
for the proper management of historic artifacts. This regulation
does not apply to moving, removing or injury resulting incidentally
from kelp harvesting, aquaculture or traditional fishing operations.
E.
Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed
[Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
Loss of resources, habitats and degradation of water quality
will continue with the predicted increase in activities that
involve alteration and construction of the seabed. Sand mining
in the area when it was occurring caused loss of benthic habitat
and erosion of the seabed (Evaluation of Request for Renewal
of Permits for the Monterey Sand Company by Kendell and Bitterman,
1988). Recently, all requests to continue sand mining in the
surf zone have been withdrawn. A sediment budget analysis performed
for Monterey Bay indicates a budget deficit. This signifies
an erosional rather than a depositional trend for the Bay (Oradive,
1986). The results of the analysis indicate that about 2.1 million
cubic yards of sediment are deposited annually into the bay
while an estimated 2.34 million cubic yards of sediment are
lost annually. Sediment deposition occurs from cliff erosion,
river discharges, and longshore drift-- half of these are from
river discharges. Sediment losses occur from deposition into
the submarine canyon, sand mining operations, off-shore deposition
by rip currents, and eolian sediment transport to the dunes.
Longshore transport along the bay is generally in a southerly
direction. The discharge of sediment from the San Lorenzo,
Pajaro, and Salinas Rivers has, through the ages, combined
with this southerly transport and the prevailing northwesterly
breeze to build the expansive sand dunes along the bay (McGee,
1986). Since erosion of the beach has occurred in the vicinity
of this mining, some researchers believe it has increased
because of the mining (Griggs, 1986; McGrath, 1986, 1987).
Combellick and Osborne (1977) state that mining and weak longshore
transports of new sand are the principal factors causing erosion.
Because most sand transported along the northern bay is lost
to the submarine canyon, the only source of suspended sand
in the southern bay is the Salinas River. This river source
does not appear to be adequate to support sand mining without
erosion occurring. Porter et al. (1979) concluded in 1975
that the quantity of sand supplied to the southern beaches
from the Salinas River is inadequate to consider the mined
sand as a renewable resource (in Clark and Osborne, 1982).
Thus the major source of the mined sand appears to be the
historic and current erosion of the nearshore sand dunes.
The current limited dredging and disposal activities at current
frequencies, magnitudes and quality at existing sites in the
proposed Sanctuary area do not appear to pose a significant
threat to the resources of the area. Disposal of clean sand
dredge material on beaches assists with beach replenishment
projects. Disposal at the head of the Monterey Canyon does
not appear to significantly injure benthic invertebrate populations
due to the resilience of these communities to natural seabed
disturbances (see analysis for dredge disposal consequences
of impacts under status quo for discharges and deposits).
However, new disposal at sites other than the head of the
canyon is likely to cause an increase in turbidity and destruction
of benthic communities.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Currently, dredging, dredge disposal, and related uses involving
seabed alteration are not extensive in the study area (see
Part II, Section 2). Ocean disposal of dredge spoil from local
harbors is an ongoing activity and in certain cases such as
with clean sand dredge material, is deposited on shores for
beach nourishment. Certain activities, such as routine harbor
maintenance and installation of navigation aids are also vital
for the local economy and safety of the users in the proposed
Sanctuary. Studies are currently underway to determine a new
ocean disposal site off of the Golden Gate for dredged material
from San Francisco Bay. (See previous discussion under ocean
dumping--C.2.b. of this part).
However, if the pace of activities or demand for uses such
as sand mining, strip mining and ocean mineral mining should
be proposed in the future there is a potential for severe
environmental threats to the resources of the Monterey Bay
area. These activities are known to increase the turbidity
of the water column, disturb and alter benthic communities
on the ocean floor, and alter natural erosion and sedimentation
rates. Once again the regulatory regimes responsible for these
uses may not take into account the ecosystem perspective or
sensitivity of area resources and qualities.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
Over the short and long term, human intrusion upon marine wildlife,
along with potentially adverse impacts on their food supplies
(e.g., benthic and pelagic fish resources), will be minimized
by regulating activities that alter the seabed and Sanctuary
habitats.
Dredge and dredge disposal activities are not extensive within
the preferred alternative's proposed Sanctuary boundaries
(see Part II, Section 2); nevertheless, unrestricted alteration
of, construction on, or drilling of the seabed represents
a potential threat to marine resources. Foremost among these
adverse impacts would be increased turbidity levels, disruption
or displacement of benthic and intertidal communities, and
human intrusions near marine bird and marine mammal concentrations.
This proposed final regulation would allow limited and ecologically
sound dredging (particularly for harbor entrance channels)
at levels fairly certain not to harm breeding grounds, haul-out
and foraging areas.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Overall there is expected to be a positive impact to the users
of the Monterey Bay area. With Sanctuary designation, no existing
activities are proposed to be terminated and only new sand
mining (there is no current sand mining) and ocean dredge
disposal at new sites will be prohibited. Recently, two companies
requesting permits authorizing sand mining in the Sanctuary
withdrew their requests. Thus no economic impacts upon commercial
firms are expected. The prohibition of ocean dumping activities
at new sites in the Sanctuary will delete one and a portion
of a second of the five study areas under consideration off
of the Golden Gate. However, three sites remain available
outside the western boundary of the Sanctuary. Minimal impacts
are expected as indications are that the preferred disposal
site would be beyond the boundary of the Sanctuary.
Harbors (with the exception of a portion of Moss Landing)
are excluded from the boundary of the Sanctuary and these
special areas and uses would continue to be managed by the
status quo. Beyond the harbor exclusion zones, i.e., inside
the Sanctuary, harbor maintenance in the areas necessarily
associated with existing Federal Projects including dredging
of entrance channels and repair, replacement or rehabilitation
of breakwaters and jetties, and installation of navigation
aids are exempted from the Sanctuary regulatory prohibition.
The regulation of projects for docks and piers in the nearshore
area will remain the responsibility of the existing regulatory
authorities.
The regulation prohibits persons from placing any structure
or other matter on the seabed, such as but not limited to
artificial reefs, pipelines and outfalls unless relevant permits
are reviewed and certified or approved by NOAA. The prohibition
also includes placement or abandonment of any structure or
other matter on the seabed, which includes vessels that run
aground and thereby helps ensure that the owners and operators
are responsible for their removal.
Existing holders of authorizations have an obligation to
seek certification from NOAA. Existing activities, would be
monitored by NOAA and NOAA may require conditions on their
existing permits if it determines that these activities may
injure a Sanctuary resource or quality.
The activities exempted from this regulation would be monitored
by the Sanctuary manager, based on information supplied by
the EPA, COE, the State Lands Commission and the California
Coastal Commission. If the data collected demonstrate that
a greater degree of Sanctuary oversight is appropriate, amendments
to the regulations could be proposed.
F.
Taking Marine Mammals, Turtles and Seabirds
[Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
The abundant and diverse marine mammals and seabirds that exist
in the Monterey Bay area currently use their habitats in close
proximity to a number of human activities. So far there is no
specific evidence that marine mammals, turtles or seabirds are
threatened by any one activity. However, a number of conflicts
potentially exist between human and marine mammal and seabird
uses of the Monterey Bay area. Specifically, sportdivers compete
with sea otters for abalone and commercial fishery nets may
threaten diving seabirds and submerged marine mammals.
The current regulatory regime under the U.S. Departments
of the Interior and Commerce gives each Department the authority
to designate and protect oceanic habitats if found to be "critical,"
for species listed as "endangered" under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA). The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the
ESA prohibit the "taking" of marine mammals and threatened
or endangered species. The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
prohibits the taking, killing, possessing, selling and other
specified forms of exploitation of migratory birds. The term
"taking" is defined broadly under the ESA and MMPA and has
been interpreted by the administering agencies, so that the
ESA and MMPA provide considerable protection. However, the
potential threats to marine mammals and endangered species
range from direct injuries to a specific animal or population
to indirect or cumulative degradation of their habitats. Neither
the MMPA nor the ESA fully prevent such degradation of habitats.
Section 7(a) of the ESA does provide protection against actions
which jeopardize endangered species or their critical habitats,
but this section applies only to activities authorized, funded
or carried out by Federal agencies, not to private or state
actions. There is no explicit provision for the designation
or protection of marine mammal habitats under the MMPA. Thus,
the MMPA, ESA and MBTA together provide considerable protection
to the marine mammals, turtles and seabirds of the Sanctuary
by prohibiting the taking of specific species protected under
those acts.
A portion of the habitat area used by marine mammals and
seabirds foraging at Monterey Bay is already protected under
the National Marine Sanctuary Program. The nearby GFNMS provides
protection for marine habitats used by mammals and seabirds,
but Monterey Bay, which is an important feeding ground for
many of the same mammals and seabirds and which also supports
a unique combination of benthic organisms, is not similarly
protected under the present regime.
With the exception of the Title III of the Marine Protection,
Research and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA), no Federal authority
currently exists to identify and protect localized marine
habitats of exceptional importance to non-endangered species.
However, Title III of the MPRSA has never been implemented
in the Monterey Bay area. Also, while the Marine Mammal Protection
Act (MMPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act proscribe the
hunting and taking of marine mammals and migratory birds,
they do not protect their habitats from potentially adverse
uses. Such program deficiencies have left certain valuable
marine habitats largely unprotected.If current uses intensify
and seriously threaten resources, the lack of suitable management
authority to intervene could allow undesirable environmental
impacts to the seabirds, marine mammals and turtles of the
area.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Currently the status quo addresses the taking of marine mammals
and seabirds under relevant legislation. Marine mammals (except
sea otters) may be taken incidentally to commercial fishing
pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 1383a until October 1993, after which
rulemaking pursuant to 16 U.S.C 1371, 1373 and 1374 may be
required. Fishing activities that potentially take marine
mammals are required to have observers on board to monitor
the extent of the mortality. Researchers studying marine mammals
are required under the MMPA to obtain a permit for their activities.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
The proposed regulation would overlap with the MMPA, MBTA and
ESA but also extend protection consistent with the intent of
the MPRSA to protect the Sanctuary resources on an environmentally
holistic basis. The proposed regulation would include all marine
mammals, sea turtles and seabirds in or above the Sanctuary.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
The regulation would not preclude a number of current activities
from continuing. For example, scientific research on marine
mammals and seabirds as research on Sanctuary resources is
encouraged as part of the Sanctuary mandate. To facilitate
this research the proposed final regulations allow the issuance
of Sanctuary permits for research. If the research is on Federal
or State designated endangered species or on marine mammals,
the researchers are already required to obtain permits from
the relevant management agency and would not have to obtain
a Sanctuary permit or other approval under the proposed final
regulation.
As another example, NOAA will work with existing fisheries
management agencies as well as National and local fishery
organizations (e.g., the PCFFA) to ensure that the incidental
taking of seabirds, sea turtles and marine mammals in commercial
fishing nets is minimized.
Finally, rehabilitation of injured, and studies on dead seabirds
and marine mammals, would be permitted under these Sanctuary
regulations in response to an emergency threatening life,
property, or the environment or pursuant to a research permit.
G.
Overflights [Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
There have been reports of low-flying aircraft (below 1000'
AGL) in areas of Monterey Bay which have startled bird populations
and caused stampedes of marine mammals. There are a number of
small, private airfields in the Monterey Bay area and often
small planes can be observed flying along the coastline. Low
helicopter overflights have also been known to cause the drowning
of sea otter pups after parents desert the young when disturbed
by the noise and downdraft of the helicopter's rotor blades.
Low aircraft overflights (below 1000 feet) have been observed
regularly to disturb bird and mammal communities in the neighboring
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary.
The California Department of Fish and Game regulations that
presently prohibit overflights less than 1000 ft above the
Año Nuevo Reserve, Point Lobos Reserve and the California
Sea Otter Game Refuge appear to provide adequate protection
to the resources of these particular areas from visual and
acoustical disturbances from aircraft but are limited in their
offshore extent. In addition, although the Federal Aviation
Administration charts and NOAA's San Francisco Sectional Aeronautical
Chart indicate a Notice to Pilots that prohibits flights below
1000 ft (305 m) Above Ground Level (AGL) over the Año
Nuevo and Point Lobos State Reserves and the California Sea
Otter Game Refuge, other sensitive areas to the north of the
Refuge at Carmel Bay are not protected. Persistent low altitude
overflights can severely disrupt various marine mammal and
seabird behavior patterns, particularly those of breeding
and nesting.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Although only a few commercial charter airplanes are providing
opportunities to view marine mammals and seabirds from the
air, these uses can be expected to increase. A seaplane operation
based out of Santa Cruz provides a service for visitors who
wish to observe Monterey Bay from the air. Small private planes
often fly low along the coast to view the coastal environment.
This use can also be expected to increase with the growing
population in the area. Any future OCS leasing would involve
an increase in air traffic from helicopter overflights servicing
offshore platforms from coastal support facilities.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
This prohibition is intended to protect marine birds and mammals
from the disturbance and harassment of low-flying aircraft.
For example, seabirds congregated near the shoreline, pinniped
haul- out areas, and sea otters among the kelp beds are all
primarily concentrated within these four zones.
In particular, adjacent water areas where marine animals
forage would receive additional protection from potentially
disruptive overflights. The 1000 ft (305 m) minimum height
parallels the National Marine Fisheries Services's selective
prohibition of overflights under 1000 ft (305 m) in areas
where marine wildlife harassment is likely. The Sanctuary
regulation would contribute to the protection of natural undisturbed
behavior patterns of marine mammals and birds concentrating
and breeding along island and mainland shorelines.
Marine mammals and birds are highly susceptible to disturbance
from low-flying aircraft. Sanctuary management experience
with similar regulations in the Channel Islands and Gulf of
the Farallones National Marine Sanctuaries has revealed that
one can enforce such regulations from the ground by observing
the Identification Numbers on aircraft flying below 1000'
and then reporting the incident to the appropriate airfield.
NOAA would monitor the current status and future trends of
overflights to determine if the regulation of overflights
should be expanded to protect additional areas.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Private recreational overflights outside the restricted area,
which occur regularly but almost entirely along the mainland
coast anyway (e.g., for whale migration watching), would not
be affected if beyond three miles of mean high water. Over
the prohibited zones, planes would still be able to enjoy
general scenic and whale observation opportunities, albeit
from altitudes of 1000 feet (305 m) or above.
Uses of the area's air space below 1000 feet necessary to
respond to an emergency threatening life, property, or the
environment or necessary for valid law enforcement purposes,
such as Coast Guard search and rescue operations and enforcement
operations, would be exempted. Department of Defense (DOD)
activities would be subject to the Sanctuary regulation on
DOD activities discussed in Part III. Because no commercial
airlines fly regular routes over the prohibited zones at these
low altitudes, this regulation should pose no burden on commercial
carriers. Helicopters servicing offshore oil and gas platforms
would be required to fly over 1000' if passing over the prohibition
zones. However, as oil and gas development would be prohibited
within the Sanctuary the consequences of this regulation to
this type of overflight is expected to be minimal.
Aircraft that need to fly below 1000 feet within these zones
for research purposes would need to obtain a Sanctuary research
permit. The application would be processed expeditiously to
ensure that while Sanctuary resources and qualities are protected
there would only be a minimal administrative burden on the
applicant.
H.
Operation of "Personal Water Craft"
[Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
The high density of inshore flora and fauna and vulnerability
of these resources to personal water craft warrants protection
from this activity. Personal water craft are capable of travelling
at speeds which allow insufficient time for some marine species
to avoid the vessels. For example, in August, 1990, a jet skier
reportedly ran over sea otters near the Coast Guard Pier in
Monterey Harbor. Officials found at least one injured otter
immediately afterwards. It is likely that such events will occur
again. These risks also apply to harbor seals, sea lions, sea
turtles, some fish species and marine birds.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Personal water crafts are a relatively new form of water sport.
In the Monterey Bay area they are usually only operated in
small numbers and during the summer. However, the abundance
and rapid growth of other uses of the area, including recreational
water- sports, warrants a long-term perspective on the management
of uses of the proposed Sanctuary. In addition, there is growing
awareness of conflicts with other user groups of the area
that has recently resulted in the promulgation of specific
regulations intended to minimize these conflicts. (i.e., The
city of Santa Cruz restricts the operation of jet skis near
beaches traditionally used by surfers).
The State of Hawaii has already proposed regulations that
would permit operation of personal water craft only in specified
areas, in part to avoid injury to neighboring marine mammals.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative (Preferred)
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
This regulation is intended to reduce negative impacts of this
activity, in particular, on coastal populations of marine mammals
and seabirds which are especially vulnerable to disturbance
and injury from this activity. Zoning of this activity away
from the kelp beds and estuaries of the area will prevent conflicts
with sea otters, other animals and fragile estuarine communities.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Overall the impact of this regulation should be beneficial
to users of the area. Many conflicts that currently arise
from interference between personal water craft operators and
other recreationists will be avoided by moving these water
crafts beyond the primary areas of other recreational activities.
Personal water craft operators will still be able to participate
in this activity within areas traditionally used or close
to them and near to coastal access points.
I.
Vessel Traffic [Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo (Preferred) [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
Most intentional discharges of oil from vessels (and some releases
of air pollutants) generated during loading and off-loading
are explicitly regulated by existing regulations. Other potential
threats due to vessels, such as noise and visual disturbances,
propeller hits, and groundings, are not (and in certain instances
cannot be) controlled or prevented.
Disturbance from vessels could result in flight or other
changes in behavior. Repeated disturbances may cause mammals
to temporarily or permanently abandon an area. Trash disposal
can cause injury to marine resources from ingestion and entanglement.
(Recent implementation of Annex V of MARPOL by the United
States makes it illegal for any vessel to dump plastic trash
anywhere in the ocean or navigable waters of the United States
and illegal to dump other types of garbage in the ocean depending
on the type of garbage and distance from shore (see Appendix
C for details of these restrictions.)
However, the threat to coastal and marine resources and qualities
from vessel traffic appears to be most severe from large oil
tanker and barge spills. The recent disaster of the Exxon
Valdez grounding off Valdez, Alaska, highlights the severe
environmental and socioeconomic damage that results from oil
spills in the marine environment. Recently there were three
such tanker oil spills on the East Coast: in Rhode Island
and Texas on June 23, 1989; and on the Delaware River near
the Port of Philadelphia on June 24, 1989. The largest of
these resulted when the Uruguayan oil tanker President Rivera
ran aground near Philadelphia, releasing 298,000 gallons of
oil into the Delaware River. At Narragansett Bay, the Greek-
registered World Prodigy grounded on Brenton Reef near Newport,
dumping 300,000 gallons of oil. In Texas, the tanker Rachel
B. collided with a barge resulting in 252,000 gallons of oil
spilling into the Houston Ship Channel.
According to the U.S. Coast Guard, Marine Pollution Retrieval
System (July, 1989), since 1973 there have been an average
of just under 10,000 oil pollution reports per year. Since
1980 there have been 588 incidents of 10,000 bbl or greater
(43 tankers, 109 barges, 58 miscellaneous vessels and 378
non-vessel incidents). In the year 1988 alone there were 5.5
million gallons of oil spilled, of which 60% was attributable
to vessels.
Four spills have recently occurred off the West Coast: the
tanker Puerto Rican near San Francisco in 1984, the oil barge
Nestucca off the coast of Washington in 1988, the Exxon Valdez
near Valdez, Alaska in March, 1989, and the American Trader
in 1990. The Exxon Valdez disaster has received much publicity
and scientific investigations are currently underway on the
long-term effects of the spill and possible future management
measures (CMC, 1989).
The example closest to Monterey Bay was the Puerto Rican
spill. This tanker was disabled about eight miles seaward
of the Golden Gate by on-board explosions. The vessel eventually
broke apart and discharged refined oil products that entered
the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary (GFNMS).
The progress of this incident demonstrates the seriousness
of the potential hazard to Monterey Bay.
The Puerto Rican was disabled shortly before the predicted
on- set of the Davidson current, which reverses the direction
of California coastal currents from a southerly to northerly
flow (See Part II, Section II). The wind and current direction
in the San Francisco Bight, however, was still to the south.
Initial trajectory estimates indicated that spills occurring
in the area would move southward. It was therefore decided
to tow the burning vessel out to sea, south of the Farallon
Islands. The ship broke apart southwest of the Farallon Islands
and the resulting spill did move southward initially. Unexpectedly,
wind and current direction changed and the spill moved rapidly
north through the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary
and up to, and beyond Bodega Bay.
Some 48,000 barrels of hydrocarbons were released into the
ocean from the Puerto Rican. Of this amount, only 1,460 barrels
were recovered during cleanup operations (USCG, 1985). This
spill killed an estimated 2,874 seabirds, and did an unquantified
amount of damage to water quality, fishery resources, marine
mammals, and human uses. By comparison, in February, 1986,
the tanker barge Apex Houston spilled some 600 barrels of
oil along the central California coast killing an estimated
9,817 seabirds within the Gulf of the Farallones National
Marine Sanctuary.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Given the expected increases in vessel traffic, and the potential
for vessel accidents and oil spills and the risks of vessels
entering nearshore waters and disturbing marine bird and mammal
populations, threats to Sanctuary resources and qualities
seems likely to increase.
Although it is impossible to eliminate all probability of
such accidents the U.S. Coast Guard is working on proposals
to reduce vessel accidents off the shore of California by
creating Vessel Traffic Separation Schemes (VTSS), an internationally
recognized routing measure that separates vessels into opposing
streams of traffic through the establishment of traffic lanes;
and Shipping Safety Fairways (SSF), where no fixed structures
are permitted. Such schemes have to be approved by the International
Maritime Organization before they take effect. Once in place
adherence to the traffic lanes by vessels is entirely voluntary.
The U.S. Coast Guard was examining an extension of the existing
San Francisco TSS an additional 28 nmi to the south-southeast
along the coast to a point approximately due west of Santa
Cruz. Two parallel one-mile wide SSFs were proposed from the
termination of the extended TSS to the Santa Barbara Channel
TSS at Point Arguello. With the exception of the waters off
Point Conception, the proposed routing system followed current
traffic patterns along the coast. Pillar Point was the nearest
area of the coast to the amended shipping lanes (about 5 nmi).
Point Sur was approximately 8 nmi away, while Año Nuevo
was 10 nmi distant.
This proposal is now on hold and alternatives to the TSS
described above are being considered that would provide additional
safeguards from the possibilities of collisions and of oil
spills reaching the shore of the Monterey Bay area.
The USCG voluntary vessel traffic lanes out of San Francisco
currently receive a very high level of compliance. Under the
existing regulatory system commercial vessels, including tankers
and other bulk carriers may transit anywhere in the proposed
Sanctuary. This includes the very sensitive nearshore areas,
where they could cause visual disturbances and create increased
danger of pollution, both from operational discharges and
from accidental groundings. Generally, based on good seamanship,
large vessels are kept at a considerable distance from the
shore.
Local vessel traffic will probably increase considerably
with the development of the tracts to be leased in the Central
California OCS due to servicing requirements and transportation
of produced oil. Many of those vessels may be capable of navigating
quite near to Año Nuevo and other offshore areas. Environmental
consequences and risks of local tanker traffic associated
with central California OCS oil and gas development offshore
central California are considered separately under the section
on oil, gas and mineral activities.
Generally speaking, few large vessels transiting the study
area's customary lanes and adjacent ocean waters have occasion
to enter Monterey Bay. The only exception is oil tankers,
originating primarily at San Francisco Bay refineries, which
utilize the Bay for nearshore off-loading at the Pacific Gas
and Electric (PG&E) power plant. This traffic represents
a continuing environmental concern, especially in regard to
certain Monterey Bay marine mammal and seabird communities,
should oil spills occur either in nearshore transit (due to
grounding or collisions) or while off-loading. Vessels presently
follow routine and safe entry and exit procedures into and
out of the Bay and unload one at a time. The USCG's Monterey
station keeps a close watch on these operations with regard
to marine environmental protection. No major spills have ever
occurred in the Bay although minor accidental discharges have
been documented. A proposed expansion of Moss Landing's offshore
terminal by PG&E has been withdrawn. Consequently, oil
product delivery pattern--at least in term of tanker vessel
size--will remain the same, i.e., 50,000 DWT maximum.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
Instead of promulgating a regulation that may not adequately
protect Sanctuary resources and qualities NOAA prefers to immediately
work with the U.S. Coast Guard to determine an effective action
that will provide the greatest possibility of preventing injury
to Sanctuary resources and qualities. In the meantime, Sanctuary
resources and qualities will continue to be at risk from this
no action alternative with the potential consequences already
described above under the Status Quo.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Without detailed consultation with the U.S. Coast Guard it
is difficult to calculate the impact to U.S. vessels affected
by a Sanctuary regulation. Immediate NOAA action may only
apply to U.S. Flag vessels as the action would not have gone
through the IMO.
However, immediate action, of any kind, would alleviate some
of the public concern that the Sanctuary is vulnerable to
vessel traffic impacts to natural resources. Potentially,
such NOAA action would also have a positive impact to other
recreational and fishing user groups.
J.
Fishing, Kelp Harvesting and Aquaculture
[Part
IV TOC]
1.
Status Quo (Preferred) [Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
What little data exist show that there is minimal impact to
the benthic resources on the ocean floor from roller trawling
and that both trawlers and gill-netters are now prohibited from
fishing in nearshore areas with high concentrations of marine
mammals and seabirds, thus helping minimize any incidental taking
of these species. Impacts of Kelp harvesting in the area on
associated species of the kelp habitat remain unstudied. Aquaculture
impacts range from lowering of water quality to disturbance
of benthic habitats in the immediate vicinity of the activity.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Fisheries in general have benefitted from Sanctuary status
at other Sanctuaries in the Program due to the protection
provided to the industry and fish stocks from the negative
impacts of ocean dumping, offshore oil and gas development,
seabed mining and water pollution. Fishing activities are
also predicted to benefit from designation of the Monterey
Bay Sanctuary. Fishing in the Sanctuary is regulated other
than under the MPRSA by Federal and State authorities.
NOAA did evaluate the possibility of proposing some additional
Sanctuary regulation of fishing. However, the existing management
authorities, the California Department of Fish and Game, NMFS
and the PFMC, have comprehensive management authority over
these resources. The close coordination and consultation which
has already been initiated between the PFMC, CDF&G and
NOAA indicates that Sanctuary concerns, if any, will be fully
communicated to the authorities dealing with these on-going
management issues. Notwithstanding the above, the absence
of specific fishing regulations does not absolve fishermen
from obeying not only existing State and Federal regulations
but also Sanctuary regulations of general application, which
are designed to protect Sanctuary resources and qualities.
Finally, as part of the Sanctuary research and management
regime, NOAA will consider supporting periodic monitoring
of the effects of trawling and gillnetting on the Sanctuary
resources and qualities. NOAA will also consider the possibility
of making funds available for technical assistance for studying
the area's marine finfish, shellfish, and algae resources
and for strengthening the present enforcement capabilities
of the CDF&G and other enforcement entities including
the NMFS and the USCG.
2.
Sanctuary Alternative
[Part
IV TOC]
a.
Consequence of Impact to Resources
[Part
IV TOC]
Sanctuary regulations at the time of designation would be intended
to protect identified resources at risk from the threat of fishing
activities. Such regulations would require extensive consultation
with affected parties and agencies and no major threat has yet
been identified. Recent state legislation appears to address
many of the potential threats such as from gill nets and roller
trawling. There does not appear to be any major benefit to the
environment with promulgation of Sanctuary regulations on fishing
with designation. With regard to kelp harvesting and aquaculture,
addition of kelp harvesting and aquaculture to the scope of
future regulations anticipates any future data or events that
may arise indicating Sanctuary action may be necessary to protect
sanctuary resources and qualities.
b.
Consequence of Impact to Uses
[Part
IV TOC]
Sanctuary regulations would add another set of restrictions
on the currently heavily regulated fishing industry. Many
boats have already been required to move further offshore
from ecologically sensitive areas and additional area closures
would add to this burden. Individuals and groups that would
benefit from Sanctuary regulations would include recreationists
and nature watchers if the regulations result in more abundant
and healthy fish, seabird and marine mammal populations. Aquaculture
and kelp harvesting remain unregulated by the Sanctuary regulatory
regime with designation and any future action would be done
in cooperation with relevant Federal and state agencies, particularly
California Department of Fish and Game, as well as affected
parties.
Section
III
Part
IV Table of Contents
|
![](file:///Megalon/New%20Projects/MBNMS%20Site/snapshot2000/5line.gif) ![](file:///Megalon/New%20Projects/%20new%20ASA/images/5.gif)
|