|
Part
I Table of Contents
I.
Introduction [Part
I TOC]
In accordance with Title III of the Marine Protection, Research,
and Sanctuaries Act, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et
seq., this Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management
Plan proposes the establishment of a national marine sanctuary
centered on Monterey Bay to facilitate the long-term management,
protection, understanding and awareness of its resources and qualities.
Title III of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act of 1972, as amended, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1431 et seq.,
(MPRSA) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate discrete
areas of the marine environment of special national significance
as national marine sanctuaries to ensure comprehensive management
and protection of their conservation, recreational, ecological,
historical, research, educational, or aesthetic resources and
qualities. The U.S. Congress directed the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (P.L. 100-627, section 205)
to designate Monterey Bay as a national marine sanctuary.
II.
The National Marine Sanctuary Program
[Part
I TOC]
Consistent with the mission of developing a system of National
Marine Sanctuaries for the purpose of serving the long-term benefit
of the public, the following goals were established for the Program:
- Enhance resource protection, through comprehensive and coordinated
conservation and management tailored to the specific resources,
that complements existing regulatory authorities;
- Support, promote and coordinate scientific research on, and
monitoring of, the site- specific marine resources to improve
management decision-making in National Marine Sanctuaries; °Enhance
public awareness, understanding, and wise use of the marine
environment through public interpretive and recreational programs;
and
- Facilitate, to the extent compatible with the primary objective
of resource protection, multiple uses of these marine areas
not prohibited pursuant to other authorities.
Eight National Marine Sanctuaries have been established since
the Program's inception in 1972 (Figure 1)
Figure 1: National Marine Sanctuary
Program:
- The Monitor National Marine Sanctuary serves to protect the
wreck of the Civil War ironclad, U.S.S. MONITOR. It was designated
in January 1975 and is located 16 miles southeast of Cape Hatteras,
North Carolina.
- The Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary, designated
in September 1980, ensures that valuable habitats for marine
mammals and seabirds off the coast of California adjacent to
the northern Channel Islands and Santa Barbara Island are protected.
°The Gray's Reef National Marine Sanctuary, designated
in January 1981, is a submerged live bottom area located on
the South Atlantic continental shelf due east of Sapelo Island,
Georgia and is recognized as a highly productive and unusual
habitat for a wide variety of species including corals, tropical
fish, and sea turtles.
- °The Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary,
designated in January 1981, is a 948 square nautical mile area
off the California coast north of San Francisco. It provides
a habitat for a diverse array of marine mammals and birds as
well as pelagic fish, plants, and benthic biota.
- °The Fagatele Bay National Marine Sanctuary in American
Samoa was designated in August 1986. The 163-acre bay contains
deepwater coral terrace formations that are unique to the high
islands of the tropical Pacific. It serves as habitat for a
diverse array of marine flora and fauna including the endangered
hawksbill turtle and the threatened green sea turtle.
- °The Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, designated
in May, 1989, is a 397 square nautical mile area off the central
California coast and contiguous with the northern boundary of
the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary. Due to
a rare combination of oceanic conditions and undersea topography,
Cordell Bank and its surrounding waters provide a highly productive
marine environment for a rich variety of benthic organisms as
well as fish, marine mammals and seabirds in a discrete, well-defined
area.
- °The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary was designated
by the U.S. Congress, under the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and Protection Act (P.L. 101-605), on November 16,
1990. The Act specifies an approximately 2,600 square nautical
mile area of coastal waters off the Florida Keys encompassing
the world's third largest barrier reef. The purpose of this
Act is to protect the Florida coral reef area, one of the most
diverse ecosystems in the world, specifically from activities
such as vessel groundings and pollution. This Act prohibits
oil and gas activities within the Sanctuary and requires the
Secretary of Commerce to develop a comprehensive management
plan and implementing regulations not later than 30 months after
the date of enactment of this Act. Upon implementation of this
Management Plan, Key Largo and Looe Key Sanctuaries, which were
previously designated in 1975 and 1981, respectively, would
be incorporated into the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary.
°The Flower Garden Banks National Marine Sanctuary was
designated in November 1991. This site represents a complex,
biologically productive reef community noted for outstanding
fragile coral development and the only known oceanic brine seep
in the continental shelf waters of the Atlantic Ocean.
In addition, the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division is in the
process of studying, or preparing draft or final designation documents
for seven additional proposed Sanctuaries around the coast of
the United States (Figure 1).
III.
History of the Monterey Bay Proposal
[Part
I TOC]
The State of California nominated Monterey Bay for consideration
as a national marine sanctuary in 1977, along with nine other
marine areas. NOAA selected three sites for further consideration:
Channel Islands, Point Reyes-Farallon Islands, and the Monterey
Bay area. In December 1978, NOAA released an Issue Paper on these
three sites, presenting several boundary and regulatory options
for each proposal. Public hearings on the Issue Paper were held
and, based on the responses, NOAA declared all three sites as
Active Candidates on August 10, 1979.
This process led to the designation of the Channel Islands National
Marine Sanctuary on September 21, 1980 and the Point Reyes- Farallon
Islands National Marine Sanctuary (later renamed the Gulf of the
Farallones National Marine Sanctuary) on January 16, 1981. The
proposed Monterey Bay site was delayed due to the complex analyses
and corresponding staff time required for these two sanctuaries.
On December 14, 1983, NOAA removed Monterey Bay from the list
of active candidates (48 Federal Register 56253) based on the
existence of the two other national marine sanctuaries in California
(Channel Islands and Gulf of the Farallones) that protect similar
marine resources, the proposed area's relatively large size and
the surveillance and enforcement burdens this would impose on
NOAA, and the wealth of existing marine conservation programs
already in place.
Under the 1988 reauthorization of the MPRSA (Public Law 100-
627), NOAA was directed to designate Monterey Bay as a national
marine sanctuary. This statutory requirement reinstated Monterey
Bay as an active candidate for Sanctuary status.
NOAA held two scoping meetings in the Monterey Bay area during
January 1989, to solicit public comments on the proposed Sanctuary.
Comments were sought on readily identifiable issues, to suggest
additional issues for examination, and to provide information
useful in evaluating the site's potential as a Sanctuary. A figure
of a study area was presented as an example of the area under
consideration for ultimate designation as National Marine Sanctuary
(Figure 2). The public response
was favorable to proceeding with the evaluation. Oral and written
comments during the scoping period also requested that the study
area be expanded to include a northern area contiguous with the
Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and a southern
area to include the California Sea Otter Refuge. In response,
the DEIS/MP included a boundary alternative (#5) that encompassed
the area of concern (Figure 3).
On August 3, 1990, NOAA released the DEIS/MP for the proposed
Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and published proposed
regulations at 55 FR 31786. The public comment period included
public hearings on September 12-14, and closed on October 3. Appendix
F contains summaries of the comments and NOAA's responses.
Figure 2. Scoping Study Area
Figure 3. Study Area for FEIS/MP
IV.
Purpose and Need for Designation
[Part
I TOC]
A.
Introduction
[Part
I TOC]
The purpose of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is to
provide a comprehensive ecosystem approach to natural and historical
resource management. Sanctuary status would permit the implementation
of a coordinated and comprehensive management scheme resulting
in enhanced resource protection of ecological and historic resources.
The preferred alternative would promote resource protection by:
°bolstering the existing regulatory resource protection
regime. °establishing a coordinated research program to
expand knowledge of the Monterey Bay area environment and resources
and thus provide the basis for sound management. °including
a broad-based education and interpretive program to improve
public understanding of the Monterey Bay area's importance as
the habitat for a unique community of marine organisms. °providing
a comprehensive management framework to protect this habitat.
The remainder of this section summarizes the natural and historical
resources of the area that require protection; the human uses
in the area, some of which threaten or may threaten the natural
and historical resources; the adequacy of the existing management
structure to protect the area's resources from human threats;
and finally, the benefits of Sanctuary designation. A summary
comparison of resources and uses encompassed by each proposed
boundary alternative is provided in Table
1. Table 2 (parts A and B)
summarizes the environmental consequences of relying on the
Status Quo, or the existing management structure, to manage
the resources and uses encompassed by each boundary alternative.
Table 2 (parts C and D) provides
a summary of the consequences of Sanctuary impacts by boundary
alternative.
Table 1. Boundary comparison
Table 2. Reg. Comparison a+b
Table 2. Reg. Comparison c+d
B.
Natural and Historical Resources
[Part
I TOC]
The proposed Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary meets all
of the site identification criteria developed by the Sanctuaries
and Reserves Division (NOAA, 1983). Located within a broad transition
zone between the Oregonian biogeographic province to the north
and the Californian province to the south, the bay is influenced
by relatively cool and fresh waters of the California Current,
a classic eastern boundary current that is part of the large-scale
North Pacific Gyre. The bathymetry, currents and ocean thermal
structure in the area around Monterey Bay provide favorable conditions
for strong upwelling of nutrient-rich water, which is often found
in the bay.
Consequently, the nearshore waters and diversity of habitats
are highly productive and support exceptionally rich and abundant
floral and faunal communities that are very important in central
and northern California. The variety of habitat assemblages
is one of the major determinants of the rich intertidal and
subtidal communities and represents the range of habitats to
be found in the Oregonian province. The high density of habitat
types and community assemblages provides an excellent environment
for a wide variety of research projects, including deep-sea
studies, and educational opportunities.
The area supports a great diversity of marine mammals in the
world, including several endangered and threatened species such
as the endemic and threatened California Sea Otter. Areas such
as Año Nuevo State Reserve have been cited as one of
the most important pinniped rookeries in California. Monterey
Bay plays a major role for avifauna as a staging habitat during
migrations, and as wintering and summer habitat. The entire
world population of the Ashy Storm- Petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa)
(5,000-10,000) can be found feeding above the Monterey canyon
from August to November.
The quality and abundance of natural resources has attracted
humans from the earliest prehistoric times and as a result the
area contains significant historical, e.g., archeological and
paleontological, resources. For example, numerous shipwrecks
are located along the central coast of California with significant
and valuable historical artifacts.
The wide variety and abundance of these natural and historic
resources are of outstanding value to the local, state, regional,
national and international community. While Monterey Bay has
thus far enjoyed the reputation as an internationally renowned
scenic area with good water quality, this can not realistically
be expected in the future without deliberate protection.
C.
Present and Potential Uses
[Part
I TOC]
The diverse resources of the Monterey Bay area are enjoyed by
the residents of this area as well as numerous visitors. The
population of Monterey and Santa Cruz counties was 544,000 in
1985 and is projected to increase to 755,000 by 2005. The projected
growth is based in large part on the area's natural beauty.
The area also supports several economic activities. The most
important activity directly dependent on the resources is commercial
fishing, which has played an important role in the history of
Monterey Bay and continues to be a very important activity to
the region's economy. Related to fisheries are several aquaculture
operations within the Monterey Bay area, which are dependent
in large part on clean ocean waters. Some operations collect
organisms directly from the Bay while others grow and produce
their own stocks through captive breeding.
The combination of biological and physical characteristics
of the area provide outstanding opportunities for scientific
research on many aspects of marine ecosystems. Thirteen research/education
facilities are found in the preferred Sanctuary boundary area.
These institutions have a long history of research and large
databases possessing a considerable amount of baseline information
on the bay area and its resources.
Tourism and recreational activities, business, commercial and
industrial uses of the area are all increasing. Oil and gas
exploration, development and production may be considered in
the future. Two sites off Moss Landing are used for depositing
dredge spoils and additional areas are under consideration off
of the Golden Gate. Point source pollution from municipal and
industrial wastes is dumped into the waters at various outfalls
and municipal plans for additional outfalls and discharges into
Monterey Bay are being considered. Non-point agricultural runoff
also enters the Bay primarily from the major agricultural areas
of the Salinas and Pajaro Valleys. Large commercial vessels
regularly traverse the proposed Sanctuary en route to and from
San Francisco Bay with infrequent vessel traffic to Moss Landing
Harbor.
So far the variety of human uses has not dramatically altered
or damaged the resources of Monterey Bay. However, NOAA is concerned
about the potential conflicts and cumulative effects as the
area becomes more heavily populated and visited by increasing
numbers of tourists.
D.
Adequacy of Existing Authorities to Manage the Area
[Part
I TOC]
Existing programs to protect significant resources within the
Monterey Bay area and to provide recreational and interpretive
opportunities have placed considerable emphasis on the protection
of coastal resources but have not given the same attention to
offshore oceanic resources. State programs such as Areas of
Special Biological Significance provide geographically discrete
protection for sensitive habitats and species along much of
the mainland coast. In reality, of course, marine mammals, seabirds,
and other marine flora and fauna depend on habitats and foraging
areas far more extensive then those covered by existing protective
regulations.
Such critical marine areas as the waters around Año
Nuevo Island and over the Monterey Submarine Canyon receive
no special attention by resource managers. The waters of the
Big Sur and San Mateo coastline receive limited protection but
lack a mechanism to establish research priorities and coordination
and develop Emergency Response plans for potential accidents
such as groundings and/or oil spills. With current resources
of existing programs being limited, the coordination of resource
protection and management programs is essential. The Monterey
Bay Sanctuary could provide an important role in such coordination.
Maintaining the status quo and not designating a Marine Sanctuary
in and around Monterey Bay would preserve the existing level
of management and protection and forego the opportunity for
positive management of this rich marine area. In the absence
of a Sanctuary, there will be less ecosystem research, no new
education or public awareness programs directed at users, and
no institutional mechanism for long-term planning and coordination
of agency activities in this particularly valuable geographic
area.
Currently, no institution addresses the range of significant
questions concerning the interaction of resources and uses in
the area. While a variety of organizations conduct research,
there is no systematic coordination to ensure that information
needs are addressed in a timely and adequate manner. Even if
information becomes available through research projects, no
institution is charged with applying that information to practical
management issues such as modification of regulations. Similarly,
no agency attempts to monitor the health, stability and changing
conditions of this valuable marine ecosystem. Resource assessment
through baseline data gathering and continued monitoring of
environmental conditions is essential to assess the adequacy
of the protection afforded these important resources. The status
quo alternative would leave the protection of this area to the
chance coordination of the regulatory efforts of a number of
agencies and would forego opportunities for affirmative management.
Presently, numerous government agencies are vested with some
regulatory authority over certain activities within the area
(See Appendix C). The regulatory activities are not carried
out in the context of a comprehensive management plan, and no
organizational structure exists to coordinate research and regulation.
For example, other than the California Mussel Watch Program,
there is no systematic environmental monitoring program nor
is there a mechanism for applying research findings to the resolution
of management issues. In addition, a major gap exists between
the collection of data required under current NPDES permits
and the use and application of these data to water quality issues
on an ecosystem or cumulative basis.
These existing authorities provide a considerable degree of
protection for coastal resources in general and the state parks,
beaches, reserves and refuges do so in particular. In general,
however, the statutes described above and the agencies administering
them are each directed at a single purpose, region or activity.
No entity looks to the welfare of all the living and non-living
resources or the ecosystem of this entire marine area. Cumulative
impacts on the resources, arising from various activities subject
to the jurisdiction of separate agencies, may escape the attention
of any single agency.
Although certain uses of the area are not seriously threatening
the area's resources or qualities at present, they could have
more significant impact if and when activity intensities increase.
The various agencies, many of which have different objectives
and jurisdictions, may not be able to respond to future activities
on the basis of ecosystem issues. There is no existing mechanism
to foster long-term planning, which could mitigate or eliminate
harmful activities. Because these waters contain so many valuable
resources, which in turn support so many beneficial uses, they
require the special acknowledgment and study possible in the
National Marine Sanctuary Program to ensure that these particular
resources and qualities are protected and managed.
E.
Benefits Derived From Sanctuary Status
[Part
I TOC]
The major benefit of the Sanctuary is the integration of many
important nearshore and oceanic marine resource zones and their
corresponding human uses into one management regime. Other benefits
of designation include: (1) support of research on and monitoring
of the resources, (2) enhancement of public awareness of the
value of this area, (3) aid in coordinating actions by existing
authorities, (4) formulation of long-range plans and respond
to currently unforeseen threats which might arise, and (5) regulation
of activities which either pose a current risk of causing significant
damage or may have greater impacts as use of the area increases.
Formal acknowledgment of the species and habitat value of these
waters should in itself focus additional attention on the resources
of this area and thus encourage direct special attention to
any future development plans.
This unique, biologically diverse and relatively undeveloped
natural setting is extraordinary, considering its proximity
to the Monterey and San Francisco metropolitan regions. Besides
providing an ecologically diverse haven for many significant
concentrations of living resources, the waters also support
a number of socially beneficial human activities. These range
from fishing to nature observation, education, scientific research,
national defense and law enforcement. To date, such activities
have been pursued at low intensity levels. However, these and
other potential human activities, (e.g., oil and gas development,
dredge spoil disposal), are clearly capable of generating conflicts
which could harm the resources of this marine area.
In short, the marine ecosystem's diverse resources and rich
productivity make it an area of regional and national significance.
The area deserves long-term protection and enhancement to complement
the protection already provided for some of its resources onshore
and for sections of the extreme nearshore zone. For example,
the Sanctuaries and Reserves Division is already responsible
for the management of the Elkhorn Slough National Estuarine
Research Reserve in cooperation with the State of California
Department of Fish and Game. Thus, sanctuary designation would
provide a unique opportunity for the establishment of coordinated
coastal zone management and research efforts through the integration
of the facilities, resources and programs of the Reserve and
the Sanctuary. This type of program, emphasizing land-sea interactions,
could then serve as an innovative model for other coastal areas
of the United States where local land issues and coastal zone
problems have traditionally been separated from offshore marine
issues in terms of jurisdiction and research effort.
The proposed designation will improve resource protection by
instituting new regulatory measures and by supplementing present
surveillance and enforcement actions. The overall effect of
these regulations, narrowly focused on specific activities,
will be beneficial. NOAA must work within the constraints of
Title III of the MPRSA when promulgating these regulations.
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.
Final regulations are proposed governing: hydrocarbon and mineral
activities; discharges and deposits (both from within and outside
of Sanctuary boundary); overflights; alteration of or construction
on the seabed; historical resources; marine mammals, turtles
and seabirds; and personal water craft. In addition, two final
regulations are proposed to aid the enforcement of the other
regulations: a prohibition on possession of resources and on
interference with enforcement operations. See Appendix C of
Part IX for the exact regulations, including procedures for
applying for permits in certain cases, etc. Two other activities
are potentially subject to regulations: vessel traffic and aquaculture/kelp
harvesting.
1.
Oil, Gas and Mineral Activities
[TOC]
The resources and qualities of the Monterey Bay area, particularly
sea otters, sea birds, and pinnipeds that use the haul- out
sites, kelp forests and rocks along the Monterey Bay coast,
and the high water quality of the area, are especially vulnerable
to oil and gas activities in the area. A prohibition on oil
and gas activities within the proposed Sanctuary boundary would
provide partial protection from oil and gas activities for the
resources and qualities within the proposed boundary. Only partial
protection would be provided due to the remaining threat from
oil and gas activities outside of the Sanctuary boundary and
from vessel traffic, particularly oil tankers, transiting through
and near the Sanctuary. See #5 below regarding mineral activities.
If oil and gas activities were allowed in the Sanctuary,
such development, and construction of man-made structures,
would severely disrupt the natural and aesthetic qualities
of the area and be inconsistent with the purposes of the Sanctuary.
Although certain man-made structures may be permissible in
the future for limited purposes such as research or natural
resource protection, the threats from oil and gas activities
to Sanctuary resources and qualities warrant an absolute prohibition
of oil and gas activities. Threats include not only catastrophic
events such as oil spills associated with blow-outs, rupture
of pipelines or loading of tankers but also long-term chronic
events such as discharge of drilling fluids, cuttings and
air emissions. Finally, as the area has never experienced
offshore oil and gas activities, the area would suffer aesthetic
disturbance ranging from the presence of offshore rig structures
to building of shore facilities and the necessary transportation
of personnel and equipment to and from the offshore rigs.
2.
Discharges and Deposits into the Sanctuary and
[Part
I TOC]
3.
Discharges and Deposits that Enter the Sanctuary and Injure
a Sanctuary Resource or Quality
[Part
I TOC]
These prohibitions are necessary in order to protect the Sanctuary
resources and qualities from the harmful effects of land and
sea-generated non-point and point source pollution. This provision
complements the existing regulatory system, enhances the area's
overall appeal, and helps maintain the present good water
quality of the Sanctuary. The regulations would prohibit disposal
of dredge material within the Sanctuary other than at sites
existing on the effective date of Sanctuary designation and
discharge of primary treated sewage effluent after expiration
of current permits.
New dredge material disposal activities at the already designated
dump sites off of Moss Landing would be allowed provided such
disposal is approved by NOAA in accordance with Section 944.11.
However, the regulations would prohibit disposal of dredged
material within the Sanctuary other than at sites off of Moss
Landing, i.e., sites existing on the effective date of Sanctuary
designation. Point source discharges (which require permits
from other authorities) from, including but not limited to,
municipal waste water treatment, power, desalination and industrial
plants would be also allowed provided such discharge, if its
permit is existing as of the date of designation, is certified
by NOAA in accordance with Section 944.10 and if its permit
is issued after the date of designation, is signed off on
by NOAA in accordance with Section 944.11. A Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) has been signed between NOAA, the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and the State of California regarding
the Sanctuary regulations relating to water quality within
State waters within the Sanctuary. The MOA specifies how sections
944.10 and 944.11 will be administered within State waters
within the Sanctuary in coordination with the State permit
program. (See Appendix G, Part IX). NOAA encourages existing
facilities to decrease their discharge and increase their
performance due to the presence of a National Marine Sanctuary.
Upon expiration of current permits, municipal treatment plants
would be required to have at least secondary treatment capabilities
and tertiary or greater as appropriate or necessary depending
on the risk to Sanctuary resources and qualities. (The MOA
specifies that, as the City of Watsonville is in the process
of obtaining a 301(h) waiver renewal as the Sanctuary is being
designated, the city may be allowed a one-time renewal with
a timeline for compliance with secondary standards requirements.
This one-time renewal allows the City of Watsonville until
November 1, 1998 to achieve secondary treatment.)
4.
Moving, Removing or Injuring Historical Resources
[Part
I TOC]
Historical resources in the marine environment are fragile,
finite and non-renewable. This prohibition is designed to
protect these resources so that they may be researched and
information about their contents and type made available for
the benefit of the public. This prohibition does not apply
to moving, removing or injury resulting incidentally from
kelp harvesting, aquaculture or traditional fishing operations.
5.
Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed
[TOC]
The intent of this prohibition is to protect the resources
and qualities of the Sanctuary from the harmful effects of
activities that may disrupt and/or destroy sensitive marine
benthic habitats, such as kelp beds, invertebrate populations,
fish habitats, and estuaries and sloughs. Such activities
include, but are not limited to, archeological excavations,
drilling into the seabed, strip mining, laying of pipelines
and outfalls, ocean mineral extraction (including but not
limited to sand mining), and offshore commercial development.
6.
Taking Marine Mammals, Seabirds or Turtles
[Part
I TOC]
The prohibition overlaps with the Marine Mammal Protection
Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act and empowers Sanctuary officials to enforce the provisions
of these Acts. This regulation extends protection for Sanctuary
resources on an environmentally holistic basis and provide
a greater deterrent with civil penalties of up to $50,000
per taking. It includes all marine mammals, sea turtles and
seabirds in or above the Sanctuary.
7.
Overflights
[Part
I TOC]
The area-specific prohibition on overflights below 1,000 feet
(305 m) is designed to limit potential noise impacts, particularly
those that might affect hauled-out seals and sea lions, sea
otters or birds nesting along the shoreline margins of the
Sanctuary.
Flying motorized aircraft within three nautical miles of
mean high water within the Sanctuary and at less than 1,000
feet above the Sanctuary would be prohibited within four zones
in the Sanctuary. Generally, these zones are from Point Santa
Cruz north to Pescadero Point, Carmel Bay south (overlapping
the California Sea Otter Game Refuge) to the Cambria River,
and around Moss Landing and Elkhorn Slough (see Appendix II
of the regulations for specific area zones).
NOAA recognizes that overflights are regulated under the
Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Unlike the FARs, however,
Sanctuary overflight regulations are intended to protect the
living marine resources of the Sanctuary from disturbance
by low-flying aircraft and in this case require flying at
higher altitudes than normally required with FARs. The less-than-1000-feet
overflight prohibition would not apply if the low overflight
is necessary to: 1) respond to an emergency threatening life,
property or the environment (this exception is true for the
most of the other prohibitions as well); 2) valid law enforcement;
or 3) certain national defense activities (this exception
is true for the most of the other prohibitions as well).
8.
Personal Water Craft
[Part
I TOC]
The operation of personal water craft within the Sanctuary
except in four zones and access routes to and from these zones
would be prohibited. This regulation is intended to provide
enhanced resource protection by prohibiting operations of
personal water craft in areas of high marine mammal and seabird
concentrations, kelp forest areas, river mouths, estuaries,
lagoons and other similar areas where sensitive marine resources
are concentrated and most vulnerable to disturbance and injury
from this activity.
9.
Vessel Traffic
[Part
I TOC]
There are no Sanctuary vessel traffic regulations planned
at this time (other than those regarding personal water craft).
Vessel traffic separation zones off of San Francisco, implemented
by the United States Coast Guard (USCG) for the purposes of
vessel traffic safety, already provide some safeguards for
Sanctuary resources. As the USCG is the primary source of
vessel traffic regulation, NOAA is currently working with
the USCG to determine the need for additional measures to
ensure protection of natural resources. These consultations
aim to determine which resources are most at risk, which vessel
traffic practices are most threatening and which regulations
or restrictions would be most appropriate to alleviate the
threat, including those, if any, from foreign vessels.
These ongoing consultations build upon recent Federal and
State legislation (since publication of the DEIS/MP in August
1990), that serve to add further protection to Sanctuary resources
and qualities. Specifically, the National Oil Pollution Act
of 1990 establishes double hull requirements for tank vessels.
Most tank vessels over 5,000 gross tons will be required to
have double hulls by 2010, while vessels under 5,000 gross
tons will be required to have a double hull or a double containment
system by 2015. All newly constructed tankers must contain
a double hull (or double containment system if under 5,000
gross tons), while existing vessels are phased out over a
period of years. In addition, SB 2040, California's Oil Spill
Prevention and Removal Act, requires numerous prevention as
well as mitigation measures aimed at protecting marine resources
from oil spills particularly from tankers.
Despite the above existing safeguards, NOAA recognizes the
threat to the Sanctuary from vessel traffic, and therefore
has included vessel traffic regulation in the scope of future
regulations. NOAA will determine appropriate levels of regulation
after designation, and in consultation with the USCG, State
agencies, and the International Maritime Organization (IMO)
through the USCG. Coordination between agencies is intended
to focus ongoing efforts to provide adequate protection to
the Sanctuary and to emphasize the sensitivity of Sanctuary
resources and qualities.
10.
Fishing/Aquaculture/Kelp harvesting
[Part
I TOC]
No fishing regulations are proposed. Fisheries management
will remain under the existing jurisdiction of the State of
California, National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and Pacific
Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). In the case of the Monterey
Bay area fish resources are already extensively managed by
existing authorities. Sanctuary prohibitions that may indirectly
affect fishing activities have been written to explicitly
exempt traditional fishing activities, mariculture and kelp
harvesting.
Kelp harvesting and aquaculture have been added to the scope
of regulations. There is little data to show whether current
levels of activities are negatively impacting the Sanctuary
area. There is a concern that future intensive use of areas
of the coast for aquaculture may degrade water quality and
disrupt benthic habitats as well as impact other user groups.
Kelp harvesting may negatively impact kelp bed habitat although
little data exists regarding this impact. Addition of these
activities to the scope of regulation anticipates any necessary
action that the Sanctuary may have to take once data become
available and after working with relevant agencies and affected
parties.
V.
Socioeconomic Effects of Designation
[Part
I TOC]
The net environmental and socioeconomic effects of designating
the Sanctuary and implementing the Sanctuary Management Plan and
regulations are estimated to be positive. While such effects are
difficult to quantify, the goal of the Sanctuary in part will
be to maintain or improve water quality, fisheries, aesthetics
and tourism without causing any adverse effects.
The regulations proposed for the Sanctuary are not likely to
result in: (1) an annual effect on the economy of $100 million
or more; (2) a major increase in costs or prices for consumers,
individual industries, Federal, state or local government agencies
or geographic regions; or, (3) significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation
or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete
with foreign- based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
The proposed final Sanctuary regulations would prohibit only
a relatively narrow range of activities. Under certain circumstances
specific activities, otherwise prohibited, may be allowed. For
example, prohibited activities may be allowed if: (1) the activity
is done pursuant to a National Marine Sanctuary permit; (2) the
activity was pursuant to a valid permit existing on the effective
date of designation and the permit for the activity was certified
by NOAA, or (3) a permit was applied for after Sanctuary designation
and the proposer of the activity notified NOAA of the proposed
activity in a timely manner and NOAA approved the activity.
NOAA will keep additional administrative burdens to a minimum
by coordinating closely with State and Federal regulatory and
permitting agencies. Efforts will be taken to avoid any duplication
and to review applications to conduct a prohibited activity in
as brief a time as possible.
A.
Fishing/Aquaculture/Kelp harvesting
[Part
I TOC]
The proposed designation should have no negative effects on the
fishing industry. The net effect of preserving habitat and water
quality by controlling pollutants and disturbance of the seabed
should be very positive for maintaining healthy and productive
fish stocks. No regulations are proposed governing fishing activities.
B.
Oil, Gas and Minerals
[Part
I TOC]
Estimates of any lost revenue from the prohibition on oil, gas
and mineral activities within the Sanctuary boundary is presented
under the human use consequences section of this document. Banning
oil, gas and mineral activities has positive socioeconomic effects
that compensate for any lost revenue. For example, the potential
of environmental damage from oil spills and discharges will
be reduced and the high aesthetic quality of the area will be
maintained. In addition, the proposed prohibition may alleviate
or remove matters ranging from costs to local communities for
developing on-shore facilities to political and legal action
resulting from public controversy and apprehension concerning
proposed oil and gas activities.
Unfortunately it is still not possible to accurately quantify
the negative or positive socioeconomic effects of prohibiting
OCS oil and gas activities. The recent NAS study (1989) on the
Adequacy of Environmental Information For Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Decisions: Florida and California found that
"few data have been collected by MMS or anyone else to address
the social and economic impacts of OCS activities".
C.
Discharge and Deposits
[Part
I TOC]
The regulation prohibiting discharges and deposits may require
permit holders or applicants for such activities to seek other
areas of disposal or apply higher levels of treatment. All measures,
terms and conditions will be done in consultation with the affected
party and the appropriate management agency. NOAA has entered
into an MOA with the State of California and EPA regarding administration
of the Sanctuary regulation of discharges (See Appendix G, Part
IX). (An MOU was envisioned by the DEIS/MP -see page 280 of
the DEIS/MP). The proposed final regulations prohibiting, with
certain exceptions, discharges within or beyond the boundary
of the Sanctuary complements the existing regulatory system
established by EPA, the State Water Resources Control Board
and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards.
The regulation does not prohibit existing sewage outfall discharges,
or the disposal of dredge material within the Sanctuary at existing
sites pursuant to permits existing prior to the date of Sanctuary
regulations.
However, new discharge of primary treated sewage effluent would
be prohibited. Within the preferred boundary only the cities
of Santa Cruz and Watsonville discharge at primary levels. The
City of Santa Cruz is 75% complete with an upgrade to secondary
treatment and the City of Watsonville is in the process of receiving
a Clean Water Act 301(h) waiver renewal permitting primary discharge.
Under the terms of the MOA, Watsonville will have until November
1, 1998 to upgrade to secondary treatment levels.
Dredge disposal at dredge disposal sites not existing on the
effective date of Sanctuary designation would be prohibited
within the Sanctuary. EPA and the COE are investigating potential
ocean dump sites as part of the Long-Term Management Strategy
for San Francisco Bay dredge material. Two study areas off of
San Francisco would be encompassed by the preferred boundary
and would thus be unavailable for future use. However, three
remaining study areas outside of the Sanctuary boundary would
remain available for potential future dumping at the eventual
preferred site.
Proposed desalination activities would not be prohibited with
Sanctuary designation but rather subject to NOAA approval of
appropriate permits required by other agencies to ensure that
the activity does not injure Sanctuary resources and qualities.
Overall, this regulation may impose additional costs by requiring
the use of more expensive dredge disposal or dumping sites or
methods. The regulation could also result in additional costs
if were determined that a higher level of treatment or other,
more expensive sewage disposal methods were preferable to disposal
in the Sanctuary. It is difficult to predict accurately the
economic impact of this regulation without analyzing specific
proposals. The application of this regulation to dredge disposal
and other dumping adds further protection of the resources to
that afforded by the existing legislation. The requirement for
review and Sanctuary certification of permits will ensure that
potentially harmful activities receive special consideration
from the Sanctuary viewpoint.
D.
Personal Water Craft
[Part
I TOC]
Personal water craft would be prohibited in the Sanctuary except
within four specified zones and access routes near the harbors
of Pillar Point, Santa Cruz, Moss Landing and Monterey. The
intent of this prohibition is to avoid disturbance and injury
to nearshore and coastal resources, such as sea otters and kelp
beds, by designating these zones beyond the 10 fathom contour.
At the same time these zones would minimize conflicts with other
users of the area, such as surfers and swimmers, while at the
same time provide access to areas traditionally used by personal
water craft operators.
E.
Overflights
[Part
I TOC]
Overflights below 1000' are prohibited within four zones located
generally over and around Elkhorn Slough, north of Santa Cruz
and south of Carmel out to three nautical miles. The intent
of this prohibition is to protect sensitive Sanctuary resources,
such as nesting seabirds and mammals at haul out areas, from
the disturbance and startle effects of low-flying aircraft.
Access to airports by commercial airlines would not be affected
and a local seaplane charter would still be able to take off
and land from its base at Santa Cruz.
F.
Vessel Traffic
[Part
I TOC]
There would be no economic effects on vessel traffic as NOAA
has considered vessel traffic regulation and the preferred alternative
is not to regulate vessel traffic at the time of Sanctuary designation.
Such regulation may include, but is not limited to: (1) routing
of all, or certain classes of coast-wise vessel traffic outside
of the boundary of the Sanctuary, (2) prohibiting oil barge
traffic within the Sanctuary; (3) restriction of all large vessels
inbound to and outbound from Monterey Bay to designated port
access route(s); and (4) designation of areas to be avoided
or other internationally- recognized measures designed to protect
the marine environment. NOAA will consult with USCG as studies
continue and data becomes available and may propose action in
the future for public review. In addition, NOAA will maintain
close communication with the USCG to evaluate the need for additional
regulations regarding vessel safety and/or emergency response
plans and equipment.
G.
Alteration of or Construction on the Seabed
[Part
I TOC]
Dredging activities are not extensive within the preferred alternative's
proposed Sanctuary boundary; nevertheless, unrestricted alteration
of, construction on, or drilling of the seabed represents a
threat to marine resources. Foremost among these adverse impacts
would be increased turbidity levels, disruption or displacement
of benthic and intertidal communities, and human intrusions
near marine bird and marine mammal concentrations. The preferred
regulatory restriction would allow limited and ecologically
sound dredging at levels fairly certain not to harm breeding
grounds, haul out areas, and foraging areas.
This regulation would enhance resource protection by, e.g.,
reducing the presence and operation of large, and often noisy,
dredging machinery. Thus, both over the short and long term,
human intrusion upon marine wildlife, along with potentially
adverse impacts on their food supplies, (e.g., benthic and pelagic
fish resources), would be minimized. No economic impacts upon
commercial firms are expected. Exemptions from the dredging
prohibition would allow for installation of navigation aids,
harbor maintenance (including dredging of harbor entrance channels),
and construction, repair, replacement or rehabilitation of docks
and piers. Harbors (with the exception of a portion of Moss
Landing Harbor) are specifically excluded from the Sanctuary
boundary.
Sand mining activities in the Sanctuary would be prohibited.
Recent studies have shown that this activity was causing acceleration
of natural erosion of the seabed and the adjacent dune system.
Recently, both companies that had requested permits to mine
in the Sanctuary withdrew their applications and thus no economic
impacts are foreseen from this regulation.
The activities exempted from this prohibition would be monitored
by the Sanctuary manager in coordination with other responsible
agencies. If the data collected demonstrate that a greater degree
of Sanctuary oversight is appropriate, amendments to the regulations
could be proposed.
VI.
Manageability of the Area
[Part
I TOC]
The preferred alternative offers better opportunities for interpretation
and communication due to the availability of the proposed satellite
facilities and immediate staffing. The full-time attention of
the manager would be available for resource protection due to
the immediate availability of research and education coordinators.
The management of the proposed Sanctuary would integrate and
utilize all aspects of the program to provide for the preservation
of the special values of this unique marine area. Research and
education, coordination, long-term planning and necessary regulations
are described in the enclosed Management Plan (MP).
The MP describes management goals and objectives of the Sanctuary
tailored to the specific resources and uses of the area. The goals
and objectives will provide all Sanctuary users with a framework
for conserving resources and integrating uses compatible with
the goals of the MP. These management goals are open ended and
therefore allow for alternative planning strategies. Each objective
of the MP represents a short-term measurable step towards achieving
the management goals.
The Sanctuary manager will promote coordination among all the
authorities concerned with the Sanctuary and will particularly
stress consideration of the special value of the Sanctuary's living
resources in the formulation of policies affecting the area. The
greater understanding of Sanctuary resources and the effects of
human use gained as a result of the research and monitoring will
enable NOAA to provide valuable assistance to other authorities
in their determinations relating to the level of protection for
the resources of the Sanctuary.
The management program for the proposed Sanctuary will be developed
and implemented by NOAA and the on-site manager in conjunction
with other Federal, state and local agencies in order to benefit
from existing expertise and personnel and to promote state and
Federal interagency coordination and cooperation. These include
those of the California Departments of Fish and Game and Parks
and Recreation, the Regional Water Quality Control Boards, Department
of Boats and Waterways, local municipalities, AMBAG, National
Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, the Coast Guard and National
Marine Fisheries Service.
A particularly useful mechanism for coordination would be a Sanctuary
Advisory Committee (SAC), including members from Federal, state
and local agencies, as well as commercial and private interests
and the public. The SAC could ensure an exchange of information,
advise the Sanctuary manager on permit applications and certifications,
research priorities, and regulations.
VII.
Consultations [Part
I TOC]
A.
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
[Part
I TOC]
This document is both a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS)
and Management Plan (MP) for the proposed Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary. The FEIS has been completed in accordance with
the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations (40 CFR 1500-
1508) for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 USC 4321-4347),
including Public Scoping Meetings (January, 1989) and Public Hearings
on the DEIS/MP (September, 1990) in the Monterey Bay area. (The
MP is included in accordance with Section 304 of the MPRSA).
B.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
[Part
I TOC]
Pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service of the Department of the Interior, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce, were
consulted in the performance of the biological assessment of
possible impacts on threatened or endangered species that might
result from the designation of a National Marine Sanctuary at
Monterey Bay. The consultation confirmed that some 18 endangered
(E) and three threatened (T) species are known to occur in the
area. The species identified are:
California brown pelican |
Pelicanus occidentalis calif |
E |
Short-tailed albatross |
Diomedea albatrus |
E |
American peregrine falcon |
Falco peregrinus anatum |
E |
California least tern |
Sterna antillarum browni |
E |
Gray whale |
Eschrichtius robustus |
E |
Right whale |
Eubalaena glacialis |
E |
Blue whale |
Balaenoptera musculus |
E |
Fin whale |
B. physalus |
E |
Sei whale |
B. borealis |
E |
Humpback whale |
Megaptera novaeangliae |
E |
Sperm whale |
Physeter catodon |
E |
Green sea turtle |
Chelonia mydas |
E |
Leatherback sea turtle |
Dermochelys coriacea |
E |
Pacific Ridley sea turtle |
Lepidochelys olivacea |
E |
Loggerhead sea turtle |
Caretta caretta |
T |
Guadalupe fur seal |
Arctocephalus townsendi |
T |
Steller sea lion |
Eumatopias jubatus* |
T |
Southern sea otter |
Enhydra lutris nereis |
T |
Santa Cruz long-toed salamander |
Ambystoma macro. croceum |
E |
San Francisco garter snake |
Thamnophis sirt. tetrataenia |
E |
Smith's blue butterfly |
Euphilotes enoptes smithi |
E |
Santa Cruz cypress |
Cupressus abramsiana |
E |
Both the FWS and the NMFS responded that Sanctuary designation
was not likely to adversely affect these species and that no
formal consultation pursuant to Section 7 was necessary.
C.
Resource Assessment
[Part
I TOC]
The Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act, as amended,
requires a resource assessment report documenting present and
potential uses of the proposed Sanctuary area, including uses
subject to the primary jurisdiction of the Department of the
Interior (DOI). This requirement has been met in consultation
with the DOI and the assessment report is contained in Part
II.
D.
Federal Consistency Determination
[Part
I TOC]
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended,
requires that each Federal agency activity within or outside
the coastal zone that affects any land or water use or natural
resource of the coastal zone shall be carried out in a manner
which is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
enforceable policies of approved state management programs.
This requirement is being met through a Federal Consistency
Determination being made by NOAA to the California Coastal Commission
that the designation of Monterey Bay as a National Marine Sanctuary
is consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with California's
Coastal Management Plan.
E.
Fishery Regulations
[Part
I TOC]
Section 303(b)(2)(D) of the Marine Protection, Research, and
Sanctuaries Act, as amended, requires consultation with the
Pacific Fisheries Management Council (PFMC). During consultation,
NOAA requested the PFMC to determine if additional fishery regulations
were necessary with Sanctuary designation in accordance with
Section 304(b)(5). PFMC responded that no additional regulations
were necessary and that management responsibility regarding
fishing activities should remain with existing authorities.
F.
Other Federal and State Agencies and the U.S. Congress
[Part
I TOC]
The Secretary has consulted with the Committee on Merchant Marine
and Fisheries of the House of Representatives and the Committee
on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate. On August
3, 1990, the Designation Prospectus for the Monterey Bay National
Marine Sanctuary was provided to all members of each committee.
The results of these consultations have been incorporated into
the Final Environmental Impact Statement and Sanctuary Management
Plan (FEIS/MP).
The Secretaries of State, Defense, Transportation, and the
Interior, the Administrator of EPA, and the heads of other interested
Federal agencies were consulted and their comments were addressed
by the FEIS/MP. Summaries of all written comments and comments
made at the hearings are provided in Appendix F of the FEIS/MP.
Appropriate California State and local government agencies
were consulted and their comments were addressed by the FEIS/MP.
Summaries of all written comments and comments made at the hearings
are provided in Appendix F of the FEIS/MP.
The comments of all other interested persons were addressed
by the FEIS/MP and summaries of all written comments and comments
made at the hearings are provided in Appendix F of the FEIS/MP.
Part I Table of
Contents
|
|