£G5.3*/A :^6

x*f °^

v0 -<&r «

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Elkhorn Slough
Estuarine Sanctuary

Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award
for Elkhorn Slough, Monterey County, California

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Office of Coastal Zone Management

and
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Fish and Game

The Resources Agency

Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2012 with funding from

LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation

http://www.archive.org/details/elkhornsloughestOOnati

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
ELKHORN SLOUGH ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

PROPOSED ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD
FOR ELKHORN SLOUGH, MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Prepared by:

Office of Coastal Zone Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration
Department of Commerce
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20236

and

Department of Fish and Game
The Resources Agency
State of California
1416 Ninth Street
Sacramento, California 95814

I1

a

'3

a-

a

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

SUMMARY i

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION 1

PART II: ALTERNATIVES 5

A. Preferred

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Land 9

2. Management 9

a. General Management Requirements 9

b. Administration of the Sanctuary 17

B. Alternatives Considered

1. Funding, Acquisition 20

2. Site Selection 21

3. Boundaries 22

4. Management 23

5. No Action 23
PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action 25

1. Natural Environment 25

a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat 25

b. Air Quality 26

c. Water Quality 26

d. Mineral Reserve s/Archeological Sites 26

e. Agricultural Lands 26

Page

2. Human Environment 27

a. Residential /Industrial 27

b. Public Use 27

c. Scientific and Educational 28

d. County Tax Loss 29

3. Adverse Environmental Effects Caused by
Alternatives to the Proposed Estuarine

Sanctuary 29

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socio-
economic Effects 29

C. Relationship Between Short Term Uses of Man's 29
Environment and the Maintenance of Long Term "
Productivity

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of 30

30

Resources

E. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action
and the Objectives of Federal, State, Regional,
and Local Land Use Plans, Policies, and Controls
for the Area Concerned

1. Federal Agencies 30

2. State Agencies 31

3. Local Agencies 32
PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. General Description 35

B. Climate and Air Quality 35

C. Water Quality 36

D. Habitat Areas 36

E. Vegetation 37

F. Wildlife 37

G. Marine Resources 37
H. Land and Resource Uses 37

1. Agricultural 37

2. Industrial and Commercial 38

3. Research and Educational 38

4. Fishing 40

5. Mari culture 41

6. Miscellaneous 41

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS 43

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS, AND PERSONS 45
RECEIVING COPIES

PART VII: APPENDICES 49

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

In response to the intense pressures upon and conflicts within the
coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone
Management Act (P.L. 92-583) in 1972, with amendments passed in 1976
(P.L. 94-370). The Act authorized a new Federal program—administered by
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) within the
Department of Commerce--to assist and encourage coastal States to develop
and implement rational programs for managing their coastal resources. The
Act affirms a national interest in the coastal zone's effective management,
beneficial use, and development, and it permits the awarding of grants
for the purposes of meeting these ends.

Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Management Act established the
estuarine sanctuary program, which, on a matching basis, provides grants
to States to acquire, develop, and operate estuarine areas to be set
aside as natural field laboratories. These areas will be used primarily
for long term scientific and educational purposes, which, in addition to
other benefits, will provide information essential to coastal management
decisionmaking. Examples of estuarine sanctuary purposes are:

o To gain a thorough understanding of the ecological relationships
within the estuarine environment;

o To make baseline ecological measurements;

o To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and
assess the impacts of human stresses on the ecosystem;

o To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their values and
benefits to man and nature, and the problems that confront them; and,

o To encourage multiple use of the estuarine sanctuaries to the
extent that such usage is compatible with the primary sanctuary
purposes: research and education.

In order to ensure that the sanctuary program adequately represents
regional and ecological differences, the programmatic guidelines establish
a biogeographic classification scheme that reflects geographic, hydrographic,
and biologic characteristics.

The Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, which were published in 1974
and modified in 1977, specifically authorize the granting of acquisition
money in two stages: (1) an initial grant for such preliminary purposes
as surveying and assessing the lands to be acquired, and for developing
management procedures and research programs; and (2) a second grant for
the actual acquisition of the land.

11

In July 1978, the State of California submitted to the Office of
Coastal Zone Management a preacquisition grant application for an estuarine
sanctuary to be located in the Elkhorn Slough area of Monterey County.
Subsequently, OCZM awarded a preacquisition grant for $29,438 (matched by
the State), which was used for preliminary boundary determination, estimated
real estate costs, a management plan, and a research/education agenda.

PROPOSED ACTION

The State has requested a $1,042,000 grant from OCZM, to be matched by
$1,888,000 in State funds, for the acquisition of approximately 1,510 acres
of wetlands and uplands at Elkhorn Slough, California (OCZM has no acqui-
sition or condemnation authority). The land will be acquired by the
Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) and managed by the California Fish and
Game Department (CF&G). A background study of the proposed sanctuary
area has been prepared under contract to the State. The Study, Pre-
acquisition Planning Study for Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary by
Madrone Associates is available from the California Department
of Fish and Game, 1416 Ninth Street, Sacramento, California, 95814,
Attention: Mr. Bruce Browning.

An estuarine sanctuary, as defined by the Estuarine Sanctuary Guide-
lines, is regarded as an ecological unit comprised of more than just a
body of water. It may include transitional areas adjacent to the estuary
itself, as well as upland areas that drain into the waterbody. The
proposed boundary consists of primary habitat critical to the important
flora and fauna, including endangered species, dependent on the slough.
Included also is secondary habitat feeding directly and indirectly into
the slough. The boundaries will complement, within the ecological unit,
the acquisition being made by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service primarily
on the north and west sides of the slough for a Wildlife Refuge.

The proposed sanctuary will be administered in a manner similar to that
of the State Ecological Reserve System. The objective of the sanctuary will
be to provide a "living laboratory" for research and educational enhancement
of the natural resource values, such as habitats and biotic communities
within the slough system. Multiple use of the sanctuary is encouraged
as long as it is compatible with the above objective. Uses could include
low-intensity recreation, hunting, fishing, and wildlife observation. In-
compatible uses of the sanctuary would include diking, dredging, or manip-
ulative research with long term impacts. Uses that would be monitored for
potential impact are consumptive uses of the environment, such as the
collection of flora and fauna.

Adjacent land and water usage will, of course, have impacts upon the
proposed sanctuary. However, these activities are currently monitored
by existing Federal, State, and local authorities, which will continue
to do so. The estuarine sanctuary itself shall not require or impose
land or water use planning within Monterey County outside the boundaries
of the proposed sanctuary. (See Figure 2). In addition, there will be
no Resource Protection Zone (RPZ) established around the proposed

Ill

estuarine sanctuary. There are no new OCZM laws in connection with the
estuarine sanctuary program.

The sanctuary is to be used for research and education, which implies
a multidiscipl inary approach to management. Therefore, an Elkhorn Slough
Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee is proposed. It will consist of
the following individuals, or their representatives: the Chairman of
the Monterey County Board of Supervisors; the Director of the California
Fish and Game Department; the Executive Director of the California Coastal
Commission; the Director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories; the
Director of the University of California Sea Grant Program; the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service Western Regional Director; the Chairman of the
Moss Landing Harbor District Commission; the Vice President of the
Nature Conservancy, Western Regional Office; the Moss Landing Commercial
Fisherman's Association; and the Property Owner's Subcommittee. The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will participate
actively with the Advisory Committee and help to coordinate State and
Federal agencies, in its role as ex officio member. The Director of
CF&G, or a representative, will be Chairman of the Advisory Committee.

The following are the duties of the proposed Advisory Committee:

o To review and advise on the management plans for the estuarine
sanctuary developed by CF&G;

o To review applicants for sanctuary coordinator and staff positions,
and advise CF&G prior to final selection;

o To review and approve proposals for educational or research use
and activities in sanctuary lands and waters;

o To advise the appropriate Federal, State, or local government(s)
on proposed actions, plans, and projects, including A-95 projects,
dredge and fill requests, waste discharge permits, lease and sale
of State-owned lands, local government zoning plans and zoning
ordinances, and proposed changes to those land use plans and zoning
ordinances, in particular coordinating the development of the Local
Coastal Plan (LCP), since the estuarine sanctuary must be consistent
with the final plan, and;

o To enhance communication and cooperation among all interests
involved in the sanctuary.

A research subcommittee and an education subcommittee will be established
by the Advisory Committee to assist in management of the slough. Other
subcommittees may be established by the Advisory Committee, as needed.

ALTERNATIVES

Alternatives considered for boundaries included expansion of the pro-
posed boundaries and the tightening of boundaries. Larger boundaries are
not feasible for basically two reasons: the F&WS is acquiring lands within

IV

the ecological unit for a National Wildlife Refuge, and there are insuf-
ficient funds for additional land acquisition. Smaller boundaries would
not include the essential habitat needed for an ecological unit, and re-
lated facil ities.

Alternative management structures were considered. Management by a
single agency would make administration less complex but would not allow
for the range of interests involved with the sanctuary. Complex management
schemes were rejected in favor of a small, representative Advisory Committee
with functional and interest-oriented subcommittees. As a result of comments
on the DEIS, the advisory committee was expanded.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The most direct environmental consequences of the proposed action
would be the long term assured use of the area and its resources for
scientific, educational, and other compatible uses. The sanctuary would
enable research and education to take place, which would further increase
the knowledge and understanding of estuarine systems in California and,
therefore, would provide information for improved coastal zone resource
decisionmaking.

Positive impacts would include: preservation of essential wetland
habitats that have greater than local significance and which are in limited
supply; fish and wildlife habitat preservation, including the maintenance
and enhancement of fish breeding areas of species that are important
economically to commercial fishing; improved air quality from the limiting
of urbanization within the sanctuary boundaries; water quality improvement
from the limiting of urbanization; increased public usage through increased
but controlled access; and additional scientific and educational research,
which would bring substantial economic benefits to the region.

Negative impacts could include removal of approximately $12,000 from
the local tax base and removal of minimal agricultural lands and grazing
lands from production.

Substantial concern was expressed during the DEIS comment period
about the negative impact of the estuarine sanctuary on various land uses
outside the proposed boundaries. In Part II, under "Preferred Alternatives
Management," these impacts were specifically discussed. Generally, it is
felt that the estuarine sanctuary proposal does not conflict with the
objectives of Federal, State, and local land use plans, policies, and
controls.

PART 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION

In response to the intense pressures upon the vitally important
coastal zone of the United States, Congress passed the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA), which was signed into law on October 27, 1972
(P.L. 92-583), and amended in 1976. The CZMA authorized a Federal grant-
in-aid and assistance program to be administered by the Secretary of
Commerce, who in turn delegated this responsibility to the Office of
Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA).

The CZMA affirms a national interest in the effective protection and
development of the Nation's coastal zone, and provides assistance and
encouragement to coastal States (including those bordering the Atlantic
and Pacific Oceans, the Gulf of Mexico, the Great Lakes, and U.S. territories)
to develop and implement State programs for managing their coastal zones.
The Act established a variety of grant-in-aid programs to such States
for the purposes of:

o developing coastal zone management programs (Sec. 305);

o implementing and administering management programs that
receive Federal approval (Sec. 306);

o avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and
economic impacts resulting from coastal energy activities
(Sec. 308);

o coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
coastal management activities and programs (Sec. 309);

o conducting research, study, and training programs to

scientifically and technically support State coastal manage-
ment programs (Sec. 310); and,

o acquiring estuarine sanctuaries, and areas for shorefront
access and island preservation (Sec. 31 5).

The estuarine sanctuary program authorized by Section 315 of the
CZMA establishes a program to provide grants to States, on a matching
basis, for the acquisition, development, and operation of natural estuarine
areas as sanctuaries so that scientists and students may be provided the
opportunity to examine, over a period of time, the ecological relationships
within the area. Section 315 provides a maximum of $2,000,000 in Federal
funds for each sanctuary. Guidelines for implementation of the estuarine
sanctuary program were published in final form on June 4, 1974, (15 CFR
Part 921, Federal Register 39 [105]: 19922-19927) and amended on September
9, 1977 (15 CFR Part 921, Federal Register 42 [175]: 45522-45523) [see
Appendix I].

Sanctuaries established under this program have the dual purpose
of (1) providing relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative
series of natural coastal ecological systems will always remain avail-
able for ecological research and education, and (2) ensuring the
availability of natural areas for use as a control against which im-
pacts of man's activities in other areas can be assessed. These sanc-
tuaries are to be used primarily for long term scientific and educational
purposes, especially to provide information essential to coastal zone
management decisionmaking. Such purposes may include:

o gaining a thorough understanding of the natural ecological
relationships within the variety of estuarine environments
of the United States;

o making baseline ecological measurements;

o serving as a natural control against which changes in other
similar estuaries can be measured, and facilitating evalua-
tion of the impacts of human activities on estuarine ecosystems;
and,

o providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and
awareness of the complex nature of 'estuarine systems, and
their values and benefits to man and nature.

While the primary purpose of estuarine sanctuaries is scientific and
educational, multiple use of estuarine sanctuaries will be encouraged to
the extent it is compatible with the primary sanctuary purpose. These
uses may generally include such activities as low intensity recreation,
fishing, hunting, and wildlife observation.

The CZMA and the sanctuary guidelines express the intent that ulti-
mately the estuarine sanctuary program will fully represent the variety
of regional and ecological differences among estuaries. The regulations
indicate that "the purpose of the estuarine program... shall be accomplished
by the establishment of a series of estuarine sanctuaries which will be
designated so that at least one representative of each estuarine ecosystem
will endure into the future for scientific and educational purposes" (15
CFR 921. 3[a]). As administered by OCZM, the estuarine sanctuary program
defines 11 different biogeographic provinces or classifications, based
on geographic, hydrographic, and biologic characteristics. Subcategories
of this basic system will be used as appropriate to distinguish major
subclasses of each biogeographic province. It is anticipated that a
minimum of 21 sanctuaries will be necessary to provide adequate repre-
sentation of the Nation's major estuarine ecological systems.

Between 1974 and the present, OCZM has awarded grants to establish
five estuarine sanctuaries. These are:

Sanctuary

South Slough
Coos Bay, Oregon

Duplin River/

Sapelo Island, Georgia

Waimanu Valley

Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay,
Collier Co., Florida

Old Woman Creek
Erie Co., Ohio

Biogeographic Classification
Columbian
Carol inian
Insular
West Indian
Great Lakes

Elkhorn Slough has long been a focal point of research and educa-
tional interests and in recent years its destiny has been the object of
considerable attention. Responding to these interests, the California
Coastal Commission nominated Elkhorn Slough as an estuarine sanctuary
site and applied to OCZM for pre-acquisition funding, which was granted
August 1978. The proposed Elkhorn Slough Sanctuary would be representa-
tive of the Californian Biogeographic Classification, further completing
the series of nationwide representative estuarine systems establ ished--
as provided for in Section 315 of the CZMA. Florida has also applied
for acquisition funds to be used at Apalachicola River/Bay.

PART II: ALTERNATIVES

A. Preferred Alternative

OCZM has implemented a process whereby a land acquisition grant can
be made in two phases. The first is a pre-acquisition grant for such
purposes as real estate appraisals, the development of management procedures,
and research/educational programs. OCZM awarded such a grant for Elkhorn
Slough in August 1978. The second phase is the grant for the actual
acquisition of land: the proposed action for which this FEIS was prepared.

California has submitted a land acquisition grant application for
$1,042,000 from OCZM, to be matched by approximately $1,888,000 in State
funds, for the acquisition and establishment of an estuarine sanctuary at
Elkhorn Slough in Monterey County. The grant would enable California to
acquire and operate an estuarine sanctuary of approximately 1,510 acres
that are now privately owned, though some may be subject to the public
trust. The land will be acquired by the California Wildlife Conservation
Board (WCB) and managed by the California Fish and Game Department (CF#G).
Upon award of the acquisition grant for the estuarine sanctuary, the
State has the option of applying for matching operational funds ($50,000/
year) for a period up to three years.

Figure 1 indicates the general location of the proposed project and
Figure 2 delineates the proposed sanctuary boundary. This proposed boundary
includes only the south and a portion of the east side of Elkhorn Slough,
since the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Figure 3) is in the process
of acquiring land principally on the north and west sides as a National
Wildlife Refuge for the purposes of preserving endangered species habitat.
The USF&WS prepared an Environmental Assessment for its proposed refuge
and this FEIS relies on some of the technical data within that assessment.
The proposed boundary does not include the water area within the slough,
and this area will continue to be managed in trust" by the Moss Landing
Harbor District, which will include usage for estuarine sanctuary related
research and education.

A study was prepared for the State of California as part of the
pre-acquisition grant regarding the proposed estuarine sanctuary: Pre-
acquisition Planning Study for Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary by Mad rone
Associates. Information from this document has been incorporated extensively
into this FEIS and the interested reviewer may contact the California Fish
and Game for a copy (See Summary for address). Within the FEIS, this
document shall be referred to as the "Madrone Study." It should be recognized
that recommendations from the Madrone Study, which are within this FEIS, are
those that have been accepted as appropriate for the proposed sanctuary;
others, such as buffer zones, have been rejected and are not part of the
proposed sanctuary.

r~ *mf <*

1 ' "lie" Vfl

1. Boundaries and Acquisition of Land

Boundaries, as defined by the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, "may
include any part or all of an estuary, adjoining transitional areas, and
adjacent uplands, constituting to the extent feasible a natural unit." The
proposed boundaries of the sanctuary (Figure 2), together with the lands
proposed for Federal F&WS acquisition, represent the ecological unit of
Elkhorn Slough. The proposed Elkhorn Slough boundary includes areas of
importance to the formation of an estuarine sanctuary, all wetlands to
the mean high tides, as well as some adjacent uplands, comprising habitat
lands important to wildlife and/or lands suitable for sanctuary support
facilities.

In order to control land areas suitable for meeting estuarine sanctuary
objectives, it will be necessary to acquire these parcels, or portions thereof.
Most of these acquisitions will be below the 10' contour line, which is con-
sidered to be primarily wetlands. The properties are listed below by current
ownership:

C. C. Vierra.

B. G. Wool pert et ux.

P. Calcagno et al.

M. Minhota et ux.

Granite Rock Corporation.

J. P. Dolan et ux.

Kaiser Aluminum Corporation.

W. L. Campol i et ux.

G. Searson et ux.

10) Pacific Gas and Electric.

11) T. K. Williams et ux.

12) R. Avila, wife, estate.

13) Father Benedictine.

14) & 15. E. Arbuckle, J.R., et al.

16) R. Jazwin

17) W. L. Wells et ux.

18) E. Arbuckle, Jr., et al.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36

E. Arbuckle, Jr., et al.

G. B. Wells et ux.

J. Moreno et ux.

V. R. Loghry et ux.

T. B. Landress et ux.

T. B. Landress et ux.

The Nature Conservancy

The Nature Conservancy

W. J. Deegan et ux.

J. Matthews

H. Celaya et ux.

M. E. McCauley

T. V. Hartsock et ux.

T. Silva

I. Howell

J. P. Brannon et ux.

P. A. Trundle et ux.

Pacific Gas and Electric

Ownership or comparable control by the State would fully ensure that the
areas within the boundaries would be managed to meet sanctuary objectives.
Land now owned by other public agencies or private nonprofit organizations
could be managed by CF&G, subject to contractual arrangements ensuring
management within the guidelines set forth in this FEIS and approved by
OCZM. Condemnation has not been used by the Wildlife Conservation Board
for 25 years, and is not intended for use of Elkhorn Slough. OCZM will
not be purchasing any land and has no condemnation authority. By law,
full fair market value must be paid by WCB for properties acquired.

2. Management

a. General Management Requirements

The goal of the proposed estuarine sanctuary at Elkhorn Slough
is to provide a natural laboratory for the study of estuarine ecological

10

2

£=1

1 2T

UJ O >cC

2: co a;

»— 1 O Q- h-

cc ~cc 2:

<C Z *-i —J <XL

rjoco<_i

| — •— « 1— 1 o_

toi-> u

uj <c cc uj q

CC O D- UJ

CO 0 1— CO Cd

2: b- =31 UJ

Mt/iaia

|— UJ CD h- 2T

(/)££mm<

*-" s: 3: 0

X Q 2T

U2U. »>UJ

■< O <C

UJ 2T O

0C I— CO m 2t

h- 2: 2: <c <c

s:

UJ 0 U-

<

r~0—

u. s: •— • uj

q;

O UJ 1— O C£

CO

u<z<

o

>- 2: — J <C a:

cc

£>

h- < ==>

a.

ft

Mxa<a

azOKO

>-

tcj

co uj a. cd u.

c£

fe ^

UJ _J

<:

?s ^

HXZLLQ

rj

E-i p

2: co ro uj •

H-

H

MDZ WQ(/)

CJ

fc; E^

O !~0 M UJ

2:

§3

UJ CC h- 0 > •— «

«=C

XID.ZOO

CO

r ^

hhOLUDiUJ

>i Ct;

UJ

co a. q_

UJ

Dq

CJ

uj •• 2: »— 1 00

2:

p ^

2: uj .

>h'~iQZ

•—<

Es ^

>=C __i 2: >-

C£ <c <c 2: O _J

O;

§^'

re _j •— 1 1—

uj 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 ►— < <c

«C

2: <c CC M

co ►-« 2= \— s:

ro

O to

uao

UJ CO ►— 1 O O •— «

h-

CQ O

UJ ID |—

a:<<2: LU2

00

^ ^

» >• 1— UJ

ais:<h-<

UJ

z own

•— • UJ cc

rC

^ fc)

ea; uj uj

CO

"^ .. <C

h-XLUD.

rr>

£ fe

2: I— re

0

^ fe

HH 1^—2^

1

< UJ >—t

CO

^: cc u.

00^:

_i

2:

^>

« 1— UJ

—1 <z

ce:

^ Es

h- co >->-

<_jd;m

0

¥>

CJ UJ 1— co

CJ _l UJ

re

fcl kl

u d: n >-

•— • •— < 2T OO

^

P>

t— _IOO

CO 3: UJ Qi

_j

H ^

0 0 <: 0

CO CO UJ

UJ

fc- O

o£ 2t ro 0

Jh ^

O k

Q- cc cruj

0< LU <

UJ

PX4 Cj

OIXS
UJ \— 1—

re

h-

p E-H

aiOOh

U_

e-i cq

OUh>-<Z

0

U_ CC CO UJ

<UJmE

00

•.

re uj co cj q_

UJ

•^

CO CO Q UJ O

>

■^

rr> uj ui a _i

»— I

0

O CC _J UJ

h-

to

_j 3: _j >»

0

CO —I 0 «=C UJ

UJ

<2UQ

0

2T CJ ^ O

00

>— 1 t— < 1 1

0

RESERVE AND MAINTA
ND CULTURAL/HISTOR
ROVIDE EDUCATIONAL
UBLIC, AND ASSIST
EALING WITH COASTA

a. «=a: a. a_ 0

11

relationships. Complementary objectives of other organizations have
also been incorporated into the objectives of the Elkhorn Slough estuarine
sanctuary program (Figure 4). These agencies and organizations include:
USF&WS, CF&G, California Coastal Commission, Wildlife Conservation Board
(WCB), and the Nature Conservancy.

Multiple use of an estuarine sanctuary can be permitted as long as
it does not interfere with the primary purposes of providing long term
protection for natural areas so that they may be used for scientific
and educational purposes. The Wildlife Conservation Board, CF&G, the
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, the California Coastal Act
of 1976, and the multiple use clause of the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines
endorse compatible and regulated recreational use of the slough.

Some of the popular recreational activities in the slough include
fishing, hunting, birdwatching, and photography. At the present time,
these activities are limited because of poor access, most of which is
through private lands. These uses would be encouraged by increasing
the kinds of access available to the general public. Compatible
recreational uses in the slough should be determined and access should
be designed to accommodate these uses. For example, boat access and
areas for bank fishing should be considered, as well as access for hunt-
ting, and pathways and parking for nature observers.

The advantages and disadvantages associated with the provision of
public access will be considered, particularly the potential impacts
upon the fish and wildlife resources. Legal constraints will need to
be explored, and associated problems such as parking, access control
methods and enforcement, fee schedules, and other administrative factors
must be evaluated. The provision of access shall not interfere with
adjacent property owners' rights, or affect usage of their property.

Examples of incompatible uses in the estuarine sanctuary would be
off-road vehicle use, diking, dredging, drainage, or otherwise tampering
with the natural system, or causing disturbances within it (e.g. loud
noise or littering). Manipulative research involving the long term de-
gradation or alteration of the natural resource would also be prohibited.
Short term manipulative research would only be performed under ^ery strict
controls and with written approval of OCZM. Examples of activities that
will be monitored and controlled, if necessary, include consumptive uses
of the environment, such as the collection of flora and fauna; and access
as described above.

The potential exists through the goals of research and education in
the Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines for restoring natural ecosystem functions
to certain parts of the slough that have been altered by past activities.
Restoration may require positive actions in some cases; in other situations,
removal of existing threats or conflicts may accomplish the same end.
Any change in the existing system, including areas previously modified,
should only be done after scientific evaluation of the consequences on
the system over the long term.

12

Obviously, impacts on the proposed sanctuary may come from adjacent
land and water uses. Examples include: agricultural erosion, use of pesti-
cides, development that removes wildlife habitat, septic tank leachate, oil
spills or the heated waste water from power plants. Such activities are
now monitored and regulated by authorities under existing Federal, State,
and local law. The establishment of the estuarine sanctuary itself will add
no new laws (Federal or State) to regulate these impacts. The estuarine
sanctuary itself shall not require nor impose any land use planning within
Monterey County outside its proposed boundaries. In addition, no Resource
Protection Zone (RPZ) will be established around the proposed estuarine
sanctuary, nor buffer zones as described in the Ma drone Study.

Due to the concerns raised by numerous persons about the effect the
estuarine sanctuary will have on adjacent land usage, General Response A,
"Impact of the Estuarine Sanctuary on Land Use Outside the Sanctuary Bound-
aries," has been included here. It is repeated in full in the Comment and
Response section to follow.

Impact of the Estuarine Sanctuary on Land Use Outside the Sanctuary
Sanctuary Boundaries

Concern about land use outside the sanctuary boundaries
has been expressed within a variety of issues. These have in-
cluded the buffer concept outlined in the Madrone Stucjy for
California Fish and Game, the applicability of the Resource
Protection Zone (RPZ) included in the California Coastal Con-
servancy Act, the relationship of the Local Coastal Plan (LCP),
and general concern over the restriction of private property
rights, which includes residential, agricultural, and commercial.
This concern also extends to control or restrictions over the
commercial fishing industry and Moss Landing Harbor. It is felt
that the estuarine sanctuary will have impacts on the uses men-
tioned above directly, or indirectly, by "getting a foot in the
door."

The following describes the California- Coastal Commission
and the LCP process, which is legally required under California
Law:

The Regional Coastal Commissions and State Coastal Commis-
sion were established under 1976 legislation, suceeding the
temporary California Coastal Zone Conservation Commission's
creation by a 1972 statewide initiative. In 1976, legislation
was passed requiring all local (city and county) governments
within the coastal zone to prepare a coastal plan consistent
with existing State policies. This legislation clearly placed
the primary responsibility upon the local government for the
planning and implementation of the coastal zone management
program. The major means of implementation is the preparation
of Local Coastal Plans (LCP's) by local governments, with their
review and certification by the Regional and State Coastal

13

Commissions. Prior to certification of an LCP, the
Regional Coastal Commission will retain interim permit
authority over the coastal zone. The criteria for
granting or denying permits by the commissions are
the policies of the 1976 California Coastal Act. After
certification, the State Commission will retain limited
appeal jurisdiction from locally granted permits, and
criteria for granting or denying permits will be the
certified LCP.

The primary element of the local coastal program
is the land use plan and related implementing actions
(e.g. zoning, development criteria, resource management
programs, etc.). This plan will designate the location,
type, intensity, and priority of land uses for the
portion of the local jurisdiction within the coastal
zone. Thus, the Coastal Act provides a means for
determining and resolving complex land use and resource
management issues by identifying how to use, or not
to use, the lands and waters of the California coast.
The land use plan phase for the Elkhorn Slough region
of Monterey County's LCP is due to be completed by
June 1980, with the implementation and final certifi-
cation due by December 1980.

Because of the national and statewide interest and
significance of the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Complex,
special local coastal planning efforts will be performed
in the slough's watershed by Monterey County, in coordina-
tion with State and Federal resource management agencies.
To assist in this planning program, special work tasks
have been designed and funded by the State in Monterey
County's LCP program to identify critical subwatersheds
that surround the defined "ecological unit" of the
Elkhorn Slough Complex. Within this special stuoV area,
much emphasis will be placed on establishing land uses
based on natural as well as man-made contraints. LCP
work tasks from Monterey County's North County segment,
representing the summation of the data and analysis
phases, are included in the FEIS Appendix. This planning
will continue regardless of the decision concerning
sanctuary establishment.

Land use planning is the legal responsibility of
Monterey County, and an estuarine sanctuary must be
consistent with the LCP. The following statement has
been added to the FEIS: "The estuarine sanctuary
itself shall not require nor impose land use planning
within Monterey County outside the proposed boundaries."

14

The following describes the "Resource Protection
Zone" (RPZ) in relation to the Estuarine Sanctuary.
Sections 31300-31303 of the Coastal Conservancy Act
of 1976 provide the intent of the California Legislature
to establish buffer areas to be known as "Resource
Protection Zones" surrounding public recreational and
natural areas in the coastal zone, including fish
and wildlife preserves. The purpose of the RPZ
proposals was to identify resource areas susceptible
to adverse impacts and protect them by appropriate
land use plans and ordinances (via the Local Coastal
Program process--Coastal Act 1976) or by acquisition,
dedication, easement, development rights, etc. It
was the intent of this legislation to have the Coastal
Conservancy Commission request Federal agencies that
own or operate public resource areas in the coastal
zone to take appropriate action to establish RPZs
around such areas.

The RPZ concept, as it applies to the proposed
Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary, is as follows:

1. The Department of Fish and Game does not own
any land in Elkhorn Slough at present, and has not
prepared, nor will it prepare, a plan for an RPZ at
Elkhorn Slough. (Preparation of an RPZ would have re-
quired that land acquisition must have closed on escrow
by January 1, 1979.)

2. The Department of Fish and Game recognizes that
most existing uses surrounding the proposed sanctuary
are either compatible, or will be planned for under ex-
isting regulations within the Coastal Act of 1976.

3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not own
any land at Elkhorn Slough at present; hence, it did
did not, and will not, prepare an RPZ plan for the area.

4. The policy of the California Coastal Commission,
at present, is that wherever Resource Protection Zones
(RPZ!s) are not identified, local jurisdictions (Monterey
County) will analyze and identify —through the LCP process-
appropriate land use activities and resource protection
boundaries around State, local, or Federal resource areas
such as estuarine sanctuaries or ecological reserves.
Also, the California Coastal Commission currently supports
legislation that would delete the RPZ requirement from the
Coastal Conservancy Act.

15

The following statement has been added to the
FEIS: "there will be no RPZ established around the
proposed estuarine sanctuary."

Activity associated with oil and gas explora-
tion, development, and future transportation could
pose potential adverse impacts on wetland resources
of Monterey Bay. Analysis of such impacts will
be included in the OCS #53 E.I.S., as well as tasks
within the LCP being prepared by Monterey County, and
the tasks within the Coastal Energy Impact Program
(C.E.I. P.) of the Association of Monterey Bay Area
Governments.

The "buffer zones" that were included in the
Madrone Study are not incorporated into the estuarine
sanctuary proposal. It has been concluded by OCZM
and California Fish and Game that any planning,
outside the proposed boundaries, is the proper
function of other agencies— most notably Monterey
County.

Since the State Ecological Reserve status is similar to and has
objectives parallel to those of an estuarine sanctuary, it is proposed
that the sanctuary be administered under this section of the Fish and
Game Code for educational and research purposes. California Statute
1968, Chapter 1257 (Appendix 3) states that ecological reserves are
established for the protection of wildlife organisms or specialized
habitat types--both terrestrial and aquatic. The CF&G, may obtain by
purchase, lease, gift, or otherwise, land and water intended for the
protection of ecological resources.

General policies should be drawn up with respect to the use of the
sanctuary and to the role of each agency or organization in the sanctuary
management. Items such as issuance and enforcement of permits, policing
of area, approved short-term habitat manipulation, operation of information
center, supervision of research programs, etc., must be identified and
assignments of responsibility made. As a general rule, agencies with
existing authority and responsibility in a given area would retain that
responsibility, and ewery effort should be made to avoid jurisdictional
conflicts. The lead agency (Department of Fish and Game) should function
primarily as a manager and as a coordinator or "clearinghouse," and,
with the assistance of the Advisory Committee, should ensure through
close coordination that a given problem is handled by the agency that
has primary responsibility for that problem. The lead agency, with
the assistance of the advisory committee, shall prepare a basic list
of prohibited, permitted, or restricted uses within the sanctuary.

Local landowners, who are represented on the advisory committee,
should always be consulted with respect to proposed actions that might
affect their interests. The Chairman of the Monterey County Board of
Supervisors is included on the sanctuary advisory committee and will
also represent local landowners and other local interests.

16

The management objectives of the proposed sanctuary, for research,
fall within two functional categories:

1. Setting research priorities in terms of subject area (objects
of investigation). These priorities include:

o gaining further understanding of the slough ecosystem itself;

o gaining a better understanding of the relationship between
the slough and surrounding land and water uses for future
planning and management decisions; and,

o monitoring actual use of the sanctuary with respect to
potential impacts.

2. Coordination of research activities and facilities for carrying
on research in the future.

Research needs are addressed quite well in the Madrone Study and
the interested reader is referred to this document for more detail.

For education, the proposed sanctuary's management objectives
are:

1. To provide for sufficient access to various parts of the
slough so that small groups or individuals may observe at relatively
close hand, or have direct contact with, the water, mudflats, vegetation,
and animals that inhabit these areas of the slough.

2. To develop and maintain for visitors a center with inter-
pretive and instructional displays and materials that supplement the
direct field experience of casual visitors or classes.

3. To encourage informal use of the slough, e.~g. by trail or

boat, for educational purposes or for nature appreciation, though control
should be exercised over location and intensity of use of access points
or facilities.

4. To provide interpretive services by staff, aids, interns, or
volunteers for visitors wishing assistance.

5. To provide coordination and public information with respect
to educational opportunities and facilities in the sanctuary.

6. To present occasional special public events on topics selected
in conjunction with the research program, and periodic special guided
field trips.

As with the research program, the Madrone study is suggested for
further reading.

17

b. Administration of the Sanctuary

The proposed management agency for the sanctuary will be the
California Department of Fish and Game. CF&G was established to administer
and enforce the Fish and Game Code. The Department is empowered to
review projects and recommend conditions for any activity proposed within
inland waterways, and must be notified prior to any such action. Department
authority is not restricted to a specified tide level in estuarine waters
but may overlap the jurisdiction of other agencies, including the State
Lands Commission and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The CF&G is the
major natural resource management agency within the State for lands similar
to those in an estuarine sanctuary.

However, since CF&G will own and manage a portion of the
entire Elkhorn Slough ecosystem and the USF&WS will own and manage another
portion, a joint management coordination effort is obviously needed.
The estuarine sanctuary guidelines indicate that, "where federally owned
lands are a part of or adjacent to the area proposed for designation as
an estuarine sanctuary, or where the control of land and water uses on
such lands is necessary to protect the natural system within the sanct-
uary, the State should contact the Federal agency maintaining control of
the land to request cooperation in providing coordinated management
policies." Therefore, when the State of California initiates actual
management of the proposed sanctuary, OCZM will request the State to
initiate "coordinated management policies" with the USF&WS for the
Elkhorn Slough ecosystem. The purpose of the "coordinated management
policy" shall be to establish a uniform management policy that will
eliminate conflicts over permitted and non-permitted uses within the
individual boundaries and thus allow the independently acquired portions
of slough to be managed as a complete system.

The estuarine sanctuary program is somewhat different from the
majority of natural resource acquisition protection programs in that the
areas are also expected to be "managed" for research and education.
Thus, the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary necessarily implies a
multi disciplinary approach to usage of the area not only for research
and education, but also for dissemination of the research findings to
decisionmakers. To assist in this effort, an Elkhorn Slough Estuarine
Sanctuary Advisory Committee is proposed and is to be comprised of the
following members, or representatives: the Chairman of the Monterey
County Board of Supervisors, the Director of the California Fish and
Game Department, the Executive Director of the California Coastal Com-
mission, the Director of the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, the Director
of the University of California Sea Grant Program, the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Western Regional Director, the Chairman of the Moss
Landing Harbor District, the Vice President of The Nature Conservancy's
Western Regional Office, the Moss Landing Commercial Fisherman's Associ-
ation, and the Property Owners Subcommittee. The Property Owners Sub-
committee will be composed of a representative from agriculture, indus-
try, and residential property owners. These representatives will be

18

chosen by the Monterey County Board of Supervisors and the subcommittee
will select its representative to the Advisory Committee. (See Figure
V). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) will
participate actively with the Advisory Committee and will help to coor-
dinate State and Federal agencies in its role as ex officio member.

The duties of the proposed Advisory Committee would be to:

o Review and advise on the specific management plans for
the estuarine sanctuary developed by CF&G;

o Review job qualifications, and applicants for sanctuary
coordinator/staff positions, in addition to advising
CF&G prior to final selection;

o Review and approve proposals for educational or research
use and activities in sanctuary lands and waters;

o Advise the appropriate Federal, State, or local government
on proposed actions, plans, and projects in, adjacent to,
or affecting the sanctuary. Such projects, actions, and
plans include A-95 projects, dredge and fill requests,
waste discharge permits, lease and sale of State-owned
lands, local government land use plans and zoning ordi-
nances, and proposed changes to those land use plans and
zoning ordinances. One particular duty will be partici-
pating in the development of the LCP, since the estuarine
sanctuary must be consistent with the final plan; and,

o Enhance communication and cooperation among all interests
involved in the sanctuary.

A research subcommittee and an education subcommittee will be
established by the Advisory Committee to assist it in management of the
slough. Other subcommittees may be created by the Advisory Committee as
needed.

As the manager for the sanctuary's lands, the California
Department of Fish and Game will be responsible for the day-to-day
administration of the estuarine sanctuary. To assist in this
task, CF&G, at a minimum, will hire a full-time sanctuary coordinator
to be located in the Elkhorn Slough area. The duties of the sanctuary
coordinator, who will be trained as a resource manager, will include:

o Administering the sanctuary, including preparing
required State and Federal grant applications,
proposals, budgets, and reports and maintaining
necessary records;

o Serving as staff to the Sanctuary Advisory Committee;

19
FIGURE V

en

en

m

-J

en

tq

*1

H HU]

g

CO

8

,8

u

•1S§b

en jh

W W t— i CO i— t

CUZDJDLO

o S CJ3 P w

Oh *>— 'H- 1 ^-^

CO Z

CO t-i

3?

oo

wzy

Who5

Z
CO

£3

O CO
Uh

„ s

2 ^ Di § z

Z WKH

OUIhh

HHD.WO

HZWh>

z pJ § a i
o < 8 z

20

o Representing the Sanctuary Advisory Committee in
public meetings;

o Upon request, advising and coordinating units of govern-
ment on particular issues, questions, or projects, and
their impacts on or relationship to the sanctuary;

o Coordinating all special studies and research activities
within or related to the sanctuary, and interpreting and
applying research results to produce benefits of a general
nature;

o Developing and overseeing the educational program
for the sanctuary;

o Reviewing all proposed activities within the sanctuary for
consistency with the management objectives; and,

o Coordinating all projects and taking appropriate action
on activities that might affect the sanctuary.

The Sanctuary Coordinator will be hired by and held accountable to
the Department of Fish and Game.

B. Alternatives Considered

1. Funding

During the development of its application, California considered
a variety of possible funding sources. These included:

Federal Acquisition

Pittman-Robertson Fund
Dingell-Johnson Act
Migratory Bird Conservation Fund
Land and Water Conservation Fund
Estuarine Sanctuary Program

State Acquisition

Bond Act Monies of 1974 and 1976

California annually receives funds from the Pittman-Robertson
Fund and the Dingell-Johnson Act. However, these funds are used for
wildlife habitat restoration and fish habitat restoration, respectively.
These funds generally are used for manipulative management programs,
which may not be entirely compatible with sanctuary objectives. Similar
considerations apply to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, as the
objectives are somewhat different. The Land and Water Conservation
Funds (from a State matching grant program) are generally appropriated

21

for projects that provide more recreational usage of the land. However,
even if other Federal funds were available, such funding potentially
would not meet the explicit needs and objectives of the estuarine sanctuary
program.

California has established Elkhorn Slough as one of five wetlands
projects for which State funds (Bond Act Monies) have been appropriated
under AB 2133 (Chapter 462, Statutes of 1976). None of the other areas
that were considered as potential estuarine sanctuaries were listed;
hence no State funds were available for other sites. Although the State
is contributing more than the 50 percent matching funds required, it
could not, by itself, purchase all the area proposed for acquisition.
The proposed sanctuary has received extensive State and Federal review
during development, and no other agency has expressed the ability to
provide funding for acquisition.

The estuarine sanctuary program is basically one of Federal
response to a State initiative. Therefore, the alternatives for OCZM
action are limited. OCZM could accept the application as presented or
request modification but award a grant in either case, or it could refuse
to accept the application and decline the grant. OCZM has worked with
California since interest in the program was first expressed in 1974, and
has suggested some modifications to the proposal. There is no reason to
delay the grant to await other proposals for sanctuaries in the Califor-
nian biogeographic region since there are no other States within this
region.

Unless the application lacked merit, the outright refusal to
award a grant would serve no purpose. Indeed, in view of the wide
need for estuarine preservation (e.g. National Estuary Study, 1970 and
Ketchum, 1972), such action would be contrary to the public interest.

2. Site Selection

Since the sanctuaries are to be State-owned and managed,
OCZM cannot unilaterally initiate, propose, or designate an area as a
sanctuary. OCZM is dependent upon States to identify potential sanc-
tuary sites and formally apply for funds.

In 1973, the California Coastal Conservation Commission
began working on nominating areas as an estuarine sanctuary. The original
nominations were included as part of the Coastal Plan of 1975, which
received considerable public review. Following passage of the Coastal
Act of 1976, the Commission established an Estuarine Sanctuary Selection-
Review Committee, which established criteria for the final selection process
of the nominations. In October 1977, a Coastal Commission staff report
suggested that, on the basis of a preliminary study, the Esteros Americano
and de San Antonio in Marin and Sonoma County might be the best nomination
for a Federal estuarine sanctuary in California. Little support was received
for this area and in February 1978 the California Coastal Commission approved
the nomination of Elkhorn Slough as an estuarine sanctuary at a public

22

hearing in San Francisco. Among the compelling reasons for the selection

was the expressed need for applied wetland and estuarine research in California,

and the suitability of Elkhorn Slough for such research. Another factor

was that State funds, which are required to match Federal funds, were only

appropriated for Elkhorn Slough.

3. Boundaries

Alternate boundaries that were examined include:

a. The areas on both sides of and running the length of
Elkhorn Slough, including the waters.

b. Expansion of the boundaries to include additional
land within the watershed to provide additional
protection.

c. Smaller boundaries.

The original nomination included the entire ecological unit--
mostly unaltered and modified wetlands--on both sides of the slough.
Further investigation revealed that sufficient funds were not available
for all lands originally proposed, and that the USF&WS was initiating
acquisition in several areas on the north, west, and a part of the east
side of Elkhorn Slough for protection of rare and endangered species.

Water areas are normally included within estuarine sanctuary
boundaries. Elkhorn Slough waters are under the jurisdiction of the
Moss Landing Harbor District and other State and Federal regulatory
agencies, and hence are not included in the proposed boundaries.
However, the waters are invaluable from a research and educational
perspective and will be utilized under a cooperative agreement with the
MLHD, or other agencies excercising control of the water areas.

Also examined was an alternative to include additional up-
lands in order to assure preservation of the immediate watershed areas.
This would be highly desirable from an ecological standpoint; however,
only limited funds are available. It also is known that certain local and
State regulatory agencies have already recognized the ecological values
of the Elkhorn Slough complex and are legally required to plan
accordingly.

The alternative of having smaller boundaries for the sanctuary
was given little consideration because it would have entailed the omission
of critical habitat, land for access sites, and land for related facilities
needed for a manageable unit.

23

4. Management

One management alternative considered was to have just the
CF&G manage the area without the establishment of an advisory commit-
tee. The advisory committee as proposed may administratively prove to
be a more awkward organizational form than management by a sole agency,
such as CF&G, but this awkardness is offset by the fact that the pro-
posed committee structure will provide a coordination mechanism for the
array of Federal, regional, and local interests that have a concern
with management within the slough boundaries.

Another management alternative considered was to have addi-
tional members of the Advisory Committee and additional subcommittees.
After examination of the comments on the DEIS, additions were made to
the Advisory Committee to include important user groups.

5. No action

Under this alternative, Elkhorn Slough would not be acquired
as an estuarine sanctuary.

This alternative would leave the future of Elkhorn Slough
with various regulatory bodies attempting to protect the slough under
existing authority, and partial ownership by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service as a wildlife refuge. Future development could lead to a
deterioration of the ecological values of one of California's last remaining
relatively natural estuaries. The effect on the endangered species,
indigenous fish and wildlife, or shellfish nurseries could be very harmful
under the no action alternative.

As mentioned previously, unless there are serious defects in the
application, the no action alternative would be contrary to the State and
Federal goals of preserving representative estuaries within the coastal
zone of the United States.

25

PART III: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

The grant from OCZM will enable the State of California to acquire
certain lands adjacent to Elkhorn Slough for use as an estuarine sanc-
tuary. Impacts from the creation of this sanctuary will be both bene-
ficial and adverse. The most direct environmental benefit of this
action will be the long term assured use of the area and its resources
for scientific, educational, and other compatible purposes.

The sanctuary, as a base for education and research, should en-
rich our understanding of estuarine ecosystems and resources; this
increasing awareness is an essential element of the State's coastal zone
management program. A sound scientific base and a controlled, long
term monitoring program should improve the capability of such management
programs to cope with the issues and conflicts that occur in the California
coastal zone. The sanctuary, which has been carefully chosen as a
representative estuary for the Californian biogeographic region, will
provide such a baseline estuarine system. Furthermore, this sanctuary
should provide basic knowledge necessary for a more complete understanding
of estuarine biological and physical dynamics.

The proposed educational program will increase public knowledge
and awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems and their
problems and will therefore contribute toward increased public under-
standing and acceptance of coastal zone management activities.

1 . Natural Environment

a. Fish and Wildlife Habitat

Fish and wildlife depend upon a biological system that provides
feeding, nesting, and nursery areas for many species, both migratory and
resident. Elkhorn Slough possesses such a system and also supports three
endangered species, e.g. the brown pelican, the California Least Tern, Santa
Cruz long-toed salamander, and the California clapper rail; however, only the
latter species has been seen on lands proposed for OCZM grant acquisition.
(Appendix III is a compendium of the birds, fish, plants, animals, and
shellfish found in the area.)

The sanctuary would have a positive impact by preserving
one of the highest quality ecosystems remaining in the California
coastal zone. Potential impacts caused by increased visitor use will
be controlled by careful management.

26

b. Air Quality

The proposed sanctuary area currently has relatively good
air quality. The establishment of an estuarine sanctuary would have
a positive impact by limiting urbanization in the proposed sanctuary,
although the area proposed for the sanctuary contains little land that
could be urbanized, even under present regulations. There would be
no impact from the proposed sanctuary upon air quality standards out-
side the proposed boundaries, since there are set by other agencies.

c. Water quality

In the past, water quality in Elkhorn Slough deteriorated
because of such problems as untreated sewage flows and agricultural
runoff. The estuarine sanctuary will have a positive impact upon
water quality since such pollution will not occur on lands acquired
for the proposed sanctuary. The sanctuary will also assist local and
State agencies with water quality data needed for effective decision-
making. Opening of dikes to restore tidal action in former marshlands
will have a positive impact on water quality since the creation of more
tidal marsh acreage will improve the "natural" waste treatment capacities
that such tidal marshes provide.

d. Mineral Reserves/Archeological Sites

Protection of the area will mean that mineral reserves in
the area (if any) will not be fully utilized. Currently, however,
there are no known minerals of commercial quantity within the slough.
Historic Indian "middens" and other historical sites will not be subject
to development pressures and will be protected for future study.

e. Agricultural Lands

Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary will result in
the loss of some agricultural lands (approximately 100 acres) and
grazing lands (approximately 600 acres). Agricultural lands adjacent
to the slough will provide a functional buffer from human activities
and disturbances, and will continue to be used as extended habitat
by animals of the slough ecosystem. Certain agricultural uses do affect
the Elkhorn Slough water chemistry. However, the water area is not
included within the proposed boundaries and the proposed sanctuary
shall not impose any land use or water quality requirements upon
agricultural uses outside the proposed boundaries. Recognizing the
importance of agriculture, it has been added to a property owners
subcommittee which is discussed in detail elsewhere.

27
2. Human Environment

a. Residential /Industrial /Commercial

The owners of land within the proposed boundaries will be
affected by the acquisition of their property. All acquisition will be
performed in accordance with the Real Property and Uniform Relocation Act,
P.L. 91-646, which guarantees fair negotiations with property owners, in-
cluding compensation for relocation expenses when residences or businesses
are acquired. However, actual relocation will be involved for one parcel
only. NOAA and the State are cognizant of the fact that certain property
owners may have "roots" to their land. All reasonable attempts will be
made by the State to ensure that acquisition is as nondisruptive as pos-
sible to the property owners. The Wildlife Conservation Board does have
condemnation authority, but, as a matter of policy, does not use it.
Property owners adjacent to the sanctuary will not be negatively affect-
ed by the proposal as outlined in the previous "Management" section.
To ensure cooperation and minimize conflict, industrial and residential
property owners are included on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee, Prop-
erty Owner's Subcommittee.

Two large industrial facilities are located on the south side
of, and one is adjacent to, the proposed sanctuary boundary. Pacific Gas
and Electric (PG&E) has operated major electrical generator and transmis-
sion facilities adjacent to the proposed sanctuary since 1950: seven large
generating units plus 5,750,000 barrels of fuel storage, switch yards,
transformers, and extensive transmission lines. PG & E has increased its
fuel storage capacity by constructing five new storage tanks between
Dolan Road and Elkhorn Slough. Currently, PG & E has an easement for
transmission lines across lands proposed for acquisition. The use of
this easement for transmission lines would most likely require an
Environmental Impact Review under the California Environmental Quality
Act. If there were no adverse environmental impacts, the expansion
would be allowed within the estuarine sanctuary. Kaiser Refractories,
the other large industrial facility in the region, will not be affected.
We fully recognize the valuable economic contributions made by both
PG & E and Kaiser to the citizens of Monterey County, and the State of
California. The estuarine sanctuary will not affect the continued
operation of these facilities and PG & E's and Kaiser's operations at
Moss Landing are not incompatible with the estuarine sanctuary. Recog-
nizing this, "industry" has been added to the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary
Advisory Committee, Property Owners Subcommittee. Commercial mari culture
operations are discussed later under the "Moss Landing Harbor District".

b. Public Use

Currently, public use of the slough consists of photography,
biological studies, fishing, birdwatching, clamming, and limited waterfowl
hunting. These uses are compatible with the estuarine sanctuary and, with
the exception of hunting, can be expected to increase in the future,
thus providing positive public benefits. Hunting, which has been
declining over recent years, is not precluded by estuarine sanctuary

28

designation, though it could be controlled in certain areas, such as
those that contain nesting or loafing areas for rare or endangered
species, or in ongoing research sites.

The sanctuary would also have a positive impact upon the
above public use activities by providing additionally needed public
lands and managed access sites for usage, thereby reducing trespassing on
private property.

c. Scientific and Educational Use

The additional access sites and public lands will also have
positive impacts upon the educational and scientific uses of the
area. At the present time, there are several universities and two
marine laboratories that use the slough for educational and research
work. The institutions involve about 700 students each at the slough,
and high schools and elementary schools bring another 2,000 students.
This usage will increase as a result of the estuarine sanctuary.

It is estimated that substantially more than $1 million is
spent annually on research directly related to Elkhorn Slough. The
dollar amount and number of researchers using the slough is expected
to be increased substantially if an estuarine sanctuary is established.
The Sea Grant program, which recently funded a joint proposal by the
University of California, Berkeley, and Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
for a two-year study of certain development impacts on the ecology of
Elkhorn Slough, is particularly expected to increase funding to estua-
rine related projects as a result of estuarine sanctuary status.
There has even been a college course proposed, through Moss Landing
Marine Laboratory, to focus on the management, research, and educational
aspects of Elkhorn Slough, if it is established as an estuarine sanctuary.

A yery important economic factor attributable to the slough is
the value of research and education to the local economy. For example,
the additional students who would attend the Moss Landing Marine Labora-
tory, should an estuarine sanctuary be designated, will rent housing, pur-
chase groceries, buy gasoline, etc., from regional merchants. If a multi-
plier effect of 3.0 is estimated (O'Connor and Sharna, 1976) for the
value of educational services, the impact is substantial. For example,
if 20 additional students attend Moss Landing Marine Laboratory and
spend $5,000/year each, this would mean an additional $300,000 spent
within the regional economy (20 x $5,000 x 3.0).

The same type of analysis would also apply to the operation
and management of the estuarine sanctuary. The State has the option
of applying for $50,000 from 0CZM, matched by $50,000 from the State,
to be used for operation and management of the estuarine sanctuary.
This year]y management budget of $100,000, through the multiplier
effect, would be expected to provide $300,000 in additional income
into the local economy.

29

d. County Tax Loss

The acquisition of approximately 1,510 acres will result in a
negative impact on county real estate tax-revenue. It is estimated that
roughly $12,000 yearly will be foregone through the sanctuary's establish-
ment. However, the existence of an estuarine sanctuary could have positive
impacts upon the value of lands adjacent to the sanctuary. As the amenities
of the estuary are preserved, the adjacent properties may become more de-
sirable and valuable. This situation has been documented in a classic
study of a regional park in Pennsylvania (Hammer, e_t ajh , 1974).

It is virtually impossible to accurately predict if the economic
gains will eventually negate the tax loss. OCZM feels this will probably be
the case; however, if not, the loss will be an actual negative impact caused
by the sanctuary on the receipts of property tax dollars.

The net environmental impact of an estuarine sanctuary in Elkhorn
Slough will be to encourage a productive and harmonious relationship between
man and his environment. Protection of the estuary for long term educational
and scientific uses should stimulate a more thorough examination and under-
standing of the relationships between man's activities and his environment.
Additional positive economic impacts could include: long range protection of
commercial fishing through preservation of estuarine nursery areas; and
proximity of a National Wildlife Refuge/ Estuarine Sanctuary to provide an
economic stimulus to boost and diversify the local economy through visitor-
generated revenue.

3. Adverse Environmental Effects Caused by Alternatives to the
Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary

The alternatives previously discussed, except for the no-action
alternative and the alternative of locating the sanctuary elsewhere, would
not significantly change any of the environmental impacts that were outlined
in the preceding section. If the no-action alternative were chosen, the
net benefits discussed above would be foregone. If another site were
chosen, the benefits of the sanctuary at the Elkhorn Slough system would
be foregone, and would accrue at the other location.

B. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental or Socioeconomic Effects

There are no unavoidable adverse environmental effects from the proposed
sanctuary. Unavoidable socioeconomic effects would include the potential
loss of tax revenues ($12,000) to the county through public acquisition,
lost opportunities for agricultural, limited residential, or commercial
development, and the potential of having fewer areas open for hunting.

C. Relationship Between Short Term Uses of Man's Environment and the
Maintenance of Long Term Productivity

While establishment of the proposed estuarine sanctuary will restrict
some local short term uses of the environment, it will also provide long
term assurance that natural resources and benefits of the area will be
available for future use and enjoyment. Without sanctuary designation,

30

intense short term uses and gain, such as residential or commercial
development, might be realized. However, such uses would most likely
result in lost benefits because of degradation of the local environ-
ment, and higher public costs for services. Without land use controls,
the traditional conflicts between residential, commercial, industrial,
and wildlife estuarine users could be expected to intensify. The
Local Coastal Planning process being developed by Monterey County is
expected to develop a land use plan and process for resolving these
use conflicts.

Research information derived from the estuarine sanctuary over the
long term will assist in the coastal management decisionmaking pro-
cess, and public education will provide a basis for the wise use
of the remaining estuarine resources. These results, which could apply
to other estuarine areas in California, will help avoid conflicts and
mitigate adverse impacts caused by man's activities in the coastal zone.

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Within the proposed sanctuary, there are no resources that will be
irreversibly or irretrievably lost, since the resources will be protected,
and managed, not destroyed or removed. However, as the intent of this
action is to provide permanent protection of the estuary and adjacent
lands, in practice, agriculture and the harvesting of mineral resources
will not occur, with the possible exception of specific research
projects.

E. Possible Conflicts Between the Proposed Action and the Objectives
of Federal, State, Regional, and Local Land Use Plans, Policies,
and Controls for the Area Concerned

Appendix V details specific information concerning the principal
agencies involved in Elkhorn Slough. The following elaborates on those
major agencies that have a present interest in the area.

1. Federal Agencies

As stated previously, the USF&WS has conducted an Environmental
Assessment of the Elkhorn Slough area and has determined that it quali-
fies as a National Wildlife Refuge in order to protect the habitat
for endangered species, under the authority of the 1973 Endangered Species
Act.

NOAA/OCZM is currently considering (in cooperation with the State)
the designation of a Marine Sanctuary in Monterey Bay. In April 1979, the
California Coastal Commission requested that NOAA/OCZM prepare an Environ-
mental Impact Statement (planned for Fall, 1979) for a proposed Marine
Sanctuary within Monterey Bay. The proposal for two types of sanctuaries
in the Elkhorn Slough/Monterey Bay region has generated substantial
confusion. Although both programs are resource protection oriented, the
differences in their establishment mechanisms and purposes are quite distinct,

31

The proposed estuarine sanctuary, under consideration in this FEIS, and
the proposed Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary should be evaluated separately
and judged individually on their relative merits. The establishment of an
estuarine sanctuary in no way assumes the later establishment of a marine
sanctuary. A brief comparison of the two programs is listed in Appendix VI

2. State Agencies

The State Lands Commission has jurisdiction over all State-owned
public lands" These include all lands that lie beneath navigable waters
or have lain beneath navigable waters from 1850 until the present, such
as tidelands and submerged lands. Federal Government grants of swamp
lands, school lands, and other acquisitions also fall under the State
Lands Commission's jurisdiction. Although the ordinary high water mark
is used to define the upper range of ownership for tidal lands, historic
line determinations falling below this mark are typically honored.
The responsibilities of the State Lands Commission in the administra-
tion of State lands include selling or leasing the lands for oil, gas,
and mineral extraction; grazing and agriculture; and other commercial
and recreational interests. The Commission is currently conducting a
determination of its jurisdictional boundaries at Elkhorn Slough.

The California Coastal Commission, Central Coast Region was created
by the Coastal Act of 1976 to plan for the rational use of the California
coast. Because of the national and statewide interest and significance
of Elkhorn Slough, special local coastal planning efforts will be
necessary and will be carried out in the Elkhorn Slough watershed by
Monterey County in coordination with State and Federal management
agencies. This planning will occur regardless of the decision con-
cerning sanctuary establishment. To assist in this planning program,
special work tasks have been designed and funded by the State--in
Monterey's Local Coastal Planning (LCP) program--to identify critical
subwatersheds that surround the defined ecological unit comprising the
Elkhorn Slough ecosystem. The primary elements of the LCP are the
land use plan and the implementing actions (e.g. zoning, development
criteria, resource management programs, etc.). Each coastal city and
county must develop such an LCP under mandate of the 1976 Coastal Act,
which provides the means for determining and resolving such complex
land use and resource management issues as exist at Elkhorn Slough.
The land use plan phase for the Elkhorn Slough region of Monterey
County's LCP is due to be completed by June 1980, with implementa-
tion and final certification by the California Coastal Commission due
by December 1980. Once an LCP, which can include Federal managed areas
(national wildlife refuges) as well as State managed areas (ecological
reserves, estuarine sanctuaries, etc.), has been certified, local
permit decisions can still be appealed for specific projects. In the
Elkhorn region, permit appeal authority to the State Coastal Commission
will always be retained for all developments within 100 feet of wet-
land/estuarine areas and streams, as well as over all public trust
lands. The estuarine sanctuary will have to be certified by Monterey
County in conjunction with its LCP.

32

The California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) has various
plans to replace, realign, or upgrade to freeway status the existing
Highway 1. Its realignment has not been proposed for funding in the
short range plan, but it is still in the long range plan. There exist
U.S. Department of Transportation Highway Acts regarding the crossing
of lands that have been designated for protection by certain Federal
or State agencies. Since Elkhorn Slough has been designated both by
the State for aquisition as a State Ecological Preserve using bond act
monies and by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as a wildlife refuge,
the provisions of these acts must curently be adhered to. Therefore,
OCZM will not intervene in any decisions reached by the appropriate
State agencies regarding the alternatives for replacement of the ex-
isting Highway 1 bridge, realignment of Highway 1, or future freeway
status of Highway 1.

It is concluded that the estuarine sanctuary does not conflict
with State plans and policies. The sanctuary supports the policies of
the California Resources Agency.

3. Local Agencies

The Monterey County Planning Department is responsible for admin-
i strati ve decisions involving planning, zoning, and development in the
county. Recommendations involving more significant planning actions are
forwarded to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors for further
action. The department is also responsible for preparation of the local
coastal plan for the North County segment of the Monterey County LCP,
which includes Elkhorn Slough. Because of these responsibilities,
Monterey County has the "lead" for all planning, zoning, and development
adjacent to Elkhorn Slough.

In 1973, a revised area development plan was prepared for the
Monterey County Planning Commission. This plan generally restricts
industrial development for the Moss Landing area to the south side of
the slough between Highway 1 and the Southern Pacific Railroad. Some
of its details include limiting the passage of boats or barges into
the eastern portion of the slough and eliminating deepwater barging;
and it also proposes retention and reconstruction of the existing low
bridge for shoreline access. The main reason expressed for limiting
the deepwater harbor uses was economic infeasibility. Factors included
in this assessment were an inadequate supply of fresh water, sewage
disposal problems, and other environmental concerns.

The 1956 Monterey County Master Plan endorsed commercial use of the
slough. However, preliminary work on the LCP reveals that the county
now considers preservation of the environmental qualities and biologi-
cal resources of the slough to be of primary importance.

33

Moss Landing Harbor District was established in 1947 as a political
subdivision of the State of California. The passage of Senate Bill
1116 granted the trust title of Elkhorn Slough "Tidal" lands to the
Moss Landing Harbor District. The district, which shares jurisdic-
tion over the area with the State Lands Commission, is authorized to
regulate and monitor commerce, fisheries, and navigation in these tidal
lands and will continue do so. No adverse impact on the sanctuary is
expected from existing commercial and navigational usage of the slough.

Questions have been raised regarding the sanctuary's impact upon
expansion of the harbor, or activities within it. The sanctuary
itself will have no negative impact upon the proposed expansion plans
of the MLHD (this assumes that expansion into the slough east of
Highway 1 is not an alternative). Similarly, the sanctuary will not
affect activities within the harbor, such as fueling of, or sanding
boats. However, this does not mean there are no existing State or
Federal laws that regulate activities within the harbor; it means only
that the sanctuary itself cannot legally perform this function. The
estuarine sanctuary cannot and shall not hinder commercial fishermen,
or any of their support facilities.

At the present time the MLHD has leases issued to Pacific Mariculture
and International Shellfish. The MLHD will continue to exercise
authority over these leases and receive the income for these leaseholds.
Although the existing operations are outside the proposed sanctuary
boundaries, they appear to be compatible with the estuarine sanctuary,
and the research being performed in the "farms" upon this leased territory
could in fact be quite valuable for estuarine sanctuary related research.
NOAA/OCZM and California Fish and Game support the goals of the mariculture
industry.

The Nature Conservancy is a national, nonprofit organization that
promotes conservation through the acquisition and protection of ecolog-
ically valuable land. Some acquired land is transferred to appropriate
governmental agencies, or leased to schools or universities, for further
protection and/or research and educational activities. Remaining lands
are used as nature preserves and retained by the Conservancy and managed
for scientific and educational purposes.

The Nature Conservancy owns approximately 200 acres within the
proposed boundaries. The Conservancy has indicated that it desires to
sell its holdings to the State to be incorporated into the proposed
estuarine sanctuary.

35

PART IV: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. General Description

Elkhorn Slough is located on Monterey Bay, roughly at the midpoint
between the cities of Santa Cruz and Monterey. Originally an arm of
a large estuary at the mouth of the Salinas River, Elkhorn became a tidal
slough when the river changed its course to the south in 1908. Now
stabilized, Elkhorn opens into the bay's Monterey Submarine Canyon at
Moss Landing, a small, marine-oriented community. Two hundred thirty yards
wide and about 15 feet deep at its lower end (Nybakken, 1977), the
slough curves east and north for approximately seven miles, draining
the hilly uplands and cultivated marine terraces that lie between the
Pajaro and Salinas Valleys. The entire watershed of the slough and
its two tributaries, Moro Cojo and Tembladero Sloughs, is 226 square
miles, but the watershed of Elkhorn Slough proper, east of Moss Landing
Harbor, is much smaller, only 70 square miles.

Tidal action scours the lower end of Elkhorn Slough, eroding the
pickleweed marsh and widening the channel there, building up mudflats
in the south arm of the harbor, and producing a sediment plume out to
the sea. However, not all of the slough is affected by tides. The upper
end of the slough tends to stagnate in summer, and about half of the
marshland in the slough is cut off from the tides entirely or partially
by dikes and tide gates. The amount of fresh water coming into the slough
changes with the seasons. The mean annual rainfall is approximately 18 to
21 inches, but nearly all of the rain comes in winter. Because of this,
the winter surface water salinities of Elkhorn Slough fall below that
of the ocean but, in general, the salt content remains close to marine
(Nybakken, 1977), so that the floor of the slough may be characterized
as "a portion of the ocean bottom conveniently located for study"
(MacGinitie, 1935).

Elkhorn Slough is one of the most significant remaining examples of
of salt marsh on the Pacific coastal flyway along the California
coast, between San Francisco Bay and Morro Bay, providing important
feeding and resting habitat for resident and migratory shorebirds and
waterfowl. Two endangered bird species and one endangered amphibian
species live for at least part of the year at Elkhorn Slough.

B. Climate and Air Quality

The climate in the vicinity of Elkhorn Slough is greatly influenced
by the proximity of the Pacific Ocean and Monterey Bay. Relatively mild,
wet winters and cool, dry summers are characteristic of this region.
Rainfall is almost totally confined to the winter months, though in spring
and summer there is frequent fog along the coast in early morning and late
afternoon.

36

In general, the air quality in and around Elkhorn Slough is good.
The Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District operates air
quality monitoring stations, three of which (Salinas, Monterey, and Aptos)
are in the regional vicinity of the slough. Oxident violations at the Aptos
station and particulate violations at the Salinas station have been seen
in recent years.

C. Water Quality

Water quality in Elkhorn Slough has suffered somewhat from development
in the watershed. Several mariculture operations exist in the lower
part of the slough, but oysters raised by these operations are depurated
before being sold, due to a high col i form bacteria count in the area.
The primary sources of this coliform are agricultural runoff, septic tank
leachate, illegal direct discharges of untreated vessel sewage into the
harbor, and sewage plant effluent (largely from Cast rovi lie) received
by Tembladero Slough and the Old Salinas River channel. Discharge of
domestic sewage, treated or untreated, into restricted areas of the
Monterey Bay waters is prohibited by Regional Water Quality Control
Board policy, but local governments in the area have not yet complied
with this policy. Moss Landing, Castroville, and several other towns
in the area are considering the possibility of a regional sewage
treatment plant with ocean outfalls combined with wastewater reclamation.

The Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) power plant has thermal discharge
into Elkhorn Slough that raises water temperatures 6 degrees F. on the
average near the outfall in the slough. This Moss Landing power plant,
at present, discharges an average of 713 acre- feet of heated water
(9° F. above ambient) into the lower slough per day. PG&E has recently
submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board a report investigating
the biological effects of this discharge.

D. Habitat Areas

The portion of the slough east of Moss Landing harbor may be divided
into the following habitat zones (Bauer & Speth, 1974):

Habitat Zone Acreage

Marine 300

Littoral 1430

Mudflat 420 acres

Salt marsh 1010 acres

Salt ponds ca. 300

Maritime and upland no data

37

E. Vegetation

The marine zone vegetation is dominated by algae, particularly
Enteromorpha. Some eelgrass remains in the old Salinas River Channel,
but the extensive beds that once existed in the lower part of the slough
disappeared after the harbor entrance was developed. The slough's
salt marsh, one of the largest south of San Francisco Bay, is dominated
by perennial Sal i corn i a (pickleweed), which accounts for more than 90
percent of the marsh's cover. The uncultivated uplands surrounding
the slough are occupied by oak-grassland and some chaparral.

F. Wildlife

The primary wildlife group using Elkhorn Slough is migrant water-
associated birds, particularly shorebirds. The bird population at
Elkhorn has two peaks each year: one in late summer or fall and one
in spring. Many migrant species spend six to nine months per year in
the slough. The peak shorebird population is 17,000. A total of 138
bird species has been reported for the slough, with more than 90 water-
associated species. Three of these are on the California endangered
species list: the California clapper rail, the California least tern, and
the brown pelican. Populations of up to 2,000 pelicans have been
counted on the salt ponds and in the slough.

G. Marine Resources

Early studies on Elkhorn Slough (e.g. MacGinitie, 1935) described
a rich bottom fauna on the mud- and sand-flats near its mouth, but this
area has been extensively altered since the harbor mouth was dredged
in the 1940s, and recent studies by Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
(Nybakken _et a]_. , 1977) indicate some changes in the invertebrate fauna
there. The exact number of benthic invertebrate and fish species that
now use the proposed sanctuary (east of the harbor) is open to question,
since most studies cite historic totals for the slough and harbor together.
These historic totals are impressive: 371 species of benthic invertebrates
(excluding ol igochaetes) and 81 species of fish (Nybakken, 1977).

In 1972, the Department of Fish and Game (Browning et al. , 1972)
reported that 48 species of fish had been collected in the slough,
which serves as a nursery and feeding ground for Pacific herring, starry
flounder, several species of sharks, and many other fish.

H. Land and Resource Uses

1 . Agricultural

The slough is set among rolling hills that steepen to the east
and slope gently up to the Salinas River valley in the southeast. Nearly
half of the former tidal marshlands have been modified by diking,

38

primarily for livestock grazing. Grazed grasslands and irrigated pastures
occupy lands bordering the slough, primarily on the Rubis Ranch on the
north and west, and the old Elkhorn Ranch on the east bank and on the
southeast corner. In both locations, fingers of grazed grassland are
intertwined with diked pasture or tidal marsh.

The oak woodland and grassland watershed of the hills east of the
slough are used for livestock grazing and contain many clearings that
are intensively cultivated for strawberry crops. Low density residential
development is scattered throughout the foothills east of Elkhorn Road.
Residential development is expanding on the north and east of the
slough from the communities of Prunedale, Pajaro, and Las Lomas.

Lands north, west, and south of the slough support crops such as
artichokes, brussels sprouts, cabbage, beans, lettuce, melons, sugar beets,
and strawberries.

2. Industrial and Commercial

Moss Landing Harbor, at the mouth of Elkhorn Slough, is the focus
for major commercial and industrial enterprises. The northern and southern
harbors include marine-oriented commercial development, a yacht club and
docking facilities, as well as the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories and
the community of Moss Landing. The Pacific Gas and Electric power plant
and the Kaiser refractory plant visually dominate the south harbor.
The following industries are involved in mariculture at the site:
Pacific Mariculture, Inc.; Pigeon Point Shellfish Hatchery; American
Shellfish Corp.; and International Shellfish Enterprises.

Within the actual slough, east of these installations, very little

land is in commercial or industrial use. Monterey Bay Salt Company owns

approximately 300 acres of salt ponds adjacent to Highway 1, though salt
is no longer being produced in these ponds.

3. Research and Educational

Elkhorn Slough is used extensively for research and educational
purposes at all academic levels, from grade school to post doctoral.
The California Department of Fish and Game has estimated that
in 1972, 2,700 students used the Slough for a total of 6,000 person
days. Usage has increased substantially since then.

The Moss Landing Marine Laboratory (MLML) has a faculty of 8-10
scientists and 100-120 students. MLML has estimated that in the 1977-78
academic year there were 1,000 trips per year for organized classwork,
and 1,200 trips per year for individual work.

Other major users of Elkhorn Slough are listed below.

39

Organization

Hopkins Marine Station

University of California
Santa Cruz

Cabrillo College

Hartnell College

Watsonville High School

Monterey High School

Special Interest Groups

Monterey Peninsula College

Purpose

For marine biology class (25
students) to study the estuarine
habitat.

(1) For Coastal Marine Studies
program (400 student trips/year).

(2) For Environmental Studies program
(200 student trips/year). This program
also brings 30 elementary school groups
(900-1,000 children) to the slough.

500 students trips/year to study
field biology, zoology, etc.

200 student trips/year for
marine biology and nature study

500 student trips/year for plant
and animal identification, zoology,
etc.

200 Student trips/year for classes in
Oceanography and Marine Sciences.

200 + people/year for bird
watching, etc.

Field trips for field biology, zoology, etc.

The bulk of research prior to 1970 reflected the presence of the
academic marine laboratories in the area (e.g. Moss Landing Marine
Laboratories, which operated as a sardine cannery in the 1940' s and
was established as a research and educational institution in 1966, and
Hopkins Marine Laboratory at Pacific Grove). As environmental concerns
became more pronounced in the late 1960's and early 1970' s, and regulatory
agencies and environmental legislation established new programs and
controls, research activity both offshore and within the slough began
to take on a more specific charge: that is, to consider the impact of
human disturbance by providing baseline information and monitoring change
over time. These recent investigations show increasingly broad scope
and program-level design, covering interrelated factors in the slough
ecosystem -- marine, estuarine, and terrestrial -- and representing a
variety of disciplines. Several of these recent research programs are:

o Aspects of the life history of Tressus nattalla.
(three-year study).

1975

o Ecologic and hydrographic studies of Elkhorn Slough, Moss
Landing Harbor, and nearshore coastal waters.

40

o A preliminary report on a baseline study of Elkhorn Slough, 1977.

o Wetlands management in Coastal Zone Planning. A two-year Sea Grant
research project.

The general fields of research within Elkhorn Slough are marine biology
and geology, and physical, biological, and chemical oceanography. Research
in marine biology in the slough has included ecosystem analysis, primary
productivity analysis, and the study of various facets of fauna! biology
and natural history, including feeding habit analysis, succession and
zonation, and physiological ecology. Marine geological research within
the slough has centered on the interrelationship between sediment and
organisms, e.g. on organisms as indicators of paleoenvironmental conditions
and patterns of deposition. Chemical oceanographic research, which has
used specialized sampling gear, has included study of the distribution
of trace elements in seawater. While the larger part of research activity
has taken place in Monterey Bay, Elkhorn Slough has been the focus of
more recent comprehensive investigations. Student theses, under the
supervision of faculty, also have contributed to the body of data regarding
the slough. (For monitoring activities suggested for Elkhorn Slough by
the Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, see Appendix 6.)

4. Fishing

Commercial fishing out of Moss Landing is an important industry.
Salmon, albacore, anchovies, rockfish, jack mackerel, Pacific herring,
Petrale sole, English sole, sanddabs, sablefish, and squid are the
principal species taken in the offshore waters.

Department of Fish and Game surveys prior to 1972 estimate over
26,000 angling days annually in Elkhorn Slough, in Moss Landing Harbor,
and off the piers and jetties on the ocean side of the harbor. Small
boats can be taken from the harbor up into the slough at low tides,
and a public boat launch is available at Kirby Park, where people also
fish from the banks. Fish that are commonly caught include the rubberlip
sea-perch, pile perch, black perch, jacksmelt, sand sole, staghorn sculpin,
starry flounder, walleye perch, cabezon, bat ray, leopard shark, and round
stingray.

Introduced gaper, Washington, littleneck, and soft-shelled clams,
native oysters, and piddocks are taken from the mud flats of the slough
and harbor by private individuals and commercial ventures. Clam digging
continues to be ^/ery popular, despite the signs posted by the Monterey
County Health Department since 1969 warning of shellfish contamination
by fecal col i form.

41

5. Mariculture

A small fish farm, the Garrapata Fisheries, conducted a pilot
operation in a set of ponds constructed near the Vierra property on
the south side of the slough. An application to the California Coastal
Commission to continue and expand this preliminary operation was with-
drawn and the future of the fish farm is uncertain at this time.

The Monterey Salt Company leases a few of the diked salt ponds
adjacent to Highway 1 for raising brine shrimp. Also, both International
Shellfish and Pacific Mariculture lease access from the Moss Landing
Harbor District to their oyster culture racks. Because fecal coliform
counts in the slough are above acceptable health standards, oysters are
removed from the slough and transferred to the cleaner waters of Tomales
Bay for depuration approximately one month prior to market harvest.

Mariculture, as viewed by NOAA/OCZM and the California Department
of Fish and Game, is considered to be a positive and compatible utilization
of Elkhorn Slough and the proposed sanctuary. There will be no require-
ments to undergo a change as a consequence of the establishment of an
estuarine sanctuary

6. Miscellaneous

Members of a few private hunting clubs shoot waterfowl in the
slough and deer in the nearby uplands. Public access is usually by boat
from Kirby Park, though hunting has been declining since 1970, when
approximately 160 hunters visited the slough. Some recreational
boating goes on in the slough, from the harbor and from the Kirby
Park boat launching area at the slough's upper end. In addition,
several conservation and outdoor recreation clubs use the slough
for hiking and nature study.

43
PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. James W. MacFarland - U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. MacFarland received his B.A. and M.A. in Economics and has previously
prepared land acquisition strategies, purchased land, acted as a consultant,
and analyzed the socioeconomic impacts of land preservation for major
land conservation organizations. He is the author of several articles and
studies on natural resource protection and is a former college lecturer
in economics.

Currently, he is the Estuarine Sanctuary Program Coordinator for the
Office of Coastal Zone Management within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. His present position includes direct project responsibility
for five existing estuarine sanctuaries, and the establishment of future
estuarine sanctuaries.

Primary responsibility in the preparation of this FEIS included over-
all direction, organization, and preparation of the report for publication.
He also prepared the Alternatives and Environmental Consequences
sections.

Mr. Richard Weinstein - U.S. Department of Commerce

Mr. Weinstein is a writer/editor for OCZM/NOAA. He has a B.S. in
Zoology, and, at the present time, he is completing the requirements for
an M.A. in English by writing a novel that will serve as his Master's
Thesis. He is a published author of fiction and has written and edited
several major studies prepared by OCZM.

Mr. Weinstein prepared the Affected Environment section, and
edited this FEIS.

Ms. Carroll Curtis - U.S. Department of Commerce

Ms. Curtis is a National Sea Grant Intern on assignment to the
Sanctuary Programs Office, OCZM/NOAA. She has a B.A. in Biology, and,
at the present time, is completing requirements for a M.S. in biology,
with concentration in marine and coastal ecology.

Ms. Curtis organized the DEIS Comment and Response Section.

Major Contributors

There are several State of California individuals who were intimately
involved in the preparation of this FEIS. Their contributions ranged
from outlining consultant work schedules, holding meetings with various
interest groups, and reviewing the FEIS document. These individuals are:

44

Mr. Bruce M. Browning - Wildlife Biologist, California Department of

Fish and Game.

Mr. Bruce Elliot - Wildlife Biologist, California Department of

Fish and Game.

Mr. Les Strnad - Coastal Planner, Central Coast Regional Coastal
Commission.

Mr. Chester M. Hart - Executive Officer, Wildlife Conservation Board.

There were two consulting firms that together produced "Preacquisition
Planning Study: Elkhorn Slough." Madrone Associates is an environmental
consulting firm that specializes in resource assessment, planning, research,
and education. Among other projects this organization has prepared
are three environmental assessments within the Elkhorn Slough watershed.
Jones and Stokes is an environmental consulting firm that specializes
in the biological sciences and resource planning. The firm has had
extensive experience in Monterey and Santa Cruz Counties and prepared
the Moss Landing Facilities Plan.

45

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Department of Agriculture

Department of Commerce

Department of Defense

Department of Energy

Department of Health, Education and Welfare

Department of Housing and Urban Development

Department of the Interior

Department of Justice

Department of Labor

Department of Transportation

Environmental Protection Agency

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

General Services Administration

Marine Mammal Commission

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Coast Guard

State and Local Government

California Coastal Council

San Jose State University

California State University, Fresno

University of California, San Diego

San Francisco State University

Hartnell College

Monterey Peninsula College

Santa Catalina School

Moss Landing Harbor Commission

California Coastal Commission

California Department of Transportation

County of Santa Cruz

Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau

Monterey County Planning Department

Monterey County Farm Bureau

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)

Central Coast Regional Commission

Moss Landing Harbor District

Monterey Bay Salt Company

Monterey Regional County Sanitation District

46

I nterested Groups

King City Chamber of Commerce

Moss Landing Chamber of Commerce

Salinas Chamber of Commerce

Watsonville Chamber of Commerce

Butch Escobar Cement Contractor Company

Kirby Ranch Association

Pacific Gas and Electric Company

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

Fish and Game Advisory Commission, Santa Cruz

Moss Landing Commercial Fishermen Association

Greenpeace (Monterey Office)

Sierra Club

Monterey Taxpayers' Association

The Forest Committee

The Nature Conservancy

Santa Cruz Bird Club

International Shellfish

Elkhorn Sea Farms

Save Our Shores

Hopkins Marine Station

Kaiser Refractories

Northern California Coastal Trust

California Native Plant Society

Animal Protection Institute of America

Golden Gate Audubon Society

The Resources Agency of California

Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society

League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula

Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Inc.

Friends of the Sea

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Friends of the Sea Otter

Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation

Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History

Monterey County Foundation of Concern, Inc.

The Nature Conservancy and Point Reyes Bird Sanctuary

Individuals

William Anderson

Sheila Baldridge Diane B. Corcia, R.N,

Louis Calcagno Christine Jong

Bertha Estrada Rod Holmgren

Cindy Costa Bruce Wool pert

Jim Josoff Gary Stelow

47

Grace Page

Bill Wimmer

Robert 01 sen

Clare Carey Willard

Bob Speer

Schroeder Walters

Georgia Wells Abbott

Allen Wyatt

Ken Thayer

Susan Carpenter

Jeanette Cruysen

Carol Fa lion

Eric Seastrand

Dan Hudson

Peter Trundle

William Bradley

Bob Ramer

Leonard Goulart

Donald J. Whi tenia n

David R. Suggs

Judy E. Suggs

Ellen B. Gammack

Rudd Mary Crawford

Jean Bleick

Anne S. Sawhill

George Strazicich

Mrs. W.V. Gramham Matthews

L.C. Blankenbecker, Sr.

Mrs. J. Chandler

Stephanie Singer

Ronald & Genevieve Smith

Tiny DeRay

Dean Baird

Mr. & Mrs. David Metz

Philip S. Broughton

Douglas & Janet Despard

Frances & Jefferson Lackey

David W. Yollmer

Russell E. Shea

Mrs. James Moody

Mrs. Beverly Shea

Earl L. & Lois L. Moser

Robert Jazwin

Mrs. William Arnberg

Ray & Catherine Burgess

C.H. Francis

Donald Phipps

Thomas Harver

John H. Martin

Bob Harris

Walter L. Schroeder

Garth Conlan

Robert Deson

Vern Yadon

Dr. Marilyn Vassal o

Jud Vandever

Henry Case

Betty Landress

Bill Doyle

Dan Hudson

Estelle Blohm

C. "Sam" Samples

Harry Hicks

Greg Winter

Marion E. Chi 1 son

Leta Marie Bakke-Delungio

Margaret Mooa>

William Brodsley

Gary S. Bloom

Doris K. Horn

Robert Epperson

Sylvia Knapton

Nada Kovalik

Ernestine M. Tarr

Dr. -& Mrs. Medwin

James & Cynthia Waddington

Dr. & Mrs. Arthur E. Benoit

Dorothy Gaylord

Mr. & Mrs. Alexander Weygers

Mrs. C. Bonestall

Kay & Carl Larson

Emmett Garman

Jesus Hernandez

Charlie Hagan

James T. Dew

David Crile

Mick Pasqual

Dolores McGlochlin

Noel Frodsham

Lillian Martins

Joy B. Osborne

Jo Stallard

48

William Anderson Robert L. Speer

William Reese Cheryl Ann Hannan

T.B. Landress Bobbie Harms

Marilyn McLoughlin Glynn & Lori Lockwood

Melvin Martins Gregory Johnson

Mavis A. Martin Miriam Arozena

William Murtha Van Chambers

Dennis Sandeneby Jane Jewett

49

PART VII; APPENDICES

I. Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 15 CFR 921, p. 1922-
19927, June 4, 1974 and amendment 15 CFR 921,
p. 45522-45523, September 9, 1977.

II. California Statute 1968, Chapter 1257, Ecological
Reserves.

III. Birds, Fish, Plants, Animals, and Shellfish of
Elkhorn Slough.

IV. Principal Agencies and Organizations.

V. Suggested Monitoring for Elkhorn Slough.

VI. Comparison of Marine and Estuarine Sanctuary Programs

VII. References.

VIII. LCP work tasks; North County Segment.

IX. Individual Parcel Ownerships.

X. Summarized Comments on the DEIS and Responses by
OCZM to these Comments

7^6-l9lfe

No. 10ft— IH IV-

APPENDIX I
I TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Volumt 39 ■ Numbtr 108

PART IV

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

Ettuarinc Sanctuary Guidelines

19922

RULES AND REGULATIONS

Title 15 — Commerce and Foreign Trade

CHAPTER IX— NATIONAL OCEANIC AND
ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, DE-
PARTMENT OF COMMERCE

PART 921— ESTURAINE SANCTUARY
GUIDELINES

The National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration (NOAA) on
March 7, 1974, proposed guidelines (15
CFR Part 921 ) pursuant to section 312 of
the Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86 Stat. 1280),
hereinafter referred to as the "Act," for
the purpose of establishing the policy
and procedures for the nomination, se-
lection and management of estuarlne
sanctuaries.

Written comments were to be sub-
mitted to the Office of Coastal Environ-
ment (now the Office of Coastal Zone
Management), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, before
April 8. 1974, and consideration has been
given those comments.

The Act recognizes that the coastal
zone is rich in a variety of natural, com-
mercial, recreational, industrial and
esthetic resources of immediate and po-
tential value to the present and future
well-being of the nation. States are en-
couraged to develop and implement
management programs to achieve wise
use of the resources of the coastal zone,
and the Act authorizes Federal grants to
the States for these purposes (sections
305 and 306) .

In addition, under section 312 of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce Is
authorized to make available to a coastal
State grants of up to 50 per centum of
the cost of acquisition, development and
operation of estuarlne sanctuaries. The
guidelines contained in this part are for
grants under section 312 .

In general, section 312 provides that
grants may be awarded to States on a
matching basis to acquire, develop and
operate natural areas as estuarlne sanc-
tuaries in order that scientists and stu-
dents may be provided the opportunity
to examine over a period of time ecologi-
cal relationships within the area. The
purpose of these guidelines is to establish
the rules and regulations for Implemen-
tation of this program.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration Is publishing herewith
the final regulations describing the pro-
cedures for applications to receive grants
for estuarlne sanctuaries under section
312 of the Act. The final regulations and
criteria were revised from the proposed
guidelines based on the comments re-
ceived. A total of fifty (50) States, agen-
cies, organizations and individuals sub-
mitted responses to the proposed sec-
tion 312 guidelines published in the
Federal Register on March 7, 1974. Of
those responses received, eight (8) of-
fered no comment or were wholly favor-
able as to the nature and content of the
guidelines as originally proposed. Forty-
two (42) commentators submitted sug-
gestions concerning the proposed section
312 guidelines.

The following summary analyzes key
comments received on various sections of

the proposed regulations and presents
the rationale for the responses made.

Section Ml .2 Definitions. Three com-
ments requested that the term "estuary"
be defined. Although the term is defined
In the Act and also in the regulations
dealing with Coastal Zone Management
Program Development Grants (Part 920
of this chapter) published November 29,
1973, it has been added to these regula-
tions and broadened slightly to include
marine lagoons with restricted fresh-
water input such as might occur along
the south Texas coast.

Two other comments requested that
the "primary purpose" referred to in
§ 921.2(b) be clearly defined. Although
elaborated upon in § 921.3(a), for the
purpose of clarity this change has been
made.

Section 921.3 Objectives and Imple-
mentation. Several comments suggested
that the estuarlne sanctuary program
objectives were too narrowly defined and
specifically that they should be broad-
ened to include the acquisition and pres-
ervation of unique or endangered estu-
aries for wildlife or ecological reasons.
Although the Act (section 302) declares
it the nation's policy to preserve, protect,
develop, and where possible, to restore or
enhance coastal resources, this is per-
ceived to be achievable through State
actions pursuant to sections 305 and 305.
WbJle it is recognized that the creation
of an estuarlne sanctuary may in fact
serve to preserve or protect an area or
biological community, the legislative his-
tory of section 312 clearly indicates the
estuarine sanctuary program was not in-
tended to duplicate existing broad pur-
pose Federal preservation programs, such
as might be accommodated by use of the
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act.
Instead, both In the Act as well as its
legislative history, the objective is de-
fined as preserving representative estu-
arine areas for long-term research and
educational uses.

Three other comments suggested the
objectives of the program should be en^
larged to Include the restoration of en-
vironmentally degraded areas. This, too,
Is perceived to be a State requirement
separate from section 312. In addition,
adequate authority for restoring de-
graded water areas now exists (for ex-
ample, Pub. L. 92-500 in addition to
sections 302, 305 and 306 of the Act).
No significant additional benefit would
appear to result from declaring an area
an estuarlne sanctuary for the purposes
of restoration.

A few comments indicated that the
examples of sanctuary use were too heav-
ily weighted toward scientific uses to
the exclusion of educational uses. Public
education concerning the value and ben-
efits of, and the nature of conflict within
the coastal zone, will be essential to the
success of a coastal zone management
program. The section has been changed
to reflect an appropriate concern for
educational use.

Some commentators suggested changes
In or additions to the specific examples
of sanctuary uses and purposes. These
examples were taken from the Senate

and House Committee Reports and are
considered sufficient to reflect the kinds
of uses intended within an estuarine
sanctuary.

Several comments were received per-
taining -to J921.3(c) involving the re-
strictions against overemphasis of de-
structive or manipulative research. Ten
comments indicated that the section was
too weak and would not provide sufficient
long-term protection for the sanctuary
ecosystem. Several commentators spe-
cifically recommended deleting the words
"would not normally be permitted" and
inserting in their place "will not be per-
mitted." In contrast, three respondents
indicated that the potential use of estu-
arine sanctuaries for manipulative or
destructive research was too restricted,
and that these uses should be generally
permitted if not encouraged.

The legislative history of section 312
clearly Indicates that the intent of the
estuarine sanctuary program should be
to preserve representative estuarine
areas so that they may provide long-
term (virtually permanent) scientific
and educational use. The uses perceived
are compatible with what has been de-
fined as "research natural areas." In
an era of rapidly degrading estuarine
environments, the estuarine sanctuary
program will ensure that a representa-
tive series of natural areas will be avail-
able for scientific or educational uses
dependent on that natural character, for
example, for baseline studies, for use in
understanding the functioning of natural
ecological systems, for controls against
which the impacts of development in
Other areas might be compared, and as
interpretive centers for educational pur-
poses. Any use, research or otherwise,
which would destroy or detract from the
natural system, would be inappropriate
under this program.

In general, the necessity of or benefit
from permitting manipulative or de-
structive research within an estuarine
sanctuary is unclear. While there is a
legitimate need for such kinds of re-
search, ample opportunity for manipu-
lative or destructive research to assess
directly man's impact or stresses on the
estuarine environment exists now with-
but the need for creation or use of an
estuarlne sanctuary for this purpose. In
contrast, a clear need exists for natural
areas to serve as controls for manipula-
tive research or research on altered
systems.

The section on manipulative research
has been changed to reflect the concern
for continued maintenance of the area
as a natural system. However, the modi-
fier "normally" has been retained be-
cause, within these limits, it is not felt
necessary to preclude all such uses; the
occasion may rarely arise when because
of a thoroughly demonstrated direct ben-
efit, such research may be permitted.

Several comments suggested that the
program should include degraded estua-
rine systems, rather than be limited to
areas which are "relatively undisturbed
by human activities." Such areas would
permit research efforts designed to re-
store an estuarlne area. As Indicated

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108 — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

RULES AND REGULATIONS

19923

above, an ample legislative mandate to
restore environmentally degraded areas
already exists; the benefits to be derived
from declaring such areas estuarine
sanctuaries would be marginal. Indeed,
it would appear that If restoration ef-
forts cannot occur without estuarine
sanctuary designation, then, given the
limited resources of this program, such
efforts would not be feasible.

A few commentators suggested that
the phrase (5 921.3(e) ) "If sufficient per-
manence and control by the State can
be assured, the acquisition of a sanctu-
ary may involve less than the acquisition
of a fee simple Interest" be more clearly
defined. Explanatory language has been
added to that section.

Section 921.4 Zoogeographic Classifica-
tion. Because the classification scheme
utilized plants as well as animals, two
commentators suggested that zoogeo-
graphic be changed to biogeographlc.
This change is reflected In the final
regulations.

One comment suggested that selection
of sanctuaries should depend on the pres-
sures and threats being brought to bear
upon the natural areas Involved even if
this meant selecting several sanctuaries
from one classification and none from
another.

The legislative history of section 312
clearly shows the intent to select estu-
arine sanctuaries on a rational basis
which would reflect regional differentia-
tion and a variety of ecosystems. The bio-
geographlc classification system, which
reflects geographic, hydrographlc. and
biologic differences, fulfills that Inten-
tion. A scheme which would abandon
that system, or another similar one, and
would not fulfill the requirements of pro-
viding regional differentiation and a
variety of ecosystems, would not be con-
sistent with the intended purpose of the
Act.

A few comments received suggested
that the biogeographlc classification
scheme be enlarged by the addition of a
new class reflecting an area or State of
special concern or Interest to the re-
spondent. (No two commentators sug-
gested the same area.) It is felt that
adequate national representation Is pro-
vided by the biogeographlc scheme pro-
posed, and that the changes offered were
in most cases examples of sub-categories
that might be utilized.

One comment suggested a specific
change In the definition of the "Great
Lakes" category. Portions of that sug-
gestion have been Incorporated Into the
final rules.

Two commentators requested assur-
ance that sub-categories of the biogeo-
graphlc scheme will in fact be utilized.
The final language substitutes "will be
developed and utilized" for "may be de-
veloped and utilized."

Section 921.5 Multiple Use. Several
comments were received pertaining to
the multiple use concept. Three com-
mentators suggested that the multiple
use directive was contrary to or absent
from the Act and should be omitted. Ten
respondents felt the concept should be
more explicitly defined and restricted so

that the primary purpose of the sanc-
tuary would be more clearly protected.
In contrast, two commentators felt that
the definition might prove too restrictive
and should be broadened. Several com-
mentators suggested that examples of
anticipated multiple use might be
appropriate.

While recognizing that it Is not always
possible to accommodate more than a
single use In an environmentally sensi-
tive area, it is not the Intention to un-
necessarily preclude the uses of sanc-
tuary areas where they are Clearly com-
patible with and do not detract from the
long-term protection of the ecosystem
for scientific and educational purposes.
The language of § 921.5 has been changed
accordingly.

Section 921.8 Relationship to Other
Provisions of the Act and to Marine
Sanctuaries. Several comments were re-
ceived which commended and stressed
the need for close coordination between
the development of State coastal zone
management programs, especially and
land and water use controls, and the
estuarine sanctuary program.

The relationship between the two pro-
grams is emphasized: estuarine sanctu-
aries should provide benefit — both short-
term and long-term — to coastal zone
management decision-makers,' and State
coastal zone management programs must
provide necessary protection for estu-
arine sanctuaries. This necessary coordi-
nation is discussed not only In the estu-
arine sanctuary regulations, but will also
be addressed In an appropriate fashion
in guidelines and rules for Coastal Zone
Management Program Approval Criteria
and Administrative Grants.

Three commentators discussed the
need for swift action by both State and
Federal governments to establish and
acquire estuarine sanctuaries. The Office
of Coastal Zone Management Intends to
pursue the program as 6Wiftly as avail-
able manpower restraints will permit.

A few comments sought reassurance
that the estuarine sanctuaries program
will in fact be coordinated with the
Marine Sanctuaries Program (Title UJ,
Pub. L. 92-532). The guidelines have
been changed to reflect that both pro-
grams will be administered by the same
office.

Subpart B — Application for Grants

Section 921.10 General. One reviewer
indicated uncertainty about which State
agency may submit applications for
grants under section 312. Although Indi-
vidual States may vary In the choice of
individual agencies to apply for an es-
tuarine sanctuary, because of the neces-
sity for coordination with the State
coastal zn-! « management program the
entity within the State which Is the cer-
tified contact with the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, NOAA, responsible
for the administration of the coastal
zone management program must en-
dorse or approve an estuarine sanctuary
application.

Appropriate language has been In-
cluded to ensure this coordination.

Section 921.11 Initial Application for
Acquisition, Development and Operation

Grants. Two comments requested that
the source and nature of acceptable
matching funds should be explicitly
identified.

OMB Circular Ar102 generally defines
and Identifies legitimate "match" for
Federal grant projects. In general, refer-
ence should be made to that document.
However, the section has been expanded
in response to some specific and frequent
questions.

Two comments stressed the need for
increased availability of research funds
to adequately utilize the potential of es-
tuarine sanctuaries. While not an ap-
propriate function of the estuarine sanc-
tuary program, the Office of Coastal Zone
Management is discussing the necessity
of adequate funding with appropriate
agencies.

One comment suggested that the term
"legal description" of the sanctuary
(1921.11(a)) Is not appropriate for all
categories of Information requested. The
word "legal" has been omitted.

Three reviewers Indicated that the Act
provides no basis for consideration of
socio-economic impacts (J 921.11(D)
and that this criterion seemed inappro-
priate to selecting estuarine sanctuaries.
Apparently these reviewers misunder-
stood the intention of this requirement.
The information in this section Is neces-
sary for preparation of an environmental
Impact statement which will be prepared
pursuant to NEPA. Although required In
the application, such Information Is not
a part of the selection criteria, which are
addressed In Subpart C. I 921.20.

One similar comment was received
with regard to consideration of existing
and potential uses and conflicts (8 921.-
11 (h) ) . This Item Is also discussed under
selection criteria ({ 921.20(h) ). It Is in-
tended that this criterion will only be
considered when choosing between two
or more sanctuary applications within
the same biogeographlc category which
are of otherwise equal merit.

One comment drew attention to an
apparent typographic error in 8 921.11
(m) where the term "marine estuaries"
seems out of context. This has been cor-
rected.

Two commentators suggested that
public hearings should be required In the
development of an estuarine sanctuary
application. Although such a hearing is
deemed desirable by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management, It would not always
seem to be necessary. The language In
8 920.11(1) has been changed to reflect
the sincere concern for the adequate In-
volvement of the public, which Is also
addressed under a new 8 920.21.

One respondent suggested that a new
section be added requiring the appli-
cant to discuss alternative methods of
acquisition or control of the area, Includ-
ing the designation of a marine sanctu-
ary, In place of establishing an estuarine
sanctuary. A new section (8 920.11 (n))
has been added for this purpose.

Section 921.12 Subsequent Application
for Development and Operation Grants.
Three commentators expressed concern
that the Intent of 8 921.12 be more clearly
expressed. Appropriate changes have
been made.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39. NO. 108— TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

19924

RULES AND REGULATIONS

One comment was made that a pro-
vision should be Included to use existing
Federally owned land for the purpose of
the estuarine sanctuary program. A sec-
tion has been added for that purpose.

Section 921.20 Criteria for Selection.
One comment suggested that the con-
sideration of conflict with existing or po-
tential competing uses should not be in-
cluded as a selection criterion. As dis-
cussed above, this criterion is considered
appropriate.

Another reviewer suggested the addi-
tion of a new criterion, consideration of
"the need to protect a particular estuary
from harmful development." As dis-
cussed earlier, this criterion is not con-
sidered appropriate. Such a basis for
determining selection would lead to a
reactionary, random series of estuarine
sanctuaries, rather than the rationally
chosen representative series mandated
in the legislative history.

Two reviewers commented that the
limitation on the Federal share ($2,000,-
000 for each sanctuary) was too low and
would severely restrict the usefulness of
the program. However, this limitation
is provided by the Act.

Another commentator suggested that
§ 921.20(g) was unnecessarily restrictive
In that it might prevent selecting an
estuarine sanctuary in an area adjacent
to existing preserved lands where the
conjunction might be mutually benefi-
cial. The language of 8 921.20(g) does
not preclude such action, but has been
changed to specifically permit this pos-
sibility.

Two commentators inquired whether
the reference to a "draft" environmental
Impact statement (§921.20, last para-
graph) Indicated an Intention to avoid
further compliance with NEPA. It Is the
firm Intention of the Office of Coastal
Zone Management to fully comply in all
respects with NEPA. The word "draft"
has been struck.

Three reviewers addressed the prob-
lems of providing adequate public par-
ticipation in the review and selection
process. In addition to the change in
S 920.11(1), a new section has been added
to address this issue.

Subpart D — Operation

Section 921.30 General. One commen-
tator suggested that during contract
negotiations, there should be a meeting
between the applicant agency and pro-
posed sanctuary management team, and
representatives of the Office of Coastal
Zone Management. The general pro-
visions have been broadened to provide
for this suggestion.

Two comments were submitted which
urged that some discretion be exercised
in the use and access to the sanctuary
by scientists and students. Two other
comments were received which requested
specific protection for use by the general
public. The guidelines have been changed
to Include these suggestions.

One comment was received suggesting
language to clarify S 921.30(g) , This was
incorporated Into the guidelines.

Two commentators expressed concern
for enforcement capabilities and activi-
ties to ensure protection of the estuarine
sanctuaries. A new section has been
added which addresses this issue.

Finally, one suggestion was received
that a vehicle for change in the manage-
ment policy or research programs should
be provided. A new section has been
added for that purpose.

Accordingly, having considered the
comments received and other relevant
information, the Secretary concludes by
adopting the final regulations describing
the procedure for applications to receive
estuarine sanctuary grants under section
312 of the Act, as modified and set forth
below.

Effective date: June 3, 1974.

Dated: May 31, 1974.

Robert M. White.
Administrator.

Subpart A — General
Sec.

021.1 Policy and objectives.

921.2 Definitions.

921.3 Objectives and Implementation of

the program.

921.4 Biogeograpblc classification.

921.5 Multiple use.

921.6 Relationship to other provisions of

the Act and to marine sanctuaries.

Subpart B — Application for Grants

921.10 General.

921.11 Application for initial acquisition,

development and operation grants,

921.12 Application for subsequent develop-

ment and operation grants.

921.13 Federally owned lands.

Subpart C — Selection Criteria

921.20 Criteria for selection.

921.21 Public participation.

Subpart D — Operation

921.30 General.

921.31 Changes In the sanctuary boundary,

management policy or research
program.

92 1 .32 Program review.

Authority: Sec. 312 of the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-583, 86
Stat. 1280).

Subpart A — General

§ 921.1 Policy and Objectives.

The estuarine sanctuaries program will
provide grants to States on a matching
basis to acquire, develop and operate
natural areas as estuarine sanctuaries in
order that scientists and students may be
provided the opportunity to examine over
a period of time the ecological relation-
ships within the area. The purpose of
these guidelines is to establish the rules
and regulations for Implementation of
the program.

§ 921.2 Definitions.

(a) In addition to the definitions
found In the Act and in the regulations
dealing with Coastal Zone Management
Program Development Grants published
November 29, 1973 (Part 920 of this
chapter) the term "estuarine sanctuary"
as defined in the Act, means a research
area which may include any part or all
of an estuary, adjoining transitional
areas, and adjacent uplands, constituting

to the extent feasible a natural unit, set
aside to provide scientists and students
the opportunity to examine over a period
of time the ecological relationships with-
in the area.

(b) For the purposes of this section,
'estuary" means that part of a river or
stream or other body of water having un-
impared connection with the open sea
where the seawater is measurably diluted
with freshwater derived from land drain-
age. The term includes estuary-type
areas of the Great Lakes as well as la-
goons in more arid coastal regions.

(c) The term "multiple use" as used
in this section shall mean the simulta-
neous utilization of an area or resource
for a variety of compatible purposes or
to provide more than one benefit. The
term implies the long-term, continued
uses of such resources in such a fashion
that other uses will not Interfere with,
diminish or prevent the primary purpose,
which is the long-term protection of the
area for scientific and educational use.

§ 921.3 Objectives and implementation
of the program.

(a) General. The purpose of the es-
tuarine sanctuaries program is to create
natural field laboratories in which to
gather data and make studies of the
natural and human processes occurring
within the estuaries of the coastal zone.
This shall be accomplished by the estab-
lishment of a series of estuarine sanc-
tuaries which will be designated so that
at least one representative of each type
of estuarine ecosystem will endure Into
the future for scientific and educational
purposes. The primary use of estuarine
sanctuaries shall be for research and
educational purposes, especially to pro-
vide some of the information essential to
coastal zone management decision-mak-
ing. Specific examples of such purposes
and uses Include but are not limited to:

(1) To gain a thorough understanding
of the ecological relationships within the
estuarine environment.

(2) To make baseline ecological meas-
urements.

(3) To monitor significant or vital
changes in the estuarine environment.

(4) To assess the effects of man's
stresses on the ecosystem and to forecast
and mitigate possible deterioration from
human activities.

(5) To provide a vehicle for increasing
public knowledge and awareness of the
complex nature of estuarine systems,
their values and benefits to man and na-
ture, and the problems which confront
them.

(b) The emphasis within the program
will be on the designation as estuarine
sanctuaries of areas which will serve as
natural field laboratories for studies and
investigations over an extended period.
The area chosen as an estuarine sanc-
tuary shall, to the extent feasible, in-
clude water and land masses constituting
a natural ecological unit.

(c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
tuary will be available for future studies,
research involving the destruction of any
portion of an estuarine sanctuary which
would permanently alter the nature of
the ecosystem shall not normally be

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108 — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

EUtfS Mm EEGULATIOWS

19925

permitted. In the unusual circumstances
where permitted, manipulative Held re-
search shall be carefully controlled. No
experiment which Involves manipulative
research shall be initiated until the ter-
mination date Is specified and evidence
given that the environment will be re-
turned to Its condition which existed
prior to the experiment.

(d) It Is anticipated that most of the
areas selected as sanctuaries will be rel-
atively undisturbed by human activities
at the time of acquisition. Therefore,
most of the areas selected will be areas
with a minimum of development, indus-
try or habitation.

(e) If sufficient permanence and con-
trol by the State can be assured, the
acquisition of a sanctuary may Involve
less than the acquisition of a fee simple
interest. Such interest may be, for ex-
ample, the acquisition of a conserva-
tion easement, "development rights", or
other partial Interest sufficient to assure
the protection of the natural system.
Leasing, which would not assure perma-
nent protection of the system, would not
be an acceptable alternative.

§ 921.4 Biogeographic classification.

(a) It Is Intended that estuarlne sanc-
tuaries should not be chosen at random,
but should reflect regional differentia-
tion and a variety of ecosystems so as
to cover all significant variations. To
ensure adequate representation of all es-
tuarlne types reflecting regional differ-
entiation and a variety of ecosystems,
selections will be made by the Secretary
from the following biogeographic class-
ifications:

1. Arcadian. Northeast Atlantic coast
south to Cape Cod. glaciated shoreline sub-
ject to winter Icing; well developed algal
flora; boreal biota.

a. Virginian. Middle Atlantic coast from
Cape Cod to Cape Hatteras; lowland streams,
coastal marshes and muddy bottoms; char-
acteristics transitional between 1 and 3;
biota primarily temperate with some boreal
representatives.

3. Carolinian. South Atlantic coast, from
Cape Hatteras to Cape Kennedy; extensive
marshes and swamps; waters turbid and
productive; biota temperate with seasonal
tropical elements.

4. West Indian. South Florida coast from
Cape Kennedy to Cedar Key; and Caribbean
Islands; ahoreland low-lying limestone;
calcareous sands, marls and coral reefs;
coastal marches and mangroves; tropical
biota.

6. Louisianian. Northern Gulf of Mexico,
from Cedar Key to Mexico; characteristics
of 3, with components of 4; strongly Influ-
enced by terrigenous factors; biota primarily
temperate.

8. OaUfornian. South Pacific coast from
Mexico to Cape Mendocino; ahoreland Influ-
enced by coastal mountains; rocky coasts
with reduced fresh-water runoff; general
absence of marshes and swamps; biota
temperate.

7. Columbian. North Pacific coast from
Cape Mendocino to Canada; mountalneous
ahoreland; rooky coasts; extensive algal com-
munities; biota primarily temperate with
some boreaL

8. Fiords. South coast Alaska and Aleu-
tians; precipitous mountains; deep estuaries,
some with glaciers; shoreline heavily In-

dented and subject to winter icing; biota
boreal to sub-Arctic

S. Subarotta. West and north coasts of
Alaska; Ice stressed coasts; biota Arctic and
sub-Arctic.

10. Intular. Larger Islands, sometimes with
precipitous mountains; considerable wave
action; frequently with endemic species;
larger Island groups primarily with tropical
biota.

11. Great Lake*. Great Lakes of North
America; bluff-dune or rocky, glaciated
shoreline; limited wetlands; freshwater only;
biota a mixture of boreal and temperate
species with anadromoua species and some
marine invaders.

(b) Various sub-categories will be de-
veloped and utilized as appropriate.

§ 921.5 Multiple use.

(a) While the primary purpose of es-
tuarlne sanctuaries Is to provide long-
term protection for natural areas so that
they may be used for scientific and edu-
cational purposes, multiple use of estu-
arlne sanctuaries will be encouraged to
the extent that such use k compatible
with this primary sanctuary purpose.
The capacity of a given sanctuary to ac-
commodate additional uses, and the
kinds and intensity of such use, will be
determined on a case by case basis. While
it is anticipated that compatible uses

'may generally include activities such as
low intensity recreation, fishing, hunt-
ing, and wildlife observation, it is rec-
ognized that the exclusive use of an area
"for scientific or educational purposes
may provide the optimum benefit to
coastal zone management and resource
use and may on occasion be necessary.

(b) There shall be no effort to balance
or optimize uses of an estuarlne sanctu-
ary on economic or other bases. All addi-
tional uses of the sanctuary are clearly
secondary to the primary purpose and
uses, which are long-term maintenance
of the ecosystem for scientific and educa-
tional uses. Non-compatible uses, includ-
ing those uses which would cause sig-
nificant short or long-term ecological
change or would otherwise detract from
or restrict the use of the sanctuary as
a natural field laboratory, will be pro-
hibited.

§ 921.6 Relationship to other provisions
of the act and to marine sanctuaries.

(a) The estuarlne sanctuary program
must Interact with the overall coastal
zone management program in two ways:

(1) the Intended research use of the
sanctuary should provide relevant data
and conclusions of assistance to coastal
zone management decision-making, and

(2) when developed, the State's coastal
zone management program must recog-
nize and be designed to protect the estu-
arlne sanctuary; appropriate land and
water use regulations and planning con-
siderations must apply to adjacent lands.
Although estuarlne sanctuaries should
be incorporated Into the State coastal
zone management program, their desig-
nation need not await the development
and approval of the management pro-
gram where operation of the estuarlne
sanctuary would aid in the development
of a program.

(b) The estuarlne sanctuaries program
will be conducted In close cooperation
with the marine sanctuaries program
(Title HI of the Marine Protection, Re-
search Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-532, which
la also administered by the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, NOAA),
which recognizes that certain areas of
the ocean waters, as far seaward as the
outer edge of the Continental Shelf, or
other coastal waters where the tide ebbs
and flows, or of the Great Lakes and
their connecting waters, need to be pre-
served or restored for their conservation,
recreational, ecologlc or esthetic values.
It Is anticipated that the Secretary on
occasion may establish marine sanctu-
aries to complement the designation by
States of estuarlne sanctuaries, where
this may be mutually beneficial.

Subpart B — Application for Grants

§ 921.10 General.

Section 312 authorizes Federal grants
to coastal States so that the States may
establish sanctuaries according to regu-
lations promulgated by the Secretary.
Coastal States may file applications for
grants with the Director, Office of Coastal
Zone Management, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, U.S. De-
partment of Commerce, Rockvllle, Mary-
land 20852. That agency which has been
certified to the Office of Coastal Zone
Management as the entity responsible
for administration of the State coastal
zone management program may either
submit an application directly, or must
endorse and approve applications sub-
mitted by other agencies within the
State.

§ 921.11 Application for initial acquisi-
tion, development and operation
grants.

(a) Grants may be awarded on a
matching basis to cover the costs of
acquisition, development and operation
of estuarine sanctuaries. States may use
donations of land or money to satisfy all
or part of the matching cost require-
ments.

(b) In general, lands acquired pur-
suant to this section, including State
owned lands but not State owned sub-
merged lands or bay bottoms, that occur
within the proposed sanctuary boundary
are legitimate costs and their fair market
value may be included as match. How-
ever, the value of lands donated to or by
the State for Inclusion in the sanctuary
may only be used to match other costs
of land acquisition. In the event that
lands already exist in a protected status,
their value cannot be used as match for
sanctuary development and operation
grante, which will require their own
matching funds.

(c) Development and operation costs
may Include the administrative expenses
necessary to monitor the sanctuary, to
ensure Its continued viability and to pro-
tect the integrity of the ecosystem. Re-
search will not normally be funded by
Section 312 grants. It is anticipated that
other sources of Federal, State and

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108— TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

19926

RULIS AND REGULATIONS

private funds will be available for re-
search in estuarlne sanctuaries.

(d) Initial applications should contain
the following Information:

(1) Description of the proposed sanc-
tuary Include location, boundaries, else
and cost of acquisition, operation and de-
velopment. A map should be Included, as
well as an aerial photograph, if available.

(2) Classification of the proposed
sanctuary according to the biogeographic
scheme set forth in 8 921.4.

(3) Description of the major physical,
geographic and biological characteristics
and resources of the proposed sanctuary.

(4) Identification of ownership pat-
terns; proportion of land already In the
public domain.

(5) Description of Intended research
uses, potential research organizations or
agencies and benefits to the overall
coastal zone management program.

(6) Demonstration of necessary au-
thority to acquire or control and manage
the sanctuary.

(7) Description of proposed manage-
ment techniques, Including the manage-
ment agency, principles and proposed
budget including both State and Federal
shares.

(8) Description of existing and poten-
tial uses of and conflicts within the area
If it were not declared an estuarlne sanc-
tuary; potential use, use restrictions and
conflicts if the sanctuary is established.

(1) Assessment of the environmental
and socio-economic impacts of declaring
the area an estuarlne sanctuary, Includ-
ing the economic Impact of such a desig-
nation on the surrounding community
and its tax base.

(9) Description of planned or antici-
pated land and water use and controls
for contiguous lands surrounding the
proposed sanctuary (including if appro-
priate an analysis of the desirability of
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent
areas) .

(10) List of protected sites, either
within the estuarlne sanctuaries program
or within other Federal, State or private
programs, which are located in the same
regional or biogeographic classification.

(1) It Is essential that the opportunity
be provided for public Involvement and
Input in the development of the sanctu-
ary proposal and application. Where the
application Is controversial or where
controversial Issues are addressed, the
State should provide adequate means to
ensure that all interested parties have
the opportunity to present their views.
This may be In the form of an adequately
advertised public hearing.

(11) During the development of an
estuarlne sanctuary application, all land-
owners within the proposed boundaries
should be Informed in writing of the pro-
posed grant application.

(Ill) The application should Indicate
the manner In which the State solicited
the views of all interested parties prior
to the actual submission of the appli-
cation.

(e) In order to develop a truly repre-
sentative scheme of estuarlne sanctu-

aries, the States should attempt to coor-
dinate their activities. This will help to
minimize the possibility of similar estu-
arlne types being proposed for designa-
tion in the same region. The application
should Indicate the extent to which
neighboring States were consulted.

(f) Discussion, including cost and
feasibility, of alternative methods for
acquisition, control and protection of the
area to provide similar uses. Use of the
Marine Sanctuary authority and funds
from the Land and Water Conservation
Fund Act should be specifically ad-
dressed.

§ 921.12 Application for subsequent de-
velopment and operation grants.

(a) Although the initial grant appli-
cation for creation of an estuarlne sanc-
tuary should include initial development
and operation costs, subsequent appli-
cations may be submitted following ac-
quisition and establishment of an estua-
rlne sanctuary for additional develop-
ment and operation funds. As indicated
in S 921.11, these costs may Include ad-
ministrative costs necessary to monitor"
the sanctuary and to protect the integ-
rity of the ecosystem. Extensive manage-
ment programs, capital expenses, or re-
search will not normally be funded b^
section 312 grants.

(b) After the creation of an estuarlne
sanctuary established under this pro-

• gram, applications for such development
and operation grants should Include at
least the following information:

(1) Identification of the boundary.

(2) Specifications of the management
program, including managing agency and
techniques.

(3) Detailed budget.

(4) Discussion of recent and projected
use of the sanctuary.

(5) Perceived threats to the integrity
of the sanctuary.

§ 92 1 . 1 3 Federally owned lands.

(a) Where Federally owned lands are
a part of or adjacent to the area pro-
posed for designation as an estuarlne
sanctuary, or where the control of land
and water uses on such lands Is neces-
sary to protect the natural system within
the sanctuary, the State should contact
the Federal agency maintaining control
of the land to request cooperation in pro-
viding coordinated management policies.
Such lands and State request, and the
Federal agency response, should be iden-
tified and conveyed to the Office of
Coastal Zone Management.

(b) Where such proposed use or con-
trol of Federally owned lands would not
conflict with the Federal use of their
lands, such cooperation and coordination
Is encouraged to the maximum extent
feasible.

(c) Section 312 grants may not be
awarded to Federal agencies for creation
of estuarlne sanctuaries In Federally
owned lands; however, a similar status
may be provided on a voluntary basis for
Federally owned lands under the provi-
sions of the Federal Committee on Eco-
logical Preserves program.

Subpart € — Selection Criteria

§ 921.20 Criteria for selection.

Applications for grants to establish
estuarlne sanctuaries will be reviewed
and judged on criteria Including:

(a) Benefit to the coastal zone man-
agement program. Applications should
demonstrate the benefit of the proposal
to the development or operations of the
overall coastal zone management pro-
gram, Including how well the proposal
fits Into the national program of repre-
sentative estuarlne types; the national
or regional benefits; and the usefulness
in research.

(b) The ecological characteristics of
the ecosystem, including its biological
productivity, diversity and representa-
tiveness. Extent of alteration of the
natural system, its ability to remain a
viable and healthy system in view of the
present and possible development of ex-
ternal stresses.

(c) Size and choice of boundaries. To
the extent feasible, estuarlne sanctuaries
should approximate a natural ecological
unit. The minimal acceptable size will
vary greatly and will depend on the na-
ture of the ecosystem.

(d) Cost. Although the Act limits the
Federal share of the cost for each sanc-
tuary to $2,000,000, it is anticipated that
In practice the average grant will be sub-
stantially less than this.

(e) Enhancement of non-competitive
uses.

(f) Proximity and access to existing
research facilities.

(g) Availability of suitable alternative
sites already protected which might be
capable of providing the same use or
benefit. Unnecessary duplication of ex-
isting activities under other programs
should be avoided. However, estuarlne
sanctuaries might be established adja-
cent to existing preserved lands where
mutual enhancement or benefit of each
might occur.

(h) Conflict with existing or potential
competing uses.

" (i) Compatibility with existing or pro-
posed land and water use in contiguous
areas.

If the initial review demonstrates the
feasibility of the application, an environ-
mental Impact statement will be pre-
pared by the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement In accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and
Implementing CEQ guidelines.

§ 921.21 Public participation.

Public participation will be an essen-
tial factor In the selection of estuarlne
sanctuaries. In addition to the participa-
tion during the application development
process (8 921.11(e)), public participa-
tion will be ensured at the Federal level
by the NEPA process and by public hear-
ings where desirable subsequent to NEPA.
Such public hearings shall be held by the
Office of Coastal Zone Management In
the area to be affected by the proposed
sanctuary no sooner than 30 days after it
Issues a draft environmental Impact

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 108 — TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 1974

RULES AND REGULATIONS

19927

statement on the sanctuary proposal. It
will be the responsibility of the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, with the as-
sistance of the applicant State, to issue
adequate public notice of its intention
to hold a public hearing. Such public no-
tice shall be distributed widely, espe-
cially in the area of the proposed sanc-
tuary; affected property owners and
those agencies, organizations or individ-
uals with an identified interest in the
area or estuarine sanctuary program
shall be notified of the public hearing.
The public notice shall contain the
name, address and phone number of the
appropriate Federal and State officials to
contact for additional information about
the proposal.

Subpart D — Operation

§ 921.30 General.

Management of estuarine sanctuaries'
shall be the responsibility of the appli-
cant State or its agent. However, the
research uses and management program
must be in conformance with these
guidelines and regulations, and others
implemented by the provisions of indi-
vidual grants. It is suggested that prior
to the grant award, representatives of
the proposed sanctuary management
team and the Office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement meet to discuss management
policy and standards. It is anticipated
that the grant provisions will vary with
individual circumstances and will be
mutually agreed to by the applicant and

the granting agency. As a minimum, the
grant document for each sanctuary
shall:

(a) Define the intended research pur-
poses of the estuarine sanctuary.

(b) Define permitted, compatible, re-
stricted and prohibited uses of the sanc-
tuary.

(c) Include a provision for monitoring
the uses of the sanctuary, to ensure com-
pliance with the intended uses.

(d) Ensure ready access to land use
of the sanctuary by scientists, students
and the general public as desirable and
permissible for coordinated research and
education uses, as well as for other com-
patible purposes.

(e) Ensure public availability and rea-
sonable distribution of research results
for timely use in the development of
coastal zone management programs.

(f) Provide a basis for annual review
of the status of the sanctuary, its value
to the coastal zone program.

(g) Specify how the integrity of the
system which the sanctuary represents
will be maintained.

(h) Provide adequate authority and
intent to enforce management policy and
use restrictions.

§ 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary
boundary, management policy or
research program.

. (a) The approved sanctuary boundar-
ies; management policy, Including per-
missible and prohibited uses; and re-

search program may only be changed
after public notice and the opportunity
of public review and participation such
as outlined in 9 921.21.

(b) Individuals or organizations which
are concerned about possible improper
use or restriction of use of estuarine
sanctuaries may petition the State man-
agement agency and the Office of Coastal
Zone Management directly for review of
the management program.

§ 921.32 Program review.

It is anticipated that reports will be
required from the applicant State on a
regular basis, no more frequently than
annually, on the status of each estuarine
sanctuary. The estuarine sanctuary
program will be regularly reviewed to
ensure that the objectives of the program
are being met and that the program it-
self is scientifically sound. The key to
the success of the estuarine sanctuaries
program is to assure that the results of
the studies and research conducted in
these sanctuaries are available in a
timely fashion so that the States can
develop and administer land and water
use programs for the coastal zone. Ac-
cordingly, all information and reports,
Including annual reports, relating to
estuarine sanctuaries shall be part of
the public record and available at all
times for inspection by the public.

[FR Doc.74-12775 Piled 5-31-74; 0:57 am]

KDEftAl REGISTER, VOL. 39, NO. 101— TUESDAY, JUNE 4, W4

APPENDIX I

FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

PART IV

DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE

National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

Guidelines

45522

DEPARTMENT Of COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration

[ 15 CFR Part 921 ]

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES

Policies and Procedures for Selection

Acquisition and Management

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration, Department of
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule will
allow the National Oceanic and Atmos-
pheric Administration to make a pre-
liminary acquisition grant to a State to
undertake a fair market value appraisal,
and to develop a uniform relocation act
plan, a detailed management plan and a
research framework for a proposed estu-
arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Act of 1972, as amended.

DATE: Comments must be received on or
before October 1, 1977.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON-
TACT:

Robert R. Kifer, Physical Scientist,
Policy and Programs Development Of-
fice, Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page
One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235
(202-634-4241).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
On June 4, 1974, The National Oce-
anic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines"
pursuant to then section 312 of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972,
as amended, for the purpose of establish-
ing policy and procedures for the selec-
tion, acquisition, and management of
estuarine sanctuaries.

Under new subsection 315(1) of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au-
thorized to make available to coastal
States grants of up to 50 per centum of
the cost of acquisition, development, and
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In
general, subsection 315(1) provides that
grants may be awarded to States on a
matching basis to acquire, develop, and
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc-
tuaries in order that scientists and stu-
dents may be provided the opportunity
to examine over a period of time ecologi-
cal relationships within the area. The
purpose of these guidelines is to imple-
ment this program.

As a result of two years of program
implementation, the regulations are pro-
posed to be modified to specifically au-
thorize the granting of acquisition
money to States in two stages :

(i) An initial grant for such prelimi-
nary purposes, as surveying and assess-
ing the land to be acquired, and the de-
velopment of management procedures
and research programs; and

(ii) A second grant for the actual ac-
quisition of the, land. The Federal share
of the sum of the two grants shall not

PROPOSED RULES

exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs
involved. Any State receiving an. initial
grant shall be obligated to repay it if,
due to any fault of the State, the sanctu-
ary is not established.

As a result of this new grant procedure,
much more information relating to costs,
values, management procedures, and re-
search programs will be available at the
time of the publication of a draft en-
vironmental impact statement. Proposals
made public to date in the form of an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
have been criticized for lack of specificity
in these areas. By making a small pre-
liminary acquisition grant to a State,
the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be
more fully developed and the public can
become more aware of the costs and the
exact nature of the long-term manage-
ment.

In response to State questions about
estuarine sanctuary research, the pro-
posed regulations provide that such re-
search can be funded if it can be shown
to be related to program administration.

NOAA has reviewed these proposed
regulations pursuant to the National En-
vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has
determined that promulgation of these
regulations will have no significant im-
pact on the environment.

Compliance with Executive Order
11821. The economic and inflationary
impact of these proposed regulations has
been evaluated in accordance with OMB'
Circular A-107 and it has been deter-
mined that no major inflationary im-
pact will result.

Dated: August 26, 1977.

T. P. Gleiter,
Assistant Administrator
for Administration.

It is proposed to amend 15 CFR Part
921 as follows:

(1) By revising the table of contents
and authority citation to read as follows:

Subpart A — General

Sec.

921.1 Policy and objectives.

921.2 Definitions.

921.3 Objectives and Implementation of

the program.

921.4 Biogeographic classification.

921.5 Multiple use.

921.6 Relationship to other provisions of

the Act and to marine sanctuaries.

Subpart B — Application for Grants

921.10 General.

921.11 Application for preliminary acquisi-

tion grants.

921.12 Application for land acquisition

grants.

921.13 Application for operational grants.

921.14 Federally-owned lands.

Subpart C — Selection Criteria

92120 Criteria for selection.
921.21 Pubuc participation.

Subpart D — Operation

921.30 General.

921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary,

management policy, or research
program.

921.32 Program review.

Authority j Sec. 315 ( 1) , Coastal Zone Man-
agement Act of 1972, as amended (90 Stat.
1030, (16 TJ.S.C. 1461) Pub. L. 94-370) .

(2) By revising Subpart B — Applica-
tion for. Grants — as follows:

Subpart B — Application for Grants

§ 921.10 General.

Section 315 authorizes Federal grants
to coastal States so that the States may
establish sanctuaries according to regu-
lations promulgated by the Secretary.
Coastal States may file applications for
grants with the Associate Administrator
for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM) ,
Office of Coastal Zone Management, Page
1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW, Wash-
ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
has been certified to the Office of Coastal
Zone Management as the entity respon-
sible for administration of the State
coastal zone management program may
either submit an application directly, or
must endorse and approve applications
submitted by other agencies within the
State.

§ 921.11 Application for preliminary
acquisition grants.

(a) A grant may be awarded on a
matching basis to cover costs necessary
to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
As match to the Federal grant, a State
may use money, the cost of necessary
services, the value of foregone revenue,
and/or the value of land either already
in its possession or acquired by the State
specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
the land to be used as match already is
in the State's possession and is in a pro-
tected status, the State may use such
land as match only to the extent of any
revenue from the land foregone by the
State in order to include it in the sanc-
tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
quisition grant shall be made on form
SF 424 application for Federal assistance
(non-construction programs) .

(b) A preliminary acquisition grant
may be made for the defrayal of the
cost of:

(1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
value of any foregone use of the land,
to be used in the sanctuary;

(2) The development of a Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act plan;

(3) The development of a sanctuary
management plan;

(4) The development of a research and
educational program; and/or,

(5) Such other activity of a prelimi-
nary nature as may be approved in writ-
ing by OCZM. Any grant made pursuant
to this subsection shall be refunded by
the State to whatever extent it has spent
in relation to land not acquired for the
sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
refund.

(c) The application should contain:

(1) Evidence that the State has con-
ducted a scientific evaluation of its estu-
aries and selected one of those most rep-
resentative.

(2) Description of the proposed
sanctuary including location, proposed
boundaries, and size. A map(s) should
be included", as well as an aerial photo-
graph if available.

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175 — FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

PROPOSED RULES

45523

(3) Classification of *the proposed
sanctuary according to the biogeo-
graphic scheme set forth US § 921.4.

(4) Description of the major physical,
geographic, biological characteristics and
resources of the proposed sanctuary.

(5) Demonstration of the necessary
authority to Acquire or control and man-
age the sanbtuary.

(6) Description of existing and poten-
tial uses of, and conflicts wjthin, the
area if it were not declared an estuarine
sanctuary; and potential use restriction
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab-
lished.

(7) List of protected sites, either with-
in the estuarine sanctuaries program or
within other Federal, State, or private
programs, which are located in the same
region or biogeographic classification.

(8) The manner in which the State
solicited the views of interested parties.

(9) In addition to the standard A-95
review procedures, the grant application
should be sent to the State Historic Pres-
ervation Office for comment to insure
compliance with section 106 of the Na-
tional Preservation Act of 1966.

(d) In order to develop a truly repre-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu-
aries, the States should coordinate their
activities. This will help to minimize the
possibility of rimilar estuarine types be-
ing proposed in the same region. The
extent to which neighboring States were
consulted should be indicated.

§ 921.12 Application for land acquisi-
tion grants.

(a) Acquisition grants will be made to
acquire land and facilities for estuarine
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly
described in a preliminary acquisition
grant application, or where equivalent
information is available. Application for
an acquisition grant shall be made on
SP 424 application for Federal .assist-
ance (construction program).

In general, lands acquired pursuant to
this subsection are legitimate costs and
their fair market value, developed ac-
cording to Federal appraisal standards,
may be included as match. The value of
lands donated to the State and cash do-
nations may also be used as match. If
the State already owns land which is to
be used in the sanctuary, the value of
any use of the land foregone by the State
in order to include such land in the
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20
years, may be used by the State as
match. The value of lands purchased by
a State within the boundaries of pro-
posed sanctuaries while an application
for a preliminary acquisition grant or
land acquisition grant is being consid-
ered may also be used as match.

(b) An acquisition application should
contain the following Information:

(1) Description of any changes in pro-
posed sanctuary from that presented in
the preliminary acquisition grant appli-
cation. If such an application has not
been made, then, information equivalent
to that required in such a grant applica-
tion should be provided* o» ft

(2) Identification of ownership pat-
terns, proportions of, land already, in the;

public domain; fair market value ap-
praisal and Uniform Relocation Act plan.
" (3) Description of research programs,
potential and committed research or-
ganizations or agencies, and benefits to
the overall coastal zone management
program.

(4) Description of proposed manage-
ment techniques, including the manage-
ment agency and proposed budget^in-
cluding both State and Federal shares.

(5) Description of planned or antici-
pated land and water use and controls
for contiguous lands surrounding the
proposed sanctuary (including, if appro-
priate, an analysis of the desirability of
creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent
areas) .

(6) Assessment of the environmental,
and socio-economic impacts of declaring
the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ-
ing the economic impact on the sur-
rounding community and its tax base.

(7) Discussion, including cost and
feasibility of alternative methods for ac-
quisition and protection of the area.

§ 921.13 Application for operation
grants.

(a) Although an acquisition grant ap-
plication for creation of an estuarine
sanctuary should include initial opera-
tion costs, subsequent applications may
be submitted following acquisition and
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary
for additional operational funds. As in-
dicated in § 921.11, these costs may in-
clude administrative costs necessary to
monitor the sanctuary and to protect the
integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive
management programs, capital expenses,
or research will not normally be funded
by section 315 grants.

(b) After the creation of an estuarine
sanctuary established under this pro-
gram, applications (Form SF 424) for
Federal assistance (non-construction
program), for such operational grants
should include at least the following in-
formation:

(1) Identification of the boundary
(map) .

(2) Specifications of the research and
management programs, including man-
aging agency and techniques.

(3) Detailed budget.

(4) Discussion of recent and projected
use of the sanctuary.

(5) Perceived threats to the integrity
of the sanctuary.

. § 921.14 Federally-owned lands.

(a) Where Federally-owned lands are
a part of or adjacent to the area proposed
for designation as an estuarine sanc-
tuary, or where the control of land and
water uses on such lands is necessary to
protect the natural system within the
sanctuary, the State should contact the
Federal agency maintaining control of
the land to request cooperation in provid-
ing .coordinated management policies.
Such lands and State request, and the
Federal agency response, should beiden-
tified and conveyed to the Office of
Coastal Zone Management,

(b) Where such proposed use or con-
trol .of FederaUyrowaed lands would not

conflict with the Federal use of their
lands, such cooperation and coordination
'is encouraged to the maximum extent
feasible.

(c) Section 315 grants may not be
awarded to Federally-owned lands; how-
ever, a similar status may be provided on
a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
lands under the provisions of the Federal
Committee on Ecological Perserves
program.

§ 921.20 [Amended]

(4) Subpart C — Selection Criteria — is
amended by changing the first sentence
in §921.20 to read: "Applications for
preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
tuaries will be reviewed and judged on
criteria including:"

(5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol-
lows:

§921.21 Public participation.

(a) Public participation in the selec-
tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
quired. In the selection process, the se-
lecting entity (see § 921.10) shall seek
the views of possibly affected landown-
ers, local governments, and Federal
agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
sibly interested other parties and orga-
nizations. The latter would include, but
need not be limited to, private citizens
and business, social, and environmental
organizations in the area of the site be-
ing considered for selection. This solici-
tation of views may be accomplished by
whatever means the selecting entity
deems appropriate, but shall include at
least one public hearing in the area. No-
tice of such hearing shall include infor-
mation as to the time, place, and subject
matter, and shall be published in the
principal area media. The hearing shall
be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
ing the publication of notice.

(b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man-
agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
and final environmental impact state-
ments pertaining to the site finally se-
lected lor the estuarine sanctuary fol-
lowing public participation in the selec-
tion of that site, and shall distribute
these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a
public hearing in the area of such site at
which both the draft environmental im-
pact statement (DEIS) and the merits
of the site selection may be addressed by
those in attendance. OCZM shall hold
such a hearing if: (1) In its view, the
DEIS is controversial, or (2) if there ap-
pears to be a need for further informing
the public with regard to either the DEIS
or one or more aspects bf the site se-
lected, or (3) if such a.thearing is re-
quested in writing (to either the select-
ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
terested party, of <4) fcor other good
cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
no sooner than 30 days following the is-
suance of the DEIS and JDO sooner than
15 days after appropriate; notice of such
hearing has been given In the area by
OCZM with the assistance of the select-
ing entity. 7

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175 — FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

APPENDIX II

Article 4, Ecological Reserves
(Added by Stats. 1968, Ch. 1257)

1580. For the purpose of protecting rare or endangered native
plants, wildlife or aquatic organisms or specialized habitat types
both terrestiral and aquatic, the department, with the approval of
the commission, may obtain by purchase, lease, gift or otherwise,
land and water for the purpose of establishing ecological reserves.
Such ecological reserves shall not be classed as wildlife manage-
ment areas pursuant to Section 1504 and shall be exempt from the
provisions of Section 1504.

(Amended by Stats. 1977, Ch. 1181.)

1581. Any property acquired in fee for ecological reserves shall
be acquired in the name of the state, and shall, at all times, be
subject to such rules and regulations as may be prescribed from time
to time by the commission for the occupation, use, operation, pro-
tection, and administration of such property as ecological reserves.

(Added by Stats. 1968, Ch. 1257.)

1582. The department shall do all things necessary to secure a
valid title in the state to the property acquired in fee for ecolo-
gical reserves but no payment shall be made therefor until the
title is vested in and satisfactory to the state. No such land
will be acquired by eminent domain.

(Added by Stats. 1968, Ch. 1257.)

1583. Except in accordance with the regulations of the commission
it is unlawful to enter upon any ecological reserves established
under the provisions of this article, or to take therein any bird or
the nest or eggs thereof, or any mammal, fish, mollusks, crustaceans,
amphibia, reptiles or any other form of plant or animal life.

(Added by Stats.. 1968, Ch. 1257.)

1584. As used in this article, "ecological reserve" refers
to land or land and water areas preserved in a natural condition
for the benefit of the general public to observe native flora
and fauna and for scientific study.

(Added by Stats. 1968, Ch. 1257.)

APPENDIX III

Birds, Fish, Plants, Anijials, and Shellfish of Elkhorn Slough
Bird Life of Elkhorn Slough and Moss Landing Harbor

Common gage
Shorebirds
Avocet, American
Curlew long-billed
Dovitcher, long-billed
Dovitcher, short -billed
Dunlin

GodVit, marbled
KLlldeer
Knot

Phalarope, northern
Phalarope, red
Phalarope, Wilson's
Plover, American golden
Plover, black-bellied
Plover, semipalmated
Plover, snowy
Sander ling
Sandpiper, Baird's
Sandpiper, least

Scientific Name 1/

Population Peak,
Number and Month
(1967-68)

Recurvlrostra americana

R i

2/ 606 Dec.

Numenlus americamis

M

Ikf Aug.

Limnodromus scolopaceus

M

^5 Jan.

Limnodromus oriseus

M

ko Jan.

Erolia alpina

M

52k Nov.

Limosa f edoa

M

lk$k Dec.

Charadrius vociferus

R

210 Dec.

Calldris canutus

M

1 Apr.

Lobipes lobatus

M

8175 Oct.

Phalaropus fulicarius

M

k Feb.

Steganopus tricolor

M

3k Aug.

Pluvialis dominlca

M

3/--

SQuatarola squatarola

M

105 Jan.

Charadrius semipalmatus

M

32 Apr.

Charadrius alexandrinus

R

-- --

Crocethia alba

M

227 Nov.

Erolia balrdii

M

5 Apr.

Erolia ndnutilla

M

530 Dec.

l/ Scientific names from Peterson a A Field Guide to Western Birds

2/ R-resident
Mint grant

3/ Not recorded on Department censuses

kj Escaped exotic

5/ Rarely

Common Name

Sandpiper, pectoral
Sandpiper, spotted
Sandpiper, western
Snipe, common
Stilt, black-necked
Surfbird

Turnstone, black
Turnstone, ruddy
Yellowlegs, greater
Yellovlegs, lesser
Willet
Whimbrel

Wading Birds

Bittern, American

Egret , common

Egret, reddish

Egret, snowy

Flamingo, American

Heron, great blue

Heron, black-crowned night

Gulls and Terns

Gull, Bonaparte's

Gull, California

Gull, glaucous -winged

Gull, herring

Gull, Heerman's

Gull, mew

Scientific Name

Erolia melanotos
Actitis macularia
Ereunetes mauri
Capella gallinayo
Himantopus mexicanus
Aphriza virgata
Arenaria melanocephal a
Arenaria interpres
Totanus melanoleucus
Totanus flavipes
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus
Numenius phaeopus

Botaurus lentiginosis
Casmerodius albus
Dichromanassa rufe scene
Lencophoyx thula
Phoenicopterus ruber
Ardea herodias
Nycticorax nycticorax

Larus Philadelphia
Larus calif ornicus
Larus glaucescens
Larus argent at us
Larus heermannl
Larus canus

Population Peak,
Number, and Month
(1967-1968)

M 12 Sept.

M 1 Feb.

M 1^60 July

M 1 Feb., April

B 30 Feb.

M — —

M 6 Aug.

M 5 June

M 6 Hov.

M 1 Jan., Apr., May

M l&[k Aug.

M kO Apr.

M — —

M 15 Jan.

M 1 Aug., Nor.

M 26 Mar.

y 1 -

M 1*5 Jan., Dec.

R 1 Aug., Nov.

M 207 Mar.

M 1202 Nov.

M 15 Mar., Apr,

M kO Mar.

M 705 Dec.

M 320 Jan.

Common Name

Gull, ring-billed
Gull, western
Kittiwake, black-legged
Tern, black
Tern, Caspian
Tern, common
Tern, elegant
Tern, Forster's
Tern, least
Tern, royal

Waterfowl

Brant, black

Bufflehead

Canvasback

Gadwall

Golden-eye, common

Goose, lesser Canada

Goose, Ross

Goose, snov

Goose, white -fronted

Mallard

Merganser, red-breasted

Oldsquaw

Pintail

Redhead

Ring -necked duck

Ruddy duck

Scaup, greater

Scientific Kama

Larus delawarensis
Larus occidentalis
Rissa tridactyla
Chlidonias niger
Hydroprogne caspia
Sterna hirundo
Thalasseus elegans
Sterna forsteri
Sterna albifrons
Thalasseus maximus

Branta nigricans
Bucephala albeola
Aythya valisineria
Anas strepera
Bucephala clangula
Branta canadensis parvlpes
Chen rossii
Chen hyperborea
Anser albifrons
Anas platyrhinchos
Mergus serrator
Clangula hy emails
Anas acuta
Aytha americana
Aythya collar! s

Oxyura jamaicensig
Aythya marila

Population Peak,
Number, and Month
(1967-68)

M kk Mar.

M 396 Oct .

M

M 1 Aug.

M 37 June

M 11 Sept.

M 9 Oct .

R 208 April

M 1 Mar., Apr!

M —

M

9

April

M

62

Feb.

M

Ik

Dec.

M

12

April

M

27

Jan.

M

«

—

M

1

Feb.

M

1

Dec, Jan

M

19

Jan.

R

50

Aug.

M

13

Jan.

M

3

Jan., Feb

M

lVf

Dec.

M

2

Dec.

M

11

Dec.

M

932

Jan.

M

395

Dec.

Common Name

Scaup, lesser
Shoveler
Scoter, common
Scoter, surf
Scoter, white -winged
Swan, whistling
Teal , cinnamon
Teal, green-winged
Widgeon, American

Scientific Name

Aythya af finis
Spatula clypeata
Oidemia nigra
Melanitta perspicillata
Melanitta deglandi
Olor columbianus
Anas cyanoptera
Anas car oli nine is
Mareca americana

Population Peak,
Rumber, and Month

(1967-68)
M

M 248 Feb .

M 2 April, May

M 397 Feb.

M 167 Dec, Mar.

l6 Jan.
300 Aug.

M 119 Mar,

M

25 April

Miscellaneous Marsh and Vater-Associated Birds

Coot, American

Grebe, eared

Grebe, horned

Grebe, pied -billed

Grebe, western

Kingfisher, belted

Rail, clapper

Rail, Virginia

Pulica americana

R

1004 Oct .

Podiceps caspicus

M

38 Feb.

Podiceps auritus

M

50 April

Podilymbus podiceps

R

Ik Nov.

Aechmophorus occidental! s

R

5/113 Jan

Megaceryle alcyon

--

Rallus lon^irostris

R

k June

Rallus limicola

R

_- mm

Miscellaneous Coastal and Pelagic Birds

Cormorant, Brandt's
Cormorant, double-crested
Cormorant, pelagic
Guillemot, pigeon
Loon, artic
Loon , common
Loon, red -throated

Phalacrocorax penicillatus
Phalacrocorax auritus
Phalacrocorax pelagicus
Cepphus columba
Gavla artica
Gavia immer
Gavia stellata

M 3 Sept.

M h Feb.

M 1 Mar.

M h Aug., Feb.

M h May

M 3 May

M k Jan.

Common Name

Murre, common
Mur relet, ancient
Pelican, brovn
Pelican, white

Land -associated Birds
Blackbird, Brewer's
Blackbird, red -winged
Blackbird, tricolor
Bushtit, common
Grow, common
Dove, mourning
Eagle, golden
Finch, house
Flicker, red-shafted
Flycatcher, western
Goldfinch, American
Hawk, marsh
Hawk, red -tailed
Hawk, sparrow
Jay, scrub

Kinglet, ruby-crowned
Kite, white -tailed
Lark, horned
Magpie, yellow -billed
Meadowlark, western
Owl , short -eared
Pheasant, ring-necked

Scientific Name

Uria aal^e

Synthliboramphus antiquum
Pelecanus Occident alls
Pelecanus erythrorhynchos

Euphagus cyanocephalufl
Agelaius phoenicus
Agelaiug tricolor
Psaltriparus minimus
Corrus brachyrhynchos
Zenaidura macroura
Aquila chrysaetos
Carpodacus mexicanus
Colaptes cafer
Empidonax difficilis
Spinus tristis
Circus cyaneus
Buteo jamaicensis
Falco sparveriuB
Aphelocoma coerulescens
Regulus calendula
gLanus leucurua
Eremophila alpestris
Pica nuttali
Sturnella neglecta
Agio flamrneus
Phasianus colchicus

Population Peak,
Number, and Month
(1967-68)

M 1 Sept., May

M 2 Sept.

M 2243 Aug.

M 17 Dec.

R
R
M
M
R
M
M
M
M
M
R
M
M
R
M
M
R
M
M
R
M
R

Common Name

Phoebe, black
Phoebe, Say's
Pigeon, band-tailed
Pipit, water
Quail, California
Shrike, loggerhead
Sparrow, golden-crowned
Sparrow, house
Sparrow, savannah
Sparrow, song
Sparrow, swamp
Sparrow, white -crowned
Starling

Swallow, violet -green
Towhee, brown
Thrasher, California
Warbler, Audubon's
Vren, Bewick's
Wren, long-billed marsh

Scientific Name

Population Peak,
Number, and Month
(1967-68)

Sayornis nigricans

R

—

—

Sayornis saya

M

—

—

Columba fasciata

M

—

—

Ant bus spinoletta

M

—

—

Lophortyx calif ornicus

R

—

—

Lanius ludovicianus

R

—

—

Zonotrichia atricapilla

R

—

--

Passer damesticus

R

—

—

Passer cuius sandwichensis

R

—

—

Melospiza melodia

R

—

—

Melospiza georgiana

M

—

—

Zonotrichia leucophrys

R

—

—

Sturnus vulgaris

M

—

—

Tachycineta thalasslna

M

—

--

Pipilo fuscus

R

—

—

Toxostoma redivivum

R

—

—

Dendroica auduboni

M

—

—

Thryomanes bewickii

R

—

—

Telmatodytes palustris

R

—

—

&

1

I

I

•

•

0-

o

1

s

CO

i

$

-!f

£

O
CM
CVJ

t

i

rH

1

•

NO

a

i

K

»

•>

•>

•v

o

CVJ

CM

CO

NO

H

H

UN

UN

•H

O

ON

O

un

co

t—

%

00

UN
00

I

»

&

1

UN

-4

i

o

•v

«\

•v

•v

•v

•*

<M

-d

On

-d-

CM

o-

H

H

-d-

H

un

t-

CO

UN

O

CM

co

VO

l

S

VO

co

3

&

ITN

i

CO

«s

•s

•s

•s

•>

m,

^

»

UN

CM

CO

ON
UN

Si

%

en

UN
O

CO

un

0-

o

UN

a

Sr

<

l/>

i

•

vo

^t

CO

en

H

t

•v

•>

•K

-d-

CO

CO

-4"

t-

VO

%

CM

H

1

I

t

§

•

1

UN
UN
UN

UN
ON

i

•s

•v

•s

0)

co

vo

no

1

i

l

§

l

Si

S

g

VO

so

►*

b-

t~

CO

1

I

cS

I

-4-

l

•s

-d-

•H

-4
CO

UN

CM

H

H

UN

00

co

iH

tr

00

(4

vo

t"-

3

CM

V0

t-\

a

I

l

H

VO

1

UN

o

o

<

jT

-4

O

ON

u

CM

H

on

-4"

H

S

H

-*■

d

UN

CO

O

2

ir\

H

O

rH

■H

1

-d

O

VO

I

t-

rH

t-

O

•*

•s

^

CO

-4-

O-

Sr

On

!>-

ON

SO

CO

£-

CO

H

JO

CO

rH

CM

CM

ON

3>

1

i

t-

VO

1

i

rH

CM

rH

fc

UN

•>
CO

ON

-4*

H

a

CM

H

CO
ON

rH

H

8

%

ON

.*

I

CM

ON

t>-

1

-d-

I

CM

•■^

•s

•»

•*

*

#»

^

0\

VO

«n

CO

VO

O

1

H

rH

CO

*

p O CO

0>

O l>

CO

*

ON ON 0>

*

On O*

%

.,,

H

H

rH rH H

rH

H H

rH

ID

§

8
i)
o

- i

4> C

0 O

. >i 75i

» 4)

31

O
DO

I
ft

o m
to

iL

•p

pel

Common Name
Anchovy, northern
Bass, striped
Boccacio
Cabezon
Croaker, white
Flounder, starry
Fringehead, onespot
Fringehead, sarcastic
Goby, arrow
Goby, bay
Greenling, kelp
Guitarfish, shovelnose
Hake, Pacific
Halibut, California
Herring, Pacific
Jacksmelt
Lingcod

Lizardfish, California
Lusk-eel
Mackerel, Jack
Midshipman, plainfin
Mudsucker, long jaw
Perch, black

LIST OF FISHES COLLECTED IN
ELKHORN SLOUGH AND ITS ENVIRONS l/

Scientific Name

Engraulis mordax
Marone saxatills
Sebastes paucispinis
Scorpaenichthys marmoratus
Genyonemus lineatus
Platichthys stellatus
Neocllnus uninotatus
Neoclinus blanchardi
Clevelandia ios
Lepidogobius lepldus
Hexagrammos sp.
Rhinobatos productus
Merluccius productus
Paralichthys californicus
Clupea harengus pallasi
Atherinopsis calif orniensi s
Ophiodon elongatus
Synodus lucioceps
Otophidum taylori
Trachurus symmetricus
Porichthys notatus
Gillichthys mirabilis
Embiotoca jacksoni

Slough

Harbor

Pier & Jetty

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

x 2/

X

X

X

X

X
X

X

X

X

X

x 2/

1/ Nomenclature from American Fisheries Society Special Publication #6,

Common and Scientific Names of Fishes from the United States and Canada.

2/ Species observed under the pier on scuba portion of study.

2/ Juveniles

Common Name

Scientific Name
Micrometrus minimus

Slough

Harbor

Pier & Jet

Perch, dwarf

X

X

Perch, pile

Rhacochilus vacca

X

X

X

Perch, reef

Micrometru6 aurora

X

Perch, shiner

Cymatogaster aggregata

X

X

x 2/

Pipefish, bay-

Syngnathus griseolineatus

X

Pipefish, kelp

Syngnathus calif orniensis

X

Pompano, Pacific

Peprilus simillimus

X

X

Queenfish

Seriphus politus

X

X

Ray, bat

Myliobatis calif ornica

X

X

Stockfish

Sebastes sp.

X

Rockfish, blue

Sebastes mystinus

x3/

Rockfish, brown

Sebastes auriculatus

X

X

Rockfish, kelp

Sebastes atrovirens

X

Rockfish, grass

Sebastes rostrelliger

x 3/

Sanddab, Pacific

Citharichthys sordidus

X

X

Sanddab , spe ckled

Citharichthys stigmaeus

X

X

x 2/

Sardine, Pacific

Sardinops sagax

X

X

Sculpin, Pacific staghorn

Leptocottus armatus

X

X

X

Seaperch, rainbow

Hypsurus caryi

X

X

X

Seaperch, rubberlip

Rhacochilus toxotes

X

X

Seaperch, sharpnose

Rhanerodon at ripe s

X

Seaperch, striped

Erabiotoca lateralis

X

x 2/

Seaperch, white

Phanerodon furcatus

X

X

X

Shad

Alosa sp.

X

Shad, American

Alosa sapldissima

X

Shad, threadfin

Dorosoma petenense

X

Shark, brown amoothhound

Mustelus henlel

X

Shark, gray amoothhound

Mustelus calif ornicus

X

Shark, leopard

Triakis semifasciata

X

X

X

Common Name
Skate

Skate, California
Smelt , surf
Snake eel, Pacific
Snake eel, spotted
Smelt, whitebait
Sole, curlfin
Sole, English
Sole, sand

Stickleback, threespine
Stingray, round
Surf perch, barred
Surf perch, calico
Surf perch, red -tailed
Surfperch, silver
Surfperch, spotfin
Surfperch, walleye
Thornback
Tomcod, Pacific
Tonguefish, California
Top smelt
Turbot, diamond
Wolf -eel

Scientific Name
Raja sp.
Raja inorata
HypomeeuB pretiosus
Ophlchthus tri8eralJB
Ophichthus ophis
Allosmerus el on gat us
Pleuronichthys decurrens
Parophrys vetulus
Psettichthys melanost ictus
Gasterosteus aculeatus
Urolophus halleri
Amphlstichus argenteus
Amphistichus koelzi
Amphlstichus rhodoterus
Hyperprosopon elllpticum

Hypft-rp-rngnpgn ftnalo

Hyperprosopon argenteum
Plat yr hi noi de s t riser lata
Microgadus proxlmue
Symphurus atricauda
Atherinopsis afflnls
Hypsopsetta guttulata
Anarrhichthys ocellatus

Slough

Harbor

X

Pier & Jett

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X
X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X
X

x 2/

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

MISCELLANEOUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS*

Common Name

Plants:

1.

Bulrushes

2.

Cattail

3.

Relerass

k.

Frankenia

5.

Ice -plant

6.

Pickleveed

7.

Rushes

8.

Saltgrass

Mammals:

1.

Black-tailed deer

2.

Brush rabbit

3.

Bobcat

h.

Coyote

5.

Gray fox

6.

Jackrabbit

7.

Muskrat

8.

Raccoon

9.

Seal

10.

Sea lion

Fish and

Squid:

1.

Albacore

2.

Jack mackerel

3.

Petrale sole

4.

Rex sole

5.

Rockfish

6.

Sablefish

7.

Salmon

8.

Squid

Shellfish:

1.

European flat oyster

2.

Japanese mussel

3.

Japanese littleneck clam

1*.

Mexican oyster

5.

Portuguese oyster

Scientific Name

Scirpus spp.
Typha spp.
Zostera marina
Frankenla grandifolla
Me8embryanthemum sp.
Salicornia spp.
Juncus spp.
Distichlis spicata

01ocoileu8 hemionus columbianns

Sylvilagus bachmani

Lynx rufus "

Canis latrans

Urocyon cinereoargenteus

Lepus californicus

Odonatra zibethica

Procyon lotor

Phocidac

Otaridae

Thunnus alalunga
Trachurus lathami
Eopsetta Jordani
Glypt ocephalus zachirus
Sebastes spp.
Anoplopma fimbria
Oncorhynchus spp.
Loligo opalescens

Ostrea edulis
Modiolus sanhausi
Tapes semidecussata
Crassostrea sp.
Crassostrea angulata

* Not listed in check lists of birds, fish, and shellfish.

SHELLFISH OF ELKHORN SLOUGH
Crustaceans

U

Common Name

Crabs and shrimp:
Bock crab
Yellow crab
Cancer crab
Slender crab
Cancer crab

Dungeness or market crab
Red crab

Purple shore crab
Shore crab or Oregon mud crab
Mottled pea crab
Poreelain crab
Lined shore crab
Hermit crab
Hermit crab
Flat or Porcelain crab
Commensal pea crab
Commensal pea crab
Commensal pea crab
Commensal pea crab
Commensal pea crab
Commensal pea crab

Scientific Name

Cancer antennarius
Cancer anthonyi
Cancer gibbosulus
Cancer gracilis
Cancer jordani
Cancer magister
Cancer productus
Hemigrapsus nudus
Hemigrapsus oregonensis
Opisthopus trans versus
Pachycheles rudis
Pachygrapsus crassipes
Pagurus hirsutiusculus
Pagurus samuelis
Petrolisthes cinctipes
Pinnixe faba
Pinnixa franciscana
Pinnixa longipes
Pinnixa schmitti
Pinnixa tommentosa
Pinnixa tubicola

1/ Compiled from Addicott, 1952; Eissinger, 1970; Macginitie, 1935; Smith
and Gordon, Jr., 1948. Some common names from Ricketts and Calvin, 1952;
Fitch, 1953; Hedgpeth, 1967; and MacGinitie and MacGinitie, I968.

Common Name
Kelp crab
Commensal pea crab

Ghost shrimp

Long-handed ghost shrimp
Bay shrimp
Gross shrimp
Broken back shrimp
Broken back shrimp
Blue mud shrimp
Amphipods :

Water flea
Skeleton shrimp
Skeleton shrimp
Skeleton shrimp
Water flea
Water flea
Sand hopper

Barnacles :

Acorn barnacle
Acorn barnacle
Gooseneck barnacle
Parasitic barnacle

Copepods :

Parasitic copepod
Parasitic copepod
Parasitic copepod
Parasitic copepod

Scientific Name
Pugettia producta

Scleroplax granulata

Betaeus longidactylus

Callianassa californiensis

Callianassa gigas

Crago nigri cauda

Hippolyte californiensis

Spirontocaris paludicola

Spirontocaris pi eta

Upogebia pugettensis

Ampithoe lacertosa
Aoroides columbiae
Caprella acutifrons
Caprella equi libra
Caprella scaura
Corophium salmonis
Corophium spinicorne
Gammarus confervicolus

Balanus nub ills
Balanus t int i nnabulum
Lepas hilli
Sacculina sp.

Argulus melanost ictus
Hemi cyclop s callianassae
Hemi cyclops thysanotus
Modioli cola gracilis

Common Name
Isopods:

Boring isopod (Gribble)

Pill bug

Isopod

Commensal isopod

Scientific Name

•MwTKvrja lignorum
Livoneca vulgaris
Pentidotea resecata
Phyllodurus abdominalis

Mollusks

Snails and Nudibranchs:

Nudibranch

Sea slug

Nudibranch

Nudibranch

Nudibranch

Nudibranch

Bubble shell

Nudibranch

Sea slug

Sea slug
Oysters, clams and mussels:

Giant Pacific oyster

Eastern oyster

Rockboring mussel

Bay mussel

Fat horsemu8sel

Horsemussel

Straight horsemussel

California soft -shelled clam

Nestler clam

Inconspicuous macoma

Aeolida papillosa
Aplysia calif ornicus
Coryphella sp.
Dendronotus sp.
Doto sp.
Gal vina sp.
Haminoea vesicula
Hermis sends crassicornis
Navanax inermis
Phi line sp.

Crassostrea gigas
Cra8sostrea virginica
Lithophaga plumula
Mytilu8 edulis
Vol sella capax
Vol sella diegensis
Vol sella recta
Crypt omya calif ornica
Kellia laperousii
Macoma inconspicua

Common Name

Scientific Name

Sand clam

Irus macoma

Bent -nosed clam

White sand clam

California mactra

Mactra

Geoduck

Wart -necked plddock

Boring clam

Petricola clam

Common littleneck

Thin shelled littleneck

California reversed clam

Commensal clam

Purple clam

Sazicava clam

Common Washington clam

Razor clam

Northern razor clam

Sickle razor clam

Dish clam

California jackknife clam

Bodega tellen

Tellen

Plsmo clam

Gaper clam

Boring clam

Rough piddock

Macoma inquinta
Macoma irus
Macoma nasuta
Macoma secta
Mactra calif ornica
Mactra dolabiformis
Panope generosa
Pholadidea ovoidea
Pholadidea penita
Petricola carditoides
Protothaca staminea
Protothaca tenerrima
Psgudochama exogyra
Pseudophthina rugifera
Sanguinolaria nuttalli
Saxicava arctica
Sacidomus nut t alii i
Siliq.ua lucida
Siliq.ua patula
Solen sicarius
Spi sula planul ata
Tagelus calif orni anus
Tellina bodegensis
Tellina button!
Tivela stultorum
Tresus nuttalli i
Zirfaea gabbi
Zirfaea pilsbryi

Common Name

Scientific Name

Miscellaneous mollusks:

Angular unicorn snail

File limpet

Butterfly limpet

Ribbed limpet

Shipworm

Basket cockle

Slipper shell

Keyhole limpet

Bock scallop

Cooper's chiton

Waddling snail

Chink shell

Chiton

Checkered littorina (Perwinkle)

Hairy-girdled chiton

Mossy chiton

Mossy chiton

Channeled basket shell

Purple olivu

Checked borer

Abalone jingle

Moon shell

Moon shell

Black turban

Toredo

Acanthi na spirata
Acmaea limatula
Acmaea persona
Acmaea scabra
Bankia setacea
Clinocardium nuttallii
Crepidula nivea
Diodora aspera
Hinnites multirugosus
Ischonchiton cooperi
Lacuna porrecta
Lacuna unifasciata
Lepidochitona raymondi
Littorina scutulata
Mopalia ciliata
Mopalia muscoaa hind si i
Mopalia muscosa
Nassarius fossatus
Olivella biplicata
Platyodon cancellatus
Pododesmus cepio
Polinices draconis
Polinices levisii
Tegula funeb rails
Teredo diegensis

s- 5 s- o
01 O <J n~

o. ai oi 4->

o i- co io

k.

I- 01 >» 01

O C .0 Q.
""ST,0

C C VI

(0 01 TJ

VI g k.

■C IO

^- — 01

§5

<o 1-
4->

ai en

4J O 4J

VI 1«_ -r- <i_ <J

■»- O 4J o c

<«E*"0

o

E en

M-

3

.C O

C

u ■—

o

•■- I/)

-C

4-*

* c

ra

k.

VI o

ai .e

i. -*

a.

3 r—

Q. 4-» UJ

u

3 C

3

0)

4->

</> C

>

o

111

k. -r-

a:

o 4J

- Oil
> • vi
io i- en
c«^ c

01 u •
o "a « vi

*- o i t»

■•- o ••-
c _ • <0
3 >»C

*» Wr-
en 01 "1- «.
C«-«IC

f- IB 01 O

i- *>

2.— i. IB
IB Ol en
C C 0.-I-

»- o £7 >

* T- k, *

£«>ae

C C VI

oi — ai
ceoi

k%2

a. c

0 0J i—
pp- E IO •

01 0 4J Ml

> OlM 41

o> <o io u

TJ c q I.

•O U 3

C E O

i- I. VI

v> c *a) £.

Olf- £

io io or

■<-> L. L. +J

VI 01 O IO

•4-> O

VI IO I.
IO OIlO

DIO £
O C I. IB

r- -r- Q.r-

i •
01 j->
(J c

Si

-c c

Sl

tj >
c c
io ai

*J 3
d> IO

IO U VI

en o c

"I- IB O

> o

IB C

C +J E

io * o

S3

IB C
*» I Ol-

io •<- t nj

C gl IB

«W • e r
i. ai o r
o o- C — 4J

O O 3 *> C

o t> i- §j
VI ai m c

.. a. o — —

>, k. O 3

■a k. oi tj <j

IB —

»-

<j fc- w o \j
C IO tj C i- 01

1— - 01

C OI

is

io jz oi io vi •

IB •, 01

— c

<J<4- — *»■•»

0 ailu l.

-O UJ

IO VI

*J VI JE-—

1- •£- JC VI

u •

10

c i- cn>— Q.

VI i-hO 4-> VI

O n- k.

TJ O

t- TJ C «3 VI

>><^ 0 0
J= 1- >.*

O O 3

c u

o i- u k oi

aoaiocn

u T»

IB

Ul

D. VI 1- J.

vt ai

01

E

O — TJ H- C

ai ai 01 c

• - a. u

VI 4J

IB

fc. — o 01 IO

1- eno. > ^~

>> J- p

o o C

ai io

s.

O 4J ><•- JS.C
«- 3 C U O

0 c 01

> *>

en

•»- ib en ■

coo,

O. IO

o

■-— enc

gency
ent ch
ikes).

redgin
Harbor

01 ~
en • *>

k.

a

>,f— e oi —
o o vi i- en ib

a </>"g

C 0.4^ VI IB 4J

ens E

IO k.

**

ai u 3 e

VI

01

c

cn*-> 01 en 01
•a c i-» w c E

01

1-s*

»"D

i

i~

HETItB

VI 01

•1- p 0 t c

4-> O t I O

1- o. 0. vi B E

3

c x en

5 3 VI

* X-

01

*j

*j 0 • o»->» c

01

en

<_>

"- t- V> U V) •<-

*-3l

— VI

IB

El ■!)•»- —

I

E «r- U D. i- T3

> k. 01

> k.

c

E c j. c > >

C > 01 O. «J C

ai jz S>

01 oi

IO

Ol O O 3 01 C

*j

01 C •" IB 01 IB

ec <-> c

ee *»

E

a. c w- x- cc 01

VI

Q. 01 a. >»_!

It- J-> u

• <4- 01 01 L.

I 1- X- U- 01

1 C 1- IB 4-1 I

■ en>— vi c

. — -o «r- :

I CO r— 1—

1 t- IB "O

• * C C

> >> OIO

I *>^ 1-

I 1- c

. L. IO

I J= J= VI

4-> VI *J > IO

) 3 f IO IO O

: IB H- *> z u

IO IO

en*J

f- VI

10 « —

■U C IB

VI

1— IB

r- f—

>>ai T-3viot-i— vi*t

A3 01

4JO >— ^*5 J)^-t-0

3

+-> <t- I- TJ

moot

f— IO IO

1-I0S-IO «t *-'OX'J-

IB b k.

k.r~OC • cnmQ.01
0 Q. co • c E vi

f-<»-

IB IB

e 01 ai

■S O

O ■»- Vlf—

O TJ TJ

j= in c • Oi- k. 0

+J

O 1— 10 VI

•«- Ol 01

4J 01 01 f- =3 ■— C — 01 O $

VI VI

3 «-"

4>«-«- •

3 j= k. t- r— en co

10 01

J= IS •—

O VI

lO*J 3J^<»- C 10 ••- TJ •— ^~-

WL O OH»- « »

0 0

4-> •— en

t- t. k. *J

0 s.

*v7£§

T> Ol O O

+JOOO ■•-k. tun

3

VI > 01

•i-*-i3)i;vi*J0ll«-TJ-i-TJ

••-> O

C _l

1- O VI 1-D

E k. I.UO.O k.c
C cn-i-> en ai 01 en 0 <o

C VI

VI IO VI

k. TJ O

IB 01

Ol 01 IB ^»

3 >> C k.

oicvic+jco^+jc+Ji—

L) i.

•WO c

•o*>«a

CL-I- 1- ;g 4J C t- VI *J

C >♦- E *<—«•■- 01 T» f 01

♦J-i-oC 3k.E3J=X

uio ooixqSi—
ai»nJVr-s.t 0 0 0 en

IO 0 • 10

H- 01

4J>— O «n»

•M k. TJ

•f C

V) O VI 13

UQUQI
Ol J£ 01 TJ

C 1-

01 "- 01 c

f— c x jh 5

en 1.

k. *J c c

k.k.ck.,0 wg cw c

•7- 10

f o»«o
«C nSe^jvo

— 3 I 3
O IO 5 <t-

1-Q1O10II0O3— -i-Ct-
O O. E O. cn-w 10 0.^-1- 4->

to i

t2

«CJ

P.

VI U !E
•^«t ..3E O.
11- 4-> E

.• o«t ♦» ♦»
4Jf- y co

<c ib ai en
ci- c c

ai 1- <J o ~-

M- -o 01 1- W

■t- k. 5.*> c
P- o co 10 3
■° °.~ ?*

1— O T» fc.

v a, a> T3

X tlkWk

u- 01 c *-
•0 -r- en o co

t- c u
x: TJ IB >i
VI •— TJ TJ k.

^-•^ c c o

vi ec.

s

c

*

VI
01

c

0

§T

•0

*->

10

« 4->

3

a.

VI

a

4J

c

4->

1

0

en

e

01

CO

■w

0.

|ssl

ON IS

TJ O 4->

i-«OU

S^c*

C •• O k.

01 Oi ■<- •-
E vc 4J«x
c en 3
Ot— 1— c

> O O. r-

c o

LU *-> C

U 01 ••

1— rf 4J 4J
IB IO O

|&**

4J •— 'io'o
IB O k. k.

TJ 1— C ft

1- 01 o 01

3;

TJ 4J

f- O.

Sc%

TJ 1
L VI

ss

TJ

C 0l->

CO k.

« U k.'

It-

f 0

♦> ^».

«£-E

VID- C

IS O O

-- Ol 01

O f-

U. CO 4J

4J • 4->

E
. Ol —

.113

CO 14-

^Sfe

=5— Q

-3-^S.

E 01

Gg

O* m •»-

01 >

TO

t_ 0) *-> •

JZ •*-

c

0} L UOV

u 4J

« TO

E 1- •>- i*»

£ O T> Ol

«S

XX OI 0)

3 O </>■—

— OI

in oil- —

m •»-

U k

1- 3-»-

X: k >»

T- O.

<*- Or— OI

C 0> 3 I—

1. k

•— -O *J

i- 3 ■«-> k

o oi

oi i/i f— re •

& r-i— 9)

o T "O >>

in c •

c c X-- k

k </i re

-^ i- 0)

<o t- "Ore

01 C k

x: -.

x: o • c 3

U C *»- o

•k 3

c -c in re 4->

k U_ li-

•u o

»ji eo u

lt- O

C r-

1— > c

ox: • -a

re c re

■O uj k re
c oi • </>

.* ra oi

*-' o c

1- f- o

re c tn u

OUJ f- D

k re -o

O Vlt-

i- a* 4-> oi

O.T- 4->

L 01 C

4-* c 0)

E > re

c *- = -c

■^ o o

4-1 Oil— » k

o « u

«- 3

o o re in re

<J VI k to

<t- q. -o

oi J- o re 3

T3 O

O OI

4-1 3 *• OI 4J

-D C <J C

O O Oi k m

c re = o

C •/> k

k vi o re uj

re • — •»-

O 01 o

a. oi ■—

o *»

k O *> k

O.W— ■*-> re

• C> c o

i- re c

01 01 01 01 t-

X: TO Of-

> re

52Xi.£e

k U f-

i_ i- ai oi >>

01 1- k

01 i— Ol OI ci

01 V II

m Oi OI

vi *o re re c

c -o C 4J

01 O 4J

01 ■— C C 01

5 c o oi
<S re co

Q."© g

i*li?

^

P

vf

OI ■

C i- VI

3

x: ore

o> *» 3

2

5c

T- r— ••— 4J

(J

E >> *

■— u

^s

1- o. oi re i-

oi k «

O VI

re o-<-> o E O
3 re re o C *j

+> VI

k^-

*»^

k e

«1l

u e

♦> ♦>•- at

VI OI VI a.+J

&5

^ .et*"

g*>

re 3

UJ > c

*»

*>x: p oi
vi oik e

k> c

>- k

t£5S?S

• re

^ s

5 e

c >—

x 5 k

>. 3

C <k

O o-x: 1. o in

*» »—

<t- 0-4J otx: i->
re •»■ o x: to

II

oi >— vi re
i« c 5

^-<k

-~«

r- ti-

*> e

3E X k ** re

♦» re*'
u c k U

re Ol

re re

e

au

o^

o C in X k

© re oi j* o

k **

3kfU

3 •

k Oi-

o

■o <•- VI

i- k k

re >—

VI M kJ Ol

k <•-

01 O 01

O OI u o o c

re

01

4-> in C X —

C "P"

C r— in

■*-> l/l

"B E k
c 5 oi

k oi *> x:

^- k

O UJ E O

re-O

COffllCf

*J

u so.

2 k

re ^- vi

o to re > re •■-

v> v>

Ol k k o

re

*> 01

••- c ou*

C 3

k 010- k

■— -o

x: i- k

*> 01 k k oi

O TJ

> a.

re c

U V)

re oi a. in x:

••- C

k O VI

e re

k ■»■ k

<_> k x: a. • oi

OI

VI 1-

O VI c

o *»

re 3 at

i- o *> re c f-

|

v>

Oi 0) -t-

f VI

o> o-*>

•— o re +>

COIUf

o»-o u^

ffx:

in o re

O. . -Oi-^-

0 u

o- >, >> c ct ></»

-fe*"5

a: *>

re k xi re -r-

o

Ol T)

re i— ■*>

c

re xi oi

Ol X

*>>- c

■M 3 c I re u

k

o

0) "O VI

■o

o xi re

■E ♦» o ot *j re

o

is^

k f— -- *J

v ^

3^-

E O^-^- VI

J=

> e

> k

•O v>^

■a c +j > re k .*

C k

>«>>p-*-
a re k O

s: I a. 5.

o «

CMC

3 a re oi o o

o re

Q. CO

o o re

!/>!/) uoe uvui

«_>p-

OQ. f-

«t =>

= <_>

85

c

x: re

TO 01

■p-

C k

air- c

re >»

■o

c <*- u

1 VI *J

re 3

•O 4J Ol

r— +J

T3 O

re -i- •■-

<-> <-> re

o

oi in
oi X

C

C g

< o >

>»m

l|- o>

re E

• -OXI

Ol k

>— 01

c >>

O ■!-

o

C r- 3

■f) Ol

a. k

O Olr-

01

w— U

o -i- a.

• p VI

vi C c

a.

N«|-

4-1 k

re u

^- 3

3 k

« re

C Ol

k re

+-> m

oi a. o

m oi

S > +j
E o vi

3

o>

U Ol Ol

u u

re S e

S 1 oj
in E E

■u x:

VI

01 *-> *>

k m

4J a

Ol VI Ol

re 4J

3

^3^

3 CO

c X

CD k

c ^~

o o c

01

re o c
O Ct 5
<j u k

re re oi

X

k «/> 3

in f— re

m- Ol

c ^- *J

•k

re

O. Ol Ol Ol

o *>

re c c

E k-r-

O VI

c

M- Ol

k > C

a f- .

Ol

o

• OK

Oi o

Ik *J

•«- > in

o

C k

c

OJ -o ■*-

it- m

O O C «J

♦> oi re

■o t- o

O 3

4J

O *>

VI «->

Ol

3

C ^- t-

f- *>

re

^- c •

u T3 re X-

in «-

c «*

re p— •—

4-> re

Ol

*J 01 VI

x: c oi

o

O *» k -^

re xi

re oi

k

re E oi

> ai u

*> re k

c

•^ C Ol XI

■— <J 3

> H-

<j

u to

■p- >>

«i52

o a.

k

Ol

k U k

i*- VI Ol

re 4J

k k

Ol u

k

Ol C 3

O Ol k

*>^-

— ci o

4J oi *>

VI ^~

m re O

k

X

c •—

3 O 01

C ^ VI

01 k

k

Oi SZ in

01 T- k

•»■ re

Oil— T> >

o c a>

<_> 3 X>

k o

o

k C Ol

VI 3 OV

2&

Ol 01 C i-

a. 4->

<k

O. Ol Q£

3 0*H-

o

ce > re -w

>> v>

■o

_

• >>

1

,

01 01

xV-o

01

re

c u

e

3

c

V)

1- c

see

oi re

a o

u

■O 01

>i

1

cm-

oj re

V) i— k

c

c

c ■ c

CO

k o>

*J

Ol

<»-

■o E c

3 O

01

i

■p- >»

o <

k

•8

Ol

c B.^-

E

to o x:

i- m

o

« o-o

*J 1- r—

01

01

k c *»

re

U in

re

+>

in ■»->

r-i- k

c re re
E k o

re

Ol

re

O Ol •*-
O Ol *

O 01

01

s

1

§1

c
a

Ol O

C Ol Oi

Ol

c

o«r

■o "O

>> k

2

CI

O. oi i-

1

c

c

U 3

k

0)

re "O c

O <J +>

01

.. VI O *> 3

c o

oi a.

CLk-

r- re

4->

>, 01-^

c

Ol VI

*>

>!•« c

oi h- oi re

•a

O O +J

01 • in

o> 01

£

k

§>

*> c o

> o-~

c

C k ^~

C CO c

re oc

o

in

•w re n

at >

k

re

01 3 VI

1S-S

•0<k

Ol

k

"Or re

Q.

Ol O 1-

*J x:

k

«/)

e

O in a

c c

O

c

re vi 3

^» oi re

re

>l

x: c^- •

<*- o

k

o

01 (J

Ol •• T-

Eg

§

O

f

re

S ,2* I

o»- OIO.

oice re

c >

CO

1

x:

** c

a.

c

•k O O

Ol k

CI

re ♦< m^p-

•— re •»-

re

"5 oi 5

O f k

ex:

Ol

X

in

Or- >

o c c

■w a.

4*

01

OTJ

^f oai

k 01 -r-

k

k a.

</>

or

k

2

in *o

^- k k k

4-> f- re

ai

3

^- O 1-

QJ 01 01

JUT)

UJ TJ

•U

+-•

E -M 4J

k in c -o

C I— +J

-C

o-

> k E

O 01 -o

c

u *J

o re oi <->

u

ai x: t-

o x o

a- *->

c

o

3

01

£

oi oj o c

OS k

o

<c

CE *• —1

Q.UJ U

z re

re o

O-i-J

a. c o re

Ol

•o

CT>

E

a Q.

re oi

Ol

> i-

4J

-o

01

— x:

ai re

3

3

k

01

k VI

a.

c

a. k

3 k

k

"3

o

01

a.

£

c<«-

Isl

^§

u o

o

^- k

4->

in

o

■— D.O

VI 4J

01

re

+*

XI O.

a

c

>

4->

o o

s a

I?

re

Ol

in

C i-

BL

J,

J

01

re

o

Ol XI

1*- 1-

re

VI

Ol

Ol

Ol

k>

*> 3

O

Ol

k

k

4J

*t

re o.

c
c o

k
re

s

t

5

re

k>

■8

VI k

o ■»-

re

o

in

*»

01

^- 4-»

4J

re

C >i

g£

Oli—

> re

O 3

k o-

£S

•f- «n c
Ol OJ

*>^T|

52

or o.

>k k 4J

°S|

»■»• 5 k
x 1 •»•»■

Ol ■ C 3

u k oi ai
o e C

« 01 OVt-

k O Q.

o a. E
H- O-S

c k e

■■■ ♦» o

M

•»- O ♦> CT

^- O

k>

C k

o oi k u oi oi

Sk 3 re >

uu « k

k ai re m- -c oi

O. k C O 4-> VI

a in oi

3 «r-

— at u

k ct!c
•*■ £ at

• ■»■ >

i oi in
oi^- si k

Xe5g,££

re *J-<- Q. oj

3 •<- m e

cr c k«

o oi o Ol

k e e

■*- ■»> ot*>

a >»- c c

XI r- tt- a

*» Off

c in k m 3
oi-p **^-i—
"F- fc C Xr-

xi re o oj o

§i3 u a.

c -u

re T3 e k

<*- *-> c re t-

o m id ci re

Si?
£5

C k

re £

ai in
ci c
c a

St

01

*> OJ
C k>

33

O Ol

IS

Hi

SOCi-t ♦•

t- re in oi »- *»

o--<- XI
u E 3

<0IO

Off
a. o —

k in

t- c-o
o c
u re

Ol TO •

V 01 01

O VI

35
15

•X "g

c o

01

££

VI C CI u«J

»- 5»- i- re

CI 4->

»- re

T Ci

3

01 k 01 01

k I 4» k

■»- c e • •»•

4J O^- 071 *»

c -- re c c

ui *> E">" ui

x:?
** °

oytjng

5|Si?

c re c Jt
re ci ae-
on uu

ai « re

8 01 k 01
CO O. k

CI

5^ to *»
c e c

io re re -^

££

t:52

~os

e*>

4J O

c

E

re re

CI k>

k

k

<a >

^O

o

o

k

SW

U- 01

TO Ol

Ol O

'■g

c in

C i-

a c

g1^

a

fO o

O

u

u

x: <_>

in

in

Oi—

H-

M- 01

•v Ol

<_> O

O

°£

01- M-

i a.

>l

re-

k

Ol *>

0J 3

ai.—

Ol

Ol k

*> c

•U O

*»-o

E«S

5 °>

re in

3,-

4-> 01

<k

o re

OO Ol

mac

irt a

o

o. ■»

k> k

r- OJ

£3

"re "8

,2-g
E°
£i>

<r- Ol

■C ■— T3

k

VI T3 k

3

T- r- 10

O

U- f- o

3 CO

Ol

o -o c

e*-o

c o

t- (O

*» re i-

a> o

C 4->

jj oD

oi Oj a

Bit

IB

=*o

k O OJ

Ol k

re m

*> +J

CO c

re c

Ol c O

*> o

a re o

on u

• S re oi ** 6>

i or o *• »i>- *•
} u c a 3 c

o-o o o -o oj
uci-iuvE
re re — x: oi
Ol k p- o ot
k> c f c a vi re
a o c o y p
ui- oit o«i«
<s> in o m _i — e

a ■*•

0.4-I

S3

k

a o

^- o.

c in

k c

o a

*- k

u.

♦ji- 5 c

51 ll

*5

O _l

— <J

ID

01

■«- 10

— c
01 o

2 is
o

4J 3

S"S

■o

c -o
o c

<_> IS

U 01

1 3
01

■o —
n io
<J c
ID o

b£

O ID

<*- u

3

c -o

o ai

4-> 4-> VI <J
01 C

■O V> f C

c oi > o>

IO u b *>

— u oi e

« VI —

u 01 01 E

— 13 TJ

[_ — — «
4-1 > > •, •

— Cb • *j
oa. a. ailoi

b i •

0 • • i—

J} >, >, >,I0

b b b b >

IQ IB Q V O

X 3 3 3 £

4-> 4J «3 0

01 o o o b
u> c c c

«««• tl

01 f) V </) 4->
f— VI

oi oi oi io

O C C C X

XXX »

V « 10 IO M
C 3 3 3 4J

b trt vt in o

UUUUJJl

£X

OI I.

II.

O VI
■o O 01

C VI

IO 01 3

4J
c«-

O — to
1- b c
*> a. o

ID O —

C b 4->

•»- O. IO

T3 O. OI

£ 10 —

l<t IO

8. ,

CJ o c

«- « s.

85

a

z _

53

b u

3

01 -o

■o -o

c c

■0 IO

t- b c

m ait-

25

■o b

■o 3

10 o 4J

«r-C
L p V
01 b —

Cfl

OI c

OI O 01

u u

b c •

O OI IO VI

U~ VI — 01

3 i— C

Q.1-

01

Q.T- (J -O

— C 3

IO • — OI

IO 10 -

O 3 O —

4-> —
o 4->

551

IO c o

_ 3 O —
U 4-» — VI
*J VI

(J f-

« io — E

5 j-> o
f— Oi VI o

C 01
01 — b —
b "O 10

IO 3 b 4-1
Q.r- OI VI
01 U JC IO

b c *-> o
o. — o o

Q.-i->

OI b

o

«- b 01

4-> 01 O

C > -C

3 b OI

0 OI c

b

01 IO
> • OI

p vi —

s- .>-> i_>
o. u

O- OI c

-o

3

3

(_>

U

B

B

1/1
OI

ai

T3

c

b

C

O

IO

■""

IO

01

01

+J

m

a

ai

c

01 -o

E J=

c

b

o

o -o

U O U 4-1

b b IO

3 b 3 4->

a. oa vi

4-> >l

x —

O 0j

4-> c
IO o

io -a vi oi Q

C IO

b i

c

01 <-> o c b

O — O. IO IO

01 —

o

(. E vi f x

b

E U

Oi" 01 O

6 _i ac i o>
P c e

— b

« —

3 01

<u o

«T4J

o o —

S!S

4->-^

(J . • c -o

E b

VI X C

01

gH

<•- oi <-> oi io

01 4-1

OUi- CJ

N VI

3 «."

f <o

■o

s- o -p VI
O — f 01 VI

vi X

•• c

8"

«J IO 4J b O

4J 01

re c 3 -o ac

O 4J

4?i3 •

b o io

*t •*■ b w-

VI

VI C C

VI 4-1 OI O O

ic

*l!

i-lOC«-

E OI— VI

E O

•*- t- VI 01 IO

cii!

E > «— 01
•6 io oi XI b

X b

i- o

01 3 O.

< c — 1- 10

X <*-

E O- VI

4J

01

VI +* 1 01

T> 01 U 4J

b

C C VI — IO

10

« c <ov

■o

•— 01 C VI o>

c

Oi-i-

3

f

f— — b -C

2

4->

IO • IO 3 4J

T3 JB l/> T<-

IO

— OI X

c

01

*>30

o

£

O— -VI

^ •— O >— 01

C VI oi -o

VI

10

IO O Cf

4->

C C C <J

C

■O b IO IO B

1

01 O JC —

cn-c »<_> o <_>

c

b J< f o

o

01 r- OI b

b

c

>

3 C— ■»- —

IO

c

uli-innu

_l

u

IO u
C 4->
— 01

— OI
<B O.

g .

b c

Q. O

<0 3

U- b

0 C IS

— >

4J b

C VI 01

m 01 VI

E — C

01 4J O
OI b U
IO IO

C O.U

•o z
E b I-

IO O — VI

— <J —

4-1 b C —

— 01 IO Q

vi u_ -o S.

— m b

3 C O C

E

5

OI o

E <J •
■»- VI

O 01 II

t/l VI

■o b

E IO 0)
ID — >

=) z

E b E

O O =>

4-> — 13

CO

z

UJ

c <o IO
— <J

■O VI

O > OI

o — S

b>«b —

J?

■5 >,

0) E b

4-> • IO O

SjHf

(/> 4-> VI b
VI VI O

n >,o J&

b 01 f

o o> OI 01

t *g^

— — b b

■o o f a

uuwx

*f

i?S

E 3 '

8 *

01 (_> o

c

01 i_>
3t?

UJ OJ

APPENDIX V
SUGGESTED MONITORING FOR ELKHORN SLOUGH

I. Invertebrates

1. Several sites 1n the slough should be selected such that they repre-
sent the major Infaunal associations. In each of these areas, a per-
manent sampling station should be established. These stations will
be both intertidal and subtidal. At each of these stations, the fol-
lowing physical parameters should be monitored and/or established:

a. The elevation of the site, 1f Intertidal, so that repeated
measurements will indicate 1f erosion or deposition have oc-
curred.

b. Sediment analysis, done each time the site 1s sampled.

c. Salinity and temperature measured each time samples are taken.

d. Tide level of the site.

e. If subtidal , then current measurements recorded.

2. At each station, the following biological information should be
gathered:

a. Quantitative composition of the infauna. This 1s to be
measured at least three times per year, corresponding to three
oceanic periods. This will require several replicate samples.

b. Meiofauna analysis to look for larvae which are settling. This
will be done in conjunction with larval settlement jars to deter-
mine times of settlement and kinds of larvae available.

c. Life history analysis of at least one of the dominant members of
the community. Initially, this will be a large study, but may
be reduced in later years.

3. In addition, some specialized monitoring will be needed. I suggest
the following:

a. Monitor areas subject to considerable trampling to ascertain
the effect of foot traffic on invertebrate communities.

b. Monitor existing clam beds to ascertain the effect of harvest-
ing and work out methods necessary to insure the beds' contin-
uance.

c. Photo quadrats. We should set up photo quadrats where the
same area of the slough is photographed periodically to show
what happens to in situ clam populations.

II. Fishes

1. Sportfish: Creel censuses for fish, invertebrates, etc., both
from shore and from skiffs.

2. Regular adult, juvenile and larvae fish samples to document any un-
usual changes in patterns. Stress live sampling without removal.

3. Monitor pesticide and trace metal levels in key organisms 1n rela-
tion to rainfall, run-off and land use activities.

4. Life hf story phenomena for dominant fishes? detailed analysis of
use of silough by fishes. Check out feeding and reproductive habits.

5. Continued monitoring of shark derbtes.

HI. Plants

Species composition and physiological data for plants along selected
permanent transects in both marsh and slough, plus aerial photography.

APPENDIX VI

Comparison of Marine and Estuarine Sanctuary Programs

Legislative Authority

How Initiated

Purpose

Area

Management

Marine

Marine Protection, Research
and Sanctuaries Act of 1972
PL 92-532, Title III
October 23, 1972

NOAA action or nomination
from any individual, organ-
ization, state or Federal
agency

Preservation or restoration
of areas for their conserva-
tion, -recreational , ecological
or esthetic values

Ocean waters as far seaward
as the outer edge of the con-
tinental shelf; coastal waters
where the tide ebbs and flows;
the Great Lakes and their con-
necting waters.

NOAA or through various
types of agreements with
state and /or Federal
agencies ;ownership not
necessarily an issue

Estuarine

Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972
PL 92-583
Section 312
October 27, 1972

State request
for grant

Creation of natural
field laboratories to
gather data and make
studies of the natural
and human processes
occurring within the
estuaries of the coastal
zone.

Estuarine water bodies
and adjacent waters,
wetlands and uplands
to the extent they con-
stitute a natural
ecological unit

State ownership and
management

Funding Authority
State Veto

Development § operation -
full Federal funding.

Throughout State waters.

Acquisition, development
§ operation - 50/50 match

Equivalent is to not re-
quest a grant.

APPENDIX VII

REFERENCES

1* U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

''Environmental Assessment: Land Acquisition
Ascertainment Report - Elkhorn Slough/' Monterey,
County, California, October 1978.

2* N. P. Sha-rma and M. C. Conner,

Economic Retetionships Among Business Sectors,
Eastern Shore, Virginia 1975.

3* Thomas R. Hammer, Robert E. Goughlin, Edward T. Horn, IV,

''The Effect of a Large Urban Park on Real Estate Value,"
AIP Journal, July 1974.

4. United States Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
National Estuary Study, 1970.

5. Ketchum, Bostick H. , Editor,

The Water's Edge: Critical Problems of the
Coastal Zone, 19771

6. Browning, Bruce M. , et al. 1972

California Department of Fish and Game, Coastal Wetlands
Series #4, The Natural Resources of EUchorn Slough.

APPENDIX VIII: LCP Work Tasks: North County Segment

• 601 Land Use Plan

Summary

The County General Plan for the North County segment area consists of
the various elements of the County General Plan which are essentially
policy documents, and sectional land use plans which indicate land use
designations and locally specific policies. Based on the analysis
work in Category 500, county policies contained in the relevant General
Plan elements, will be reviewed in this category and amendments will
be proposed as necessary to conform to Coastal Act policies. Several
County sectional land use plans including portions of the North County
General Plan (1964, 1968), the Moss Landing Area Development Plans (1956
and 1973), Castroville General Plan, and the Marina Master Plan are now in
effect in the North County segment. The various features of these sectional
plans will be revised in this category as needed to carry out the require-
ments of the Coastal Act. For purposes of Coastal Commission reviev.',
the revisions will be consolidated and presented as a single land use
plan for the North County segment including supportive text and policies.

A large part of the coastal zone area covered by these plans is included
within the current County review of the North County Master Plan, a
project initiated by the County exclusive of the requirements of the Coastal
Act. It is the County's intent to coordinate preparation of the revised master
plan for the North County with the LCP. This should allow for a maximum
degree of efficiency in the two programs and also provides an opportunity
ro resolve planning problems that may result from the application of
different policies and standards in the adjacent coastal zone and non-
coastal zone areas.

The steps in preparing the overall land use plan for the north county
segment described in the tasks below follow the plan development sequence
described under Program Methodology in the beginning of this document.

To support to the overall land use plan for the North County segment, a special
community plan will be prepared for the Moss Landing Area. This is
necessary because Moss Landing is the focus of an exceptionally wide
range of coastal issues that can best be resolved through more specific
and detailed planning. The central question to be addressed in the
community plan is whether further industrial and energy related develop-
ment at Moss Landing is compatible with the protection of coastal resources
and the community; identified as a community of special character. If
such development is determined to be compatible, related issues concern the
type, location and amount of acceptable development and the conditions
under which it should be permitted. Because of these issues, CEIP (Coastal
Energy Impact Program) funds awarded to the Central Coasta Regional
Coastal Commission will be used to finance most of the costs of the
preparation of the special community plan. Several other issues, partic-
ularly future management and development of the Moss Landing Harbor
will also be resolved within the framework of the community plan;
because they are not directly tied to the industrial/energy question,
those issues will not rely on CEIP funds.

Objective

Review the analysis of plans, policies, ordinances or management
practices completed in series 500 to establish which plans and policies
are consistent with the Coastal Act. Retain consistent portions,
make recommendations for changes of those portions found inconsistent.
These recommendations shall be included as policies in the land use
plan.

Tasks

.01 Prepare draft revisions to the Land Use Plan for the North County
segment using the following steps.

A. Identify the land uses and intensities proposed by the
County General Plan presently in effect for the area that
conforms to the Coastal Act and retain these as portions of
the North County Land Use Plan.

B. Identify the land uses and intensities proposed by the County
General Plan that clearly conflict with the Coastal Act and
propose revised uses and/or policies that will conform to the
Act.

C. When proposed land uses or intensities are not clearly consis-
tent or inconsistent with Coastal Act policies, land use
selection shall be guided by Section 30007.5 of the Coastal

Act which declares that "such conflicts be resolved in a manner
which on balance is the most protective of significant coastal
resources".

D. Include additional land uses and intensities identified
from tasks 400-500 not proposed in the existing County
General Plan

.02 All land uses identified as appropriate in steps A, B and C shall
be evaluated for:

1) Service system capacity. Are there public services such

as water, wastewater disposal, or roads available with sufficient
capacity available (existing or programmed) to serve the proposed
uses and intensities. If capacities are limited, adequate
capacity is to be reserved for Coastal Act priority uses.
Data on capacities from Task Groups 402, 407, 410, 504,
511 and 513.

2) Phasing. The provision of public services will be phased
if not adequate to accomodate all of the projected development.
The amount of development will also be phased to be within

the same time frame as the provision of public services.

.03 The Land Use Plan shall also contain:

1) Designation of a rural-urban boundary (developed in
511 and 508) and stable buffers to agricultural land uses.

2) Policies and Criteria for development of all land use
types (residential, industry, agriculture, etc.)

3) Policies and Criteria for development within or adjacent
to sensitive habitat areas, agriculture, and hazard areas.

4) Identification of all lands held in Public Trust.

5) Designate service district boundaries (water, sewage
treatment) and expansion areas.

• 601.04
Summary

The Moss Landing area represents a unique focal point for coastal planning.
As such, and because of its small (relative) size in the North County con-
text, it will be the subject of a "community plan" similar to the Moss
Landing Area plans of the past, but an otherwise new format for the County
because it will serve as a "detail" of the North County LCP rather than as
a separate area plan. The community plan would apply the land use policies
of the North County LCP to a smaller scale, integrating Moss Landing Harbor
Development plans, other public works development (such as Monterey Penin-
sula Water Pollution Control facilities, resource enhancement proposals, and
special work related to prospective energy facility development or expansion!
General land use issues (urban-rural boundaries, land use priorities) would
be resolved in the North County LCP, as would overall conformance to all
Coastal Act policies.

Work Task 601.04

Prepare a draft special community plan for the Moss Landing area. The
plan will be prepared at bOO1 scale, with smaller-scale insets if neces-
sary to illustrate particular plan features, and will include at least the
area from Potrero Road on the south to Capurro's on the north, and from
Monterey Bay on the west to SPRR on the east. A special effort will be made
to obtain direct participation by regional, state and federal agencies and
individuals, such as Moss Landing Harbor District, PG & E, the State Depart-
ments of Fish arid Game and Parks and Recreation, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Corps of Engineers, and Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. The
plan development will include at least the following work items, with a
detailed wor program to be developed:

A. Using analysis and preliminary recommendations from category 500
tasks to identify detail, display the recommendations of 601.01
(North County Land Use Plan) at 500' scale for the community plan
area. Identify potential conflicts related to conformance with
coastal policies.

B. Investigate within Coastal Energy Impact Program guidelines, and
using the assistance of utility companies and other agencies, poten-
tial development scenarios and resource impacts of further energy
facility and energy-related development and energy expansion alter-
natives at Moss Landing. Prepare a study paper discussing these
scenarios/impacts/alternatives. Identify potential conflicts
related to conformance with other coastal policies.

C. In cooperation with all special districts and other public works
developers (e.g. Moss Landing Harbor, Water Pollution Control
Agency), compile and display specific public facility development
plans for the community plan area. Identify potential conflicts
related to conformance with other coastal policies.

D. In consultation with other resource agencies (e.g. USFWS, DFG,
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories), identify and display specific
resource enhancement and/or restoration needs for the community
plan area Identify potential conflicts related to conformance
with other coastal policies.

As a basis for resolving conflicts identified by A thru D above,
prepare study paper evaluating alternative land use/intensity/
policy plans as to

relative protection of significant coastal resources (30001.5(a)
and 30007.5).

satisfaction of larger than local needs such as access, recrea-
tion, commerce, and energy (30001.5(b) & (c), 30001.2).
priority for coastal dependent development (30001.5(d)).
long-term ability to implement the plan, retaining flexibility
for the needs of future populations,
urban-rural boundaries.

After agency and citizen review, recommend a community plan which most
thoroughly addresses the requirements of the Coastal Act and the needs
of the County. Prepare appropriate land use maps, text, and policies,
and recommend development or modifications of zoning ordinances,
capital improvement programs, other plans, and interagency agreements

SUMMARY BUDGET
601.02 Moss Landing Special Community Plan

Task

Staff

Days
2

Costs
126

Notes

Detailed Work

Planner

Program

A

Planner

5

315

Graphics

2

112

B

Consul tant

4000

Funds from Central
Coast Commission CEIP
grant. Includes fund
ing for tasks 514.01
and .02.

C

Planner

20

1250

Includes funding for

Graphics

2

112

tasks 506.01 thru
.04.

D

Planner

6

378

Graphics

2

112

E

Planner

10

630

F

Planner

30

1860

Graphics

5

260

A thru F

Senior Planner

10

870

TOTAL

94

6,035
4.000

LCP
CEIP

601 Total Cost Estimate

Task

.01
.02
.03
.04

Personnel

Planner
H

n

•i

Consultant

Days

20
5

20
94

Cost

#1266

fl266
/6035

/4000 (CEIP]

.01-. 04
.01-. 04

Senior Planner 10 f 870
Graphics 30 J1668
County Counsel - r 700

"602 Public Access Element"

Add the following tasks, products, and budget.

602 Publ ic Access Element CMon4eH>fCou.n4y)

Summary

Shoreline access problems and opportunities have been studied in categories
A07 and 501 for the North County area. Preliminary access recommendations
from SOI need to be Integrated with the land use plan being developed in
601 aoove to ensure that impacts resulting from the proposed access element
do not conflict with other objectives of the land use plan.

Objective

Prepare a public access element as part of the North County area LCP. The
access element should carry out the intent of Coastal Act policies while
being compatible with other parts of the segment's LCP.

Tasks

.01 Evaluate preliminary access recommendations from category 501/#'to determine

any conflicts or inconsistencies with land use plan proposals in 601 , includ-
ing possible conflicts with circulation and transportation, natural resource
protection, f >bl?c safety, and private property rights. Modify access or
land use proposals as appropriate to achieve compatibility. The Attorney
General's office will be consulted as needed.

.02 Prepare pol ic ies and management recommendations to support the proposed access
element, including criteria and standards for maintenance.

.03 Revise access proposals following public and agency review.

Products

Map, policies, and text constituting the Public Access element of the North
County Area LCP.

Cost Estimate

Task

Personnel

Days

Cost

.01-. 03

Planner
Senior Planner

7
3

$ ^3
261

Total staff 1Q $ 70*»

RECOMMENDED

NORTH- COUNTY SEGMENT

WORK PROGRAM BUDGET SUMMARY

A

& ,

Staff Work Tasks

Consultants

St<

3ff Costs (S,

Category

100

N/A

$6,489.00

ii

200

N/A

422.00

ii

400

2500

3,675.00

ii

500

22489

13,911.00

ii

601

C.E.I. P. 4000

11,805.00

ii

602

N/A

704.00

Operating Expenses

Building Occupancy *2,117.00

Printing/Mailing Charges 1,250.00

Indirect Charges 6,091.00

Sub-total r9,458J)0

Insurance and Benefits 20% of B 7,400

Augmentation for revising/ $500.00

Reprinting Work Program

Coastal Energy Impact Program funds

See 601 $4,000.00

LCP Total Budget $79,353.00

C.E.I. P. ^4,000.00

-31-

APPENDIX IX
INDIVIDUAL PARCEL OWNERSHIPS

/
/

Book 133 pg. /8

SK£7CH O'VLY

A,

Sec. 3 rj^s. e.zE

/

07

&y

,//

>

/7

&

BOOK 133 t>& (8
SKETCH ONLX

/:' TAX CODE AUZA

.A

•>:/;./:-. "y. 5. <-.2 7 ■/# D *'

0 '£. A R c

v\

T^^

\

COUNTY Of MONTEREY
ASSESSOR'S M A <-
i/* BOOK 133 PAGE /^

is.

.COT. S //«&, t ***; ./*;*-, p -CC/-V-

BOOk' 131 PG
SKSTCH ONLY

€ I J § § If

'sro'jp-a.te tyw

13- Q9

AX C O D £ A H Z tA

COU HI If Or MONT£K6tf
ASSESSOR'S M A P
/"book /3/ PAGE OS

///>. : 400 //.

flffTCM omr

"WRl

""WMSi^lM.imwin.

^55>S'^ M4<^ Ate. 2
pe*. of £>£L MONTE. FA&hAS

SU&&1VISION A/©. £
^0^.5/A NVZVA V' MO&o co Jo &AMCM*

5 A A COUS A H. fc A

^. a^ r^K re/id

SOLS A NUEVA Y MOJSi
LOTS / 77>/-^ & of SV3

TAX CODS' AREA

-J'

i/e 1 ">. - -400 ft.

CZZEEr

BOOK in p&. OB
SKETCH ONLY

»«&

54

)

.25 Ac-

74

My

P.

6^

-» .. "*«3 i

A R E A

BOOK /3/ f>£, 07

A C t r c c ri n ' r

^ BOOK /J/

P

|.vf <5/

SkETCH ONLY

\

<4$$tg'& MA& Ate. &
/»/s 3$ +&>:< 5a . •*"«. **>*« €& , ?f -hhhu, 7€, toi,

BOOK 129 PG. 2 hi

412-02

ri-19

HIDDEN VALLEY ROAL

14

-/3/-05

00Z-S4

^

Q0O1C 131 CGrll

SKETCH 0N11

r-AX C0ȣ AREA

APPENDIX X

Responses to Comments Received on the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

This section summarizes the written and verbal comments received on
the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) and provides OCZM's response
to these comments. Generally, responses are made in one or more of the
following ways:

(1) Expansion, clarification, or revision of the DEIS

(2) General responses to comments raised by several reviewers, and/or

(3) Specific responses to the individual comments made by each reviewer.

OCZM will publish all comments in a compendium and distribute it to persons
who commented on the DEIS, or anyone else upon request. Comments received
after July 11, 1979, are not addressed but may be included in the compendium
of comments.

The following are some of the most common issues raised by reviewers:

RESPONSES TO GENERAL COMMENTS

A. Impact of the Estuarine Sanctuary on Land Use Outside the Sanctuary
Boundaries

Concern about land use outside the sanctuary has been expressed
within a variety of issues. These have included the buffer concept
outlined in the Madrone Study for the California Department of Fish and
Game (CF&G), the applicability of the Resource Protection Zone (RPZ)
included in the California Conservancy Act, the relationship of the
Local Coastal Program (LCP, which is also called the Local Coastal Plan),
and general concern over the restriction of private property rights,
affecting residential, agricultural, and commercial uses. This concern
also extends to control or restrictions over the commercial fishing
industry, PG&E, Kaiser Refractories, and Moss Landing Harbor. It is
felt that the estuarine sanctuary will have impacts on the issues
mentioned above directly, or indirectly, by providing justification or a
"cause" for more stringent Federal, State, or local regulations and
controls in the use of the Elkhorn Slough region.

The following describes the California Coastal Commission and the LCP
process, which is legally required under California law.

The Regional Coastal Commissions and State Coastal Commission were
established under 1976 legislation, succeeding the temporary California
Coastal Zone Conservation Commission's created by a 1972 statewide initi-
ative. In 1976, legislation was passed requiring all local (city and
county) governments within the coastal zone to prepare a coastal plan
consistent with existing State policies. This legislation clearly placed

the primary responsibility upon the local government for the planning
and implementation of the coastal zone management program. The major means
of implementation is the preparation of Local Coastal Programs (LCP's) by
local governments, with their review and certification by the Regional
and State Coastal Commissions. Prior to certification of an LCP, the
Regional Coastal Commission will retain interim permit authority over
the coastal zone. The criteria for granting or denying permits by the
commissions will be the policies of the 1976 California Coastal Act.
After certification, the State Commission will retain limited appeal
jurisdiction from locally granted permits, and the criteria for granting
or denying permits will be the certified LCP.

The primary element of the local coastal program is the land use
plan and related implementing actions (e.g. zoning, development criteria,
resource management programs, etc.). This plan will designate the location,
type, intensity, and priority of land uses for the portion of the local
jurisdiction within the coastal zone. Thus, the Coastal Act provides
a means for determining and resolving complex land use and resource
management issues by identifying how to use, or not to use, the lands
and waters of the California coast. The land use plan phase for the
Elkhorn Slough region of Monterey County's LCP is due to be completed
by June 1980, with the implementation and final certification
due by December 1980.

Because of the national and statewide interest and significance of the
Elkhorn Slough Wetland Complex, special local coastal planning efforts
will be performed in the slough's watershed by Monterey County, in coordina-
tion with State and Federal resource management agencies. To assist in
this planning program, special work tasks have been designed and funded
by the State in Monterey County's LCP program to identify critical subwater-
sheds that surround the defined "ecological unit" of the Elkhorn Slough
Complex. Within this special stucjy area, much emphasis will be placed
on establishing land uses based on natural as well as manmade contraints.
LCP work tasks from Monterey County's North County segment, representing
the summation of the data and analysis phases, are included in the FEIS
Appendix. This planning will continue regardless of the decision
concerning sanctuary establishment.

Land use planning is the legal responsibility of Monterey County and
an estuarine sanctuary mandated by CF&G must be consistent with the certified
LCP. The following statement has been added to the FEIS: "The estuarine
sanctuary itself shall not require or impose land use planning within
Monterey County outside the proposed boundaries."

The following describes the "Resource Protection Zone" (RPZ) in relation to
the Estuarine Sanctuary. Sections 31300-31303 of the Coastal Conservancy Act of
1976 provide the intent of the California Legislature to establish buffer areas
to be known as "Resource Protection Zones" surrounding public recreational and
natural areas in the coastal zone, including fish and wildlife preserves.

The purpose of the RPZ proposals was to identify resource areas susceptible to
adverse impacts and protect them by appropriate land use plans and ordinances
(via the Local Coastal Program process--Coastal Act 1976) or by acquisition,
dedication, easement, development rights, etc. It was the intent of this
legislation to have the Coastal Conservancy Commission request Federal
agencies that own or operate public resource areas in the coastal zone to
take appropriate action to establish RPZs around such areas.

The RPZ concept, as it applies to the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine
Sanctuary, is as follows:

1. The Department of Fish and Game does not own any land in Elkhorn Slough
at present, and has not prepared, nor will it prepare a plan for an RPZ
at Elkhorn Slough. (Preparation of an RPZ requires that land acquisition
must have closed on escrow by January 1, 1979)

2. The Department of Fish and Game recognizes that most existing uses
surrounding the proposed sanctuary are either compatible, or will be
planned for under existing regulations within the Coastal Act of
1976.

3. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service does not own any land at Elkhorn Slough
at present; hence, it did not, and will not prepare an RPZ plan for the
area.

4. The policy of the California Coastal Commission, at present, is that
wherever Resource Protection Zones (RPZ's) are not identified, local
jurisdictions (Monterey County) will analyze and identify --through the
LCP process—appropriate land use activities and resource protection
boundaries around State, local, or Federal resource areas such as
estuarine sanctuaries or ecological reserves.

Also, the California Coastal Commission currently supports legislation
that would delete the RPZ requirement from the Coastal Conservancy Act.

The following statement has been added to the FEIS; "There will be
no RPZ established around the proposed estuarine sanctuary."

Activities associated with oil and cias exploration, development, and
future transportation could pose potential adverse impacts on wetland
resources of Monterey Bay. Analyses of such impacts will be included
in the OCS #53 E.I.S., as well as limited tasks within the LCP being
prepared by Monterey County, and the tasks of the Coastal Energy Impact
Program (C.E.I. P.) of the Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments.

The "buffer zones" that were included in the Madrone Study are
not incorporated into the estuarine sanctuary proposal. It has been
concluded by OCZM and California Fish and Game that any planning, outside
the proposed boundaries, is the proper function of other agencies--most
notably Monterey County.

B.

Inadequate Public Hearing Notice, and Improper Location

At the public hearing in Monterey on June 20, 1979, several people
indicated they had not received the DEIS and that the notification in the
Santa Cruz and Monterey County newspapers was not adequate since they were
not the papers that "local" residents read. It was also questioned why
the hearing was held in Monterey, rather than Castroville, which is closer
to the proposed project area: Elkhorn Slough.

The idea of acquisition and/or protection of Elkhorn Slough is not
new. This area is listed as a "highest priority" for acquisition by the
Wildlife Conservation Board using State bond monies. The area has been
approved as a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge and a portion is currently
being acquired by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In early 1978, a
public hearing was held in San Francisco, by the California Coastal
Commission, and it nominated Elkhorn Slough as its candidate for funding as
an estuarine sanctuary, and subsequent funding for a pre-acquisition study
was given in August 1978. A portion of the funding was for Madrone Associ-
ates, and Jones and Stokes Associates to do a background study. As a
part of their work process, they contacted 51 individuals representing
the major institutions, agencies, or organizations with knowledge of,
or an interest in, Elkhorn Slough (see p. 138 of the Madrone StuoV for
names). During 1979, OCZM and State of California staff met individually
with many different organizations, including the Moss Landing Harbor
District, PG & E, Kaiser Refractories, Moss Landing Marine Laboratory,
and fishermen's organizations, and several individual landowners.

OCZM, as a matter of policy that is written into the Estuarine
Sanctuary Guidelines, prepares draft and final environmental impact
statements. Under NEPA regulations and OCZM Guidelines, the holding of
a public hearing is optional, depending on several factors. OCZM holds
a public hearing automatically as a matter of policy. The hearing in
Monterey attracted over 100 individuals.

OCZM made a best effort attempt to distribute the DEIS to all interested
parties and to provide notice of the public hearing. Recognizing the fact that
some people didn't have the DEIS or see the notice in the newpapers; OCZM, at
the public hearing in Monterey, extended the comment period on the DEIS for
15 days and scheduled a public meeting for June 22, 1979 in Castroville at
1:00 pm. The meeting in Castroville was also attended by more than 100
individuals. Still, concerns were expressed about lack of notice and
lack of copies of the DEIS. OCZM therefore scheduled another public
meeting for July 10, 1979, in Castroville. This meeting was advertised
in 5 newspapers within a 40 mile radius of Elkhorn Slough. This meeting
was attended by more than 300 people.

In regard to the original hearing being held in Monterey, OCZM made
several calls in an attempt to locate a public hearing facility in Castro-
ville for the June 20, 1979, public hearing. We were unsuccessful in

these attempts and then made arrangements for Monterey, which is approxi-
mate 20 miles from Castroville. We appologize for any inconvenience caused
to individuals from the Elkhorn Slough area by having this hearing in
Monterey.

We feel that there has been sufficient public involvement through oral
and written comments received at the public hearing, public meetings, and
written comments received at the OCZM offices. All of these comments have
been incorporated into the FEIS, and changes have been made to reflect those
comments, where appropriate.

C. Maps Were Difficult to Read.

Suggestions were made to improve the quality of the map, and comments
were expressed that it was especially difficult to determine parcel boundaries
proposed for acquisition.

The California Department of Fish and Game has prepared another map,
which is included in the FEIS. Recognizing that it is very difficult
to determine exact ownerships of the smaller parcels, individual assessor
parcel maps have been included as Appendix 9. Please be aware that
these maps are sketches only, and that the Wildlife Conservation Board
will be glad to discuss property proposed for acquisition with the
individual property owners on request.

D. The Money Being Made Available by Federal and State Agencies Is Insufficient
to Pay Fair Price for Properties Slated for Acquisition.

The acquisition process (including safeguards and techniques) underlying
the cost estimates for acquisition should be explained.

Preliminary estimates of value, based on limited comparable sales data,
indicates the approximately 1,510 acres proposed for acquisition to be worth
approximately $3,000,000.

Although this valuation may appear low, it must be kept in mind that
about one half of the total proposed acquisition area is considered wetlands.
Existing restrictions that preclude or limit development of wetlands must
be considered when valuing this area. Examples of these restrictions, which
may vary somewhat with individual parcels, include the presence of a State
Lands Commission easement for fisheries, navigation, and commerce; the
Resources Agency's Wetland Policy; the Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction;
and the Coastal Act, as administered by the Coastal Commission.

Also, some acquisitions may be negotiated whereby the State acquires less
than fee interest, i.e. a conservation easement. The values of these easements
are based on a percentage of the total appraised value, depending on the effect
each given easement has on the value of the property involved.

Under Public Law 91-646, public acquisition of land can be made only after
a fair market value appraisal of the property is completed and approved.
These appraisals will be made by independent fee appraisers, and all property
owners or their representatives will be given the opportunity to meet with the
appraiser prior to completion of the report. The appraised (fair market)
value will be offered to the property owner.

The only significant improvements considered for acquisition in
this project are located on the Elkhorn Ranch property. Those persons
residing on this property at the time of acquisition will be relocated
in accordance with Public Law 91-646, and currently it is estimated that
this will include four or five families. These families are now
tenants, not owners, on the Elkhorn Dairy Ranch.

Acquisitions will be made on a willing seller basis. Condemnation
action is not intended to be taken by the State of California. OCZM will
acquire no land and does not have condemnation powers.

E. The DEIS Does Not Adequately Describe the Need for Acquisition of the
Proposed Parcels, the Need for Uplands, or the Rationale for the Proposed
Boundary ~.

Limited access, in addition to good land stewardship and compatible
use of the area's resources by the landowners has kept Elkhorn
Slough in relatively good environmental condition. Cooperation of the
landowners and Moss Landing Harbor District authorities has permitted
educational and scientific use of the slough. However, public acquisition
of the lands within the proposed sanctuary boundaries is deemed necessary
for the following reasons: (1) to provide ultimate management control
within the sanctuary, not only at present, but in years to come when land
ownerships and land uses may change to a point of altering the present
natural resource values of the area, (2) to ensure a continuum of baseline
research without unregulated access, (3) to acquire lands suitable for
interpretive and support facilities, and (4) as access sites to meet the
goals and objectives of research/educational programs, and the LCP.

The proposed estuarine sanctuary includes 36 individual assessor
parcels (31 different ownerships). Of this, acquisition of uplands above
the 10* contour is proposed from four ownerships (parcels 1, 2, 7, 14,
15, 18, and 19). Except for parcel 7, these locations are proposed for
public access and use areas. Public acquisition of the upland portion
of parcel 7 is proposed, since acquisition of the wetlands would render
the remaining land unusable for development purposes. The remaining 29
parcels (27 ownerships) include areas only below the 10' contour line.
This line was determined in previous scientific studies to be the line
below which public acquisition and control was essential to the protection
objectives of the sanctuary.

The proposed sanctuary boundary line includes most of the relatively
unmodified wetlands, some wetland areas modified by diking, and transitional
upland (to the 10 feet contour line). All of this land is on the south and
east side of the slough and it is in sufficient acreage to assure a
viable ecological unit. As stated above, additional upland area has
been included to provide a place for support facilities and access sites.

F. What is the Relationship Between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge, The
Nature Conservancy, and the Estuarine Sanctuary

There is no official relationship between the acquisition plans for the
proposed estuarine sanctuary, the acquisition programs of the USF&WS, and
The Nature Conservancy. The USF&WS acquisition program is pursuant to
the 1973 Rare and Endangered Species Act. The Nature Conservancy is a
private, non-profit organization and lands acquired by it are private
property. The State of California, through the Wildlife Conservation
Board, has integrated its plans to acquire lands for an Ecological
Reserve at Elkhorn Slough with plans to acquire Estuarine Sanctuary lands.
The Department of Fish and Game has been designated as the "lead
agency" to manage and develop the sanctuary proposal. However, if the
estuarine sanctuary is established, it has been proposed in the DEIS/FEIS
that the Department of Fish and Game coordinate with the U.S Fish and
Wildlife Service to bring all acquired lands under joint management.
This will allow for more efficient management and reduce or eliminate con-
fusion over different management policies within Elkhorn Slough. It will
also broaden the scope of the educational and scientific goals of the
proposed sanctuary.

G. Public Access to the Sanctuary Needs to be Explainec.

Some individuals were concerned that access was too restricted,
while others thought that increased access would threaten the natural
values of the sanctuary. OCZM is also concerned about access, and
proposes a cautious approach to increased access. Increased access will
be carefully planned and monitored so that the natural qualities, for
which Elkhorn Slough is so important will be preserved, and to insure
that access to the sanctuary does not affect or interfere with adjacent
private property owners. In addition, all sanctuary programs, access,
development, and use will have to be consistent with Monterey County's
LCP. It is envisioned that the Advisory Committee, working within the
LCP process, will play an important role in determining access provisions.

H. Estuarine Sanctuary Status Could Limit Planning Options for
Improving or Relocating the Coastal Highway (HWY 1)

Section 4(f) of the U.S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966, PL 89-6709 states, "After August 23, 1968, the Secretary (DOT)
shall not approve any program or project which requires the use of any
publicly owned land from a public park, recreation area, or wildlife
and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance as

determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction
thereof. . .unless (1) there is no feasible and prudent alternative to
the use of such land, and (2) such programs include all possible planning
to minimize harm to such park, recreational area, wildlife, and water
fowl refuge..."

The intent of this provision is to ensure that various levels of
government that have set aside places of natural beauty for preservation
or recreation are consulted by the Department of Transportation in planning
any project that have impacts on such areas. The existing Highway 1
and its proposed realignments (including freeway status) are located
in an area already designated by the State of California as a resource
of State significance and the State has already initiated steps to acquire the
area as a State Ecological Reserve. In addition, the future boundaries
of the National Wildlife Refuge will also include lands within the proposed
realignments of Highway 1.

The State of California currently has sufficient authority regarding
Highway 1 bridge design, construction, realignment, or other mitigation
measures to protect the estuary's natural resources. Estuarine sanctuary
status should not impact or impair the various highway proposals. However,
if the area is significantly degraded by highway or bridge construction
and cannot be used for estuarine research or education, OCZM could request
the return of its monies. Estuarine sanctuary status is not intended,
or desired, to add additional regulatory authority over and above that
of the State of California, or other Federal agencies in regard to the
various Highway 1 proposals. Admittedly, estuarine sanctuary status
might add "psychological" weight to protecting the Elkhorn Slough area.
The State goal of protecting Elkhorn Slough is well documented, and the
provisions of PL 89-6709 would have to be followed regardless of estuarine
sanctuary establishment.

I. The Elkhorn Slough Advisory Committee Does Not Have Representatives
from Important User Groups"

Concern was especially expressed about the lack of representatives
from agriculture, industry, and fishing. OCZM has modified the Advisory
Committee to include broad representation by such important users of the
Elkhorn Slough area. The Moss Landing Commercial Fisherman's Association,
or representative, has been added to the Advisory Committee. In addition,
a property owner subcommittee will be proposed and will be comprised
of a representative from agricultural, industrial, and residential property
owners. The organizations, or individuals to represent each of these
property owner groups will be chosen by the Monterey County Board of
Supervisors. The subcomittee itself will select a representative to
the Advisory Committee.

FEDERAL AGENCIES

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of External Relations (Deanna M. Wieman, 6/14/79)

Comment

The Elkhorn Slough DEIS has been classified as Category LO-1, which is
defined as "LO - Lack of Objections" meaning that "EPA has no objection
to the proposed action as described in the draft environmental impact
statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action" and
"Category 1 -- Adequate" meaning that "the draft impact statement ade-
quately sets forths the environmental impact of the proposed project or
action as well as alternatives reasonably available to the project or
action."

Response

Comment accepted.

U.S. Department of the Interior

Fish and Wildlife Service (Lawrence W. DeBates, 6/22/79)

Comments

Figure 3 on page 7 does not adequately depict the Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) proposed boundary for a refuge. Although the FWS has agreed that the
State of California pursue acquisition (in fee) of the five tracts on the
south side of Elkhorn to be included within the Sanctuary boundary, the five
tracts plus the channel are still included in the FWS proposed boundary.
Refers OCZM to the Service Environmental Impact Assessment on Elkhorn
Slough, dated October, 1978 (Figure 2, page 4).

Response

Comment accepted. The map is not changed since the five tracts are to be
included within the proposed sanctuary boundary. If the Sanctuary is not
not designated, the five tracts will be included in the FWS refuge.

U.S. Department of Energy
San Francisco Office
(John Crawford, Acting Technical Branch Chief, 6/22/79)

Comment

The DEIS acknowledges the presence of PG&E's Moss Landing power plant
adjacent to the proposed sanctuary and makes the statements that "uses
and activities outside the sanctuary, as well as compatible commercial
recreational, and other uses within the sanctuary, must also be examined
to minimize adverse effects," and "it will also be of great importance
to identify uses outside of the sanctuary that may interfere with the
attainment of estuarine sanctuary objectives." The DEIS does not make
judgments with respect to the impacts of the power plant upon the
sanctuary, so one must assume that such an evaluation will be undertaken
only after the sanctuary becomes a fact. The DEIS does not recognize
that the power-generating facility, its associated oil storage tanks,

and nearby offshore tanker terminal operation is as an essential part of
PG&E's power-producing system, which is of regional significance. Actions
of Federal and/or State regulatory agencies on behalf of the Elkhorn
Slough sanctuary (after its approval) that would tend to restrict or
eliminate power production from the Moss Landing plant might have a
detrimental effect on local, State, and National energy interests.

Response

We recognize the importance of PG&E including related facilities and
estuarine sanctuary status shall not cause the restriction or elimina-
tion of power production from this plant. See General Response A also.

Comments

We understand that OCZM will provide funds to the State to purchase
certain lands for inclusion in the sanctuary and that property of PG&E,
designated as parcel 36 in the DEIS, would be acquired. Parcel 36 can-
not be located on Figures 1 and 2 of the DEIS and we suggest this be
corrected. How essential is parcel 36 to the current and future proposed
operations of PG&E at Moss Landing? Was this parcel a part of the lands
formally designated by the California Coastal Commission as appropriate
for power plant expansion?

Response

An improved map is included in the DEIS. The State will negotiate for the
purchase of fee simple title, or less than fee, if sufficient protection
can be assured. The State does not intend to use condemnation authority
on PG&E land.

Comments

PG&E has an easement through the proposed sanctuary area for possible
installation of transmission lines, but no stand is taken on this issue
in the DEIS other than to say that use of the easement by PG&E would
most likely require an Environmental Impact Review under NEPA. Previous
comments about the regional significance of the PG&E facility also apply
to the transmission corridor issue and should be given careful consider-
ation in the planning processes. Figures 1 and 2 of the DEIS should
include the transmission corridor easement.

Response

The sanctuary will not affect the status of the easement for transmission
lines. Sanctuary status will not cause an environmental impact review.
Calfornia law does require a review if appropriate State agencies feel
it necessary. OCZM, or sanctuary status, will not affect this review,
or alternative if eventually proposed. The review of any such proposals
is the proper function of local and state regulatory agencies.

Comments

On page 32 it is stated that the influx of visitors to the slough will
increase markedly if the slough becomes an offical sanctuary. Will the
concept of a sanctuary (i.e. by definition a place of refuge or asylum,
a reserved area in which animals or birds are protected from hunting or
other molestation) suffer from over penetration by those persons who
wish to protect it the most?

Response

See General Response G.

U.S. Department of the Army
San Francisco District, Corps of Engineers
(James C. Wolfe, Acting Chief, Engineering Division, 6/22/79)

Comments

A management plan to resolve differences between the objectives of the
proposed sanctuary and adjacent land use is discussed on page 11. A
detailed investigation of existing land use adjacent to the proposed
boundaries should be made to identify potential conflicts. If unresolvable
conflicts are found, perhaps the boundaries of the proposed sanctuary
should be modified to include a "buffer zone." Cumulative effects of
land use adjacent to the sanctuary should be discussed in the Statement
and any restricted uses should be described in more detail.

Response

See General Response A.

Comments

The intent of the second paragraph on page 17, regarding a
"cooperative agreement" with the Moss Landing Harbor District, is not
clear. One of the main purposes of the proposed sanctuary is to protect
the integrity of the marine life and water quality in the Elkhorn Slough.
Would omission of the subject waters be detrimental to the estuarine
sanctuary?

Response

The purpose of the estuarine sanctuary is to provide an outdoor laboratory
in which research and education take place under the protection of
State and Federal law. The water area will be used by researchers and
educators under agreement with the Moss Landing Harbor District, recogniz-
ing other such uses as mariculture, fishing, hunting, birdwatching, and
the like.

Comment

The objectives and geographical areas of the National Wildlife Refuge
and Estuarine Sanctuary in Elkhorn Slough appear to be interrelated
and perhaps the needs of the area could be met through one of these
designations. The management plan for the proposed Sanctuary should be
closely coordinated with or include the Refuge. The need for the Sanc-
tuary should be described.

Response

See General Responses A, E, and F.

Comment

The significant resources in the Elkhorn Slough estuary should be sum-
marized, based on the "Preacquisition Planning Study: Elkhorn Slough"
(June 1968).

Response

The "Study" was actually completed in February 1979. We have summarized
what we consider to be adequate for the decisionmaking process. For
further information, see the "Study," itself.

Comment

A data management and retrieval system should be developed in order to
disseminate the information gained from research in the Slough to the
public and other agencies and funding for this system should be included
in this proposal.

Response

Such a system will be one of the priorities of the Advisory Committee.

Comment

Alternatives to the proposed action should be described in more detail
and a cost comparison of the different alternatives would be appropriate.

Response

Many detailed changes and additions have been made to the FEIS. Cost
comparisons of different levels of protection of natural resources are
extremely difficult to perform and are not appropriate for an estuarine
sanctuary.

Comment

The views and comments from the public and other agencies should be
included as part of the basis for selection of the proposed alternative.

Response

This is the goal of the NEPA process. The DEIS, public hearing, and FEIS
are for the purpose of soliciting comments and views from the public and
other government agencies.

Comment

Does the California Department of Fish and Game have the personnel and
funding to adequately manage the proposed Sanctuary?

Response

Yes, and OCZM will provide up to $50,000 annually for 3 years to assist
in the initial management of the sanctuary.

Comment

The boundaries of the proposed Sanctuary in Figure 2 need to be more
clearly defined.

Response

See General Response C.

U.S. Department of the Interior

(Larry E. Meierotto, Assistant Secretary, 7/10/79)

Comment

The designation of the Sanctuary is important because it preserves
Elkhorn Slough as one of the significant remaining examples of a salt
marsh habitat, as an important habitat for two endangered bird species
and one endangered amphibian species, as a feeding and nesting habitat for
resident and migratory shorebirds and waterfowl, and for the positive
long-term benefits to the environment.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

There is a high coliform bacteria count and high thermal loading from
the power plants, both of which have occurred due to development within
the Elkhorn watershed. Establishment of the Sanctuary, the proposed
Fish and Wildlife Refuge, and a proposed Monterey Bay Marine Sanctuary

will have a positive impact on water quality and should provide impetus
for and assist State and local regulatory agencies in cleaning up deteri-
orated water quality throughout the watershed. Clean water will benefit
commercial fishing, mariculture, and shellfishing.

Response

Comment accepted, although water quality changes shall not be required by
sanctuary establishment. This is the proper function of other State and
Federal agencies.

Comment

The proposed sanctuary and the proposed wildlife refuge do not include
the entire ecological unit. An example of the consequence of conflicting
land use is seen in an area surrounding another Fish and Wildlife Re-
fuge. Section H, Land and Resource Use of the DEIS, should be expanded
to include future land use for adjacent areas.

Response

See general response A. It would be desirable that future land use
strategies for adjacent areas be developed and Monterey County, under
its LCP, is currently doing so.

Comment

Purchase of sanctuary land will remove some lands from agriculture. The
EIS should identify the number of acres of agricultural land that will
be acquired, the changes in land use now contemplated, and the esti-
mated loss to agricultural production.

Response

It has been roughly estimated that less than 100 acres of agricultural
land will be acquired. Approximately 1/2 of the proposed acquisition
consists of wetlands. The balance, other than agricultural, is marginal
grazing lands mostly located on the former Elkhorn Dairy Ranch.

Comment

Management of the estuarine sanctuary waters by an independent body such
as the Moss Landing Harbor District and the sanctuary land by a second
authority is unwieldly if comprehensive control is the objective. Explain
the proposed management concept.

Response

Comprehensive use, rather that control, will be obtained since the Moss
Landing Harbor District is a member of the sanctuary advisory committee
and cooperative agreements will be arranged. The USF&WS is currently
exploring a lease of the water area for fish and wildlife proposes.
These mechanisms, in addition to existing State and Federal Law, will
assure the protection of the estuarine waters within Elkhorn Slough.

Comment

Incorporation of the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service as an
Elkhorn Slough interest group is important. HCRS will shortly be re-
sponsible for evaluating and recommending the possible designation of
Elkhorn Slough as a National Natural Landmark. Their objective is both
to recognize and encourage the preservation of sites illustrating the
geological and ecological character of our country and to enhance their
educational and scientific value.

Response

OCZM recognizes the outstanding work of HCRS in the field of historic pres-
ervation, and encourages its involvement in identifying and protecting
sites for their geological and ecological character. HCRS would be an ideal
member of the research or education subcommittee, as appropriate.

Comment

The quality of Figures 1, 2, and 3 (maps of the location and proposed
boundaries of the sanctuary) should be improved.

Response

See General Response C.

U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(Trudy P. McFall, Acting Director, 6/7/79)

Comment

The DEIS is consistent with HUD 701 and other program requirements, insofar
as they are relevant to associated land use and other plans and to the
impact of Federal programs supported by HUD. HUD recognizes the significance
and importance of the sanctuary area and supports the action of OCZM in estab-
lishing a wildlife and aquatic enclave.

Response

Comment accepted.

STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

California Department of Transportation

(M.W. Beckstead, Deputy District Director ,

Project Development and Transportation Planning, 5/24/79)

Comment

On page 26, the reference made to removing from CALTRAN'S long range con-
struction program the proposal to relocate State Highway 1 is not correct.
The proposal has been removed from the short range construction program
extending through the 1983/84 fiscal year, but it is retained in the
inventory of projects for long range construction needs and is a candi-
date to be considered in making up the short range construction program,
which is updated yearly. State Highway Route 1 is a route of statewide
significance and the proposed construction would close an existing trans-
portation gap. The project is included in the Regional Transportation
Plan prepared by Monterey County and the Regional Transportation Improve-
ment Plan prepared by AMBAG, the latter of which becomes a building
block for the State Transportation Improvement Plan. Preliminary design
work has been prepared and is flexible in construction features but not
in location. A full environmental study would be necessary before any
proposal for construction could be made and before any kind of evaluation
of relative impacts of various alternatives could be made. A "no-build"
alternative may have a severe negative impacts both economically and
environmentally. The DEIS has not given adequate consideration to the
consequences of an action that might preclude any reasonable solution to
a serious transportation problem.

Response

Factual changes have been made in the FEIS. See General Response H for a
discussion of Highway 1.

Santa Cruz County Farm Bureau

(Charles Barr, Jr., public hearing comments - 6/20/79)

Comment

Several aspects of the DEIS warrant further discussion and close scrutiny
by the agencies involved. All 70 square miles of Elkhorn watershed is
important to the resources involved and failure to acquire and control
this essential habitat of the slough would be inexcusable and would defeat
the entire purpose of the sanctuary program.

Response

We agree that Elkhorn Slough watershed is important and it has been recog-
nized in the Coastal Act of 1976. It is presently the responsibility of
Monterey County under the LCP to examine land use in the North County area.

Comment

The reasons precluding further purchase of land, (i.e., financial
constraint) in the DEIS as given are unacceptable and the response to
this concern in the DEIS is inadequate.

Response

The cost of 70 square miles at $2000/acre is $90,000,000. Unfortunately, all
public land aquisition budgets are limited and are themselves subject to
competing demands so, it is impossible to buy all lands that might be desired.

Comment

When will activities outside the sanctuary, which may have an adverse
impact, be examined in order to minimize their effect?

Response

See General Response A for dates.

Comment

It is not enough to expect the Local Coastal Planning Process to develop
a land use plan and a process for resolving use conflict outside the
sanctuary.

Response

California law requires the LCP process. The Sanctuary Advisory Committee
will assist in providing information, as needed, to Monterey County.

Comment

The issue of public access deserves further study and concrete planning.

Response

See General Response G.

County of Santa Cruz

(Gary A. Patton, Supervisor/ Third District, 6/20/79)

Comment

The Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary designation is very important. The
biological productivity of Elkhorn Slough is seriously perilled, and it
must be protected.

Response
Comment accepted.

California Coastal Commission

(Edward Y. Brown and Micheal L. Fisher, 6/8/79)

Comment

Strongly concur with the findings regarding environmental consequences,
negative and positive impacts as listed on summary page iv of the DEIS.
We respect the economic consequences, and realize that a sanctuary of
a more inclusive configuration would be economically infeasible. This
conclusion should perhaps be restated to say that the proposal represents
an attempt to secure the optimum configuration under the given budget, and
does not necessarily represent the optimum configuration in the abstract. A
$12,000 impact on the local tax base is given, but there are no comparable
positive economic benefits presented. These might include: long-range
protection of commercial fishing industry through preservation of estuarine
nursery areas; federal assistance to impacted areas which might off -set
tax base impacts; proximity of a National Wildlife Refuge/Estuarine
Sanctuary to metropolitan San Francisco/San Jose may provide a strong
economic stimulus to visit the area and boost and diversify the local
economy through visitor-generated revenue.

Response

Comment accepted. It is difficult to quantify these benefits but the FEIS
was changed to include such benefits.

Comment

The basic ecological unit of the sanctuary must comprise as a minimum all
contiguous saltmarsh wetlands in a natural condition. The proposed
boundaries include this plus some restorable wetland areas and some
immediate foreslope areas, but neglects the slopes and marshlands immediately
east of the slough, the Azevedo ranch wetlands on the easterly side of
the railroad tracks, a few steeper slopes upland from Bennett Slough,
and all marsh areas and eel grass beds seaward of Highway 1. The inter-
vening upland peninsulas and marsh shorelands with live oak forests,
which are particularly suitable for wildlife habitat, due to diversity,
substantial edge effect, and a large number of suitable nesting/resting
sites are only meagerly represented. Should substantial funds become
available, the sanctuary configuration, particularly the "peninsula"
area should be reevaluated.

Response

Comment accepted. We feel the funds currently available are being used
to best advantage to assure a viable ecological unit. If additional
funds become available in the future and if the lands you mentioned
can be acquired, CF&G or the USF&WS might desire to reevaluate this
area.

Comment

Land acquisition alone can not assure preservation of the slough's
wetlands; careful management of activities in the sanctuary and de-
velopment on adjacent water and lands will be the key. Such protection

is mandated by the California Coastal Act of 1976, which comprises
California's coastal management program and with which the sanctuary
proposal appears wholly consistant. Close coordination of management
between sanctuary managers, the Moss Landing Harbor District, and
Monterey County will be essential, a need addressed through proposal of
a Sanctuary Advisory Committee. With the sanctuary as a focus of local
planning and intergovernmnental coordination efforts, the preparation of
Monterey County's Local Coastal Program will be facilitated.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The DEIS effectively documents the facts and clearly supports the selected
alternative. OCZM and CF&G merit recognition for a job well done. Upon
implementation, the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary will be an im-
portant component of the National estuarine sanctuary network, provide
outstanding opportunities for scientific research and educational uses,
and generate information needed for coastal resource management decisions
in the Californian biogeographic region.

Response

Comment accepted.

Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)
(Warren C. Freeman, Senior Planner, 6/12/79 and 6/15/79)
(Wilber E. Smith, Executive Director, 6/15/79)

Comment

Describe the impact of the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary and Wildlife
Refuge on the planned Highway 1 route, which would cross both of these
lands. Describe the impact of the new proposed Highway 1 route upon the
Sanctuary and Wildlife Refuge.

Reponse

See General Response H for impact from proposed estuarine sanctuary on
Highway 1. Please contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for the
potential impacts on the Wildlife Refuge.

Comment

What is the total estimated cost and mechanisms to be used to relocate
as many as 673 persons from the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary and Wildlife
Refuge lands?

Response

AMBAG called OCZM regarding the incorrect number of individuals to be
relocated. The estuarine sanctuary will displace no permanent residents,
but possibly as many as five tenant families. These individuals will be
compensated for relocation expenses according to Federal Law.

Comment

Describe allocation and source of funds provided to the proposed Elkhorn
Slough Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee for operations and main-
tenance of the Sanctuary.

Response

Operation and maintenance of the Estuarine Sanctuary will be by the Cali-
fornia Department of Fish and Game. OCZM can provide $50,000/year for 3
years and CF&G will allocate funds during their budgeting process. CF&G
currently has an office in Monterey that would service the proposed
sanctuary.

Comment

Describe provisions to be made to make up for the $12,000 loss to the
county of real estate tax revenue.

Response

Examples were given in the DEIS regarding economic benefits to the local
community from sanctuary establishment. Direct benefits of sanctuary
establishment, though yery real, are hard to quantify over time, but they
are expected to equal the revenue loss.

Comment

Describe the impact of the proposed Highway 1 route upon the fishing
and shell fishing industry.

Response

It is the responsibility of CALTRANS to address these impacts at the
time they propose a specific project.

Monterey County Planning Department

(E. W. DeMars, Director of Planning, 7/10/79)

Comment

The findings of the Elkhorn Slough DEIS are correct and issues are
adequately addressed. Needed are clarification of the impact of the
sanctuary on adjacent lands and coordination of a management plan.

Restriction of land uses that "may interfere with attainment of sanc-
tuary objectives" could have significant impact on landowners adjacent
to the sanctuary, and, as such it is suggested that you show reasonable
application. Existing laws require certain restrictions of development
adjacent to or in valuable habitat areas, and additional land use restric-
tions that would be appropriate due to the existence of an estuarine
sanctuary, and the impacts of these restrictions should be carefully
documented, clarified, and justified. Land use and development impacts
within the Moss Landing Harbor area that are incompatible with an estuarine
sanctuary need to be specified. The responsibilities of the County to
implement land use controls in the Local Coastal Program necessitated by
an estuarine sanctuary should be clearly designated.

Response

See General Response A. OCZM clearly recognizes the responsibilities of
Monterey County for planning under the LCP. No additional controls shall
be required as a result of establishment of an estuarine sanctuary,
including the Moss Landing Harbor area.

Comment

The negative economic impacts of the sanctuary on the property tax base
were presented in the DEIS, but the positive impacts on local commerce
were not evaluated. A more complete economic analysis would be useful
to ascertain the range of economic impacts caused by the creation of an
estuarine sanctuary.

Response

We realize that there are many economic benefits of the preservation of
fish and wildlife habitat, but they are difficult to document precisely
because of the assumptions that would have to be made. We emphasize and
documented the negative impacts more in the DEIS because concern was
raised in this area during preparation of the document. It is recommended
that a study be planned that will actually document, over time, the positive
and negative impacts of estuarine sanctuary establishment.

Comment

There is a need for a comprehensive management program in order to imple-
ment a land use plan that provides adequate protection for the Elkhorn
Slough environment and facilitates the realization of sanctuary goals.
It will be necessary to immediately organize the appropriate agencies to
provide input into the Local Coastal Program to be completed before
January 1981. The management plan should make clear provisions coordina-
ting the sanctuary advisory committee's participation in the Local Coastal
Program.

Response

See General Response A. Monterey County has the lead for organizing the
appropriate agencies for input into their LCP. A statement has been
added explaining the advisory committee duties regarding coordination in
the LCP process.

Monterey County Farm Bureau

(Kenneth Martin, Director, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)
(Manuel Gularte, President, 7/2/79)

Comment

The mechanism used to notify the public about the hearing on the propos-
ed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary was inadequate and the first hearing
was held in Monterey, not in Castroville, as reported in the DEIS.

Response

See General Response B.

Comment

The Elkhorn Slough Advisory Committee does not have representatives
from agriculture, industry, or fishing, the most important users of
the area.

Response

See General Response I.

Comment

The Bureau objects to taking private lands out of agriculture and
off the tax rolls, especially without just compensation.

Response

No lands will be purchaed without just compensation and it is estimated
that less than 100 acres within the proposed boundaries are farmed.

Comment

The Highway 1 project across Elkhorn Slough will be stopped and the
sanctuary will interfere with transportation for the public and for
agriculture.

Response

See General Response H.

Comment

Scientific research and study presently go on without much hindrance,
as shown by all the material in the environmental report.

Response

See General Response E.

Comment

The project should be delayed until agriculture, industry, and the
fishing industry provide their input.

Response

OCZM has received and reviewed signficant input from these interests
during preparation of the FEIS. Also see General Response I.

Comment

There are sufficient safeguards to protect the slough.

Response

OCZM and the State feel that land acquisition is required within certain
parts of the Slough.

Comment

The Monterey County Farm Bureau opposes the whole Elkhorn Slough
Estuarine Sanctuary project.

Response

OCZM appreciates the frank position taken by the Farm Bureau and will
take it into account prior to making any final determination.

Central Coast Regional Commission

(Eleanor Taylor, Commissioner, 6/20/79 )

Comment

The DEIS is excellent, well organized and easy to read. The sections on
possible conflict of uses could be strengthened by more detailed ex-
amination of potential industrial development. The presense of Kaiser
Industries and PG&E indicate an ongoing industrial activity, and changes
in operation or expansion of these two facilities may exert sizeable im-
pacts on an estuarine environment, even though present use is compatible.

Response

Comment accepted. Stronger language was added to the FEIS on the sub-
ject of conflict of uses regarding the role of the LCP in Monterey County

Comment

A potential impact on the slough is oil and gas development on the outer
continental shelf. The Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments has
issued a preliminary discussion paper on a "Scenario of Exploration,
Development, and Production" for OCS development and identified Moss
Landing as a potential location for a permanent onshore service base.
The EIS should identify potential problems arising from future possible
OCS oil and gas development.

Response

We believe the FEIS statement on oil and gas development is sufficient.
The sanctuary cannot control activities outside the sanctuary boundaries
as outlined in General Response A.

The Resources Agency of California

(L. Frank Goodson, Assistant Secretary for Resources, 6/20/79)

Comment

The State of California has reviewed the DEIS, fulfilling requirements
under Part II of Office of Management and Budget Circular A-95 and the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The review was coordinated
with the Departments of Conservation, Boating and Waterways, Fish and Game,
Parks and Recreation, Water Resources, Food and Agriculture, and Health,
the Air Resources, Solid Waste Management, and State Water Resources Control
Boards, and the State Lands Commission. The State Lands Commission states
that on page 25 of the EIS the fourth sentence should read, "The State's
ownership extends to the ordinary high water mark."

Response

Comment accepted. This statement was included in the FEIS.

Monterey Regional County Sanitation District
Robert S. Jaques, Agency Engineer, 5/22/79

Comment describes operations treatment and efficient locations as well as
future waste water management programs for Monterey County and, in particular,
the Castroville area. Flows discharged from the existing Castroville waste-
water treatment plant are reported to be of acceptable effluent quality
and have not been linked to any water quality problems. They enter
Tembladero Slough, a tributary to Moss Landing Harbor and an area
proposed to be designated as an estuarine sanctuary. This plant is being
converted into a pilot scale facility for the purpose of conducting a five
year agricultural irrigation demonstration project. The Castroville
treatment plant will continue operations at least through the 5 year
stucty period and the treated effuent will continue to be discharged in
the present manner to Tembladero Slough when necessary. Noted reference
in the DEIS that more restrictive water quality criteria may be applied
to the sanctuary area and expressed concern that more restriction criteria
may hinder plant operations. While designating an area as an area of
special significance often does not in and of itself create additional

rules and regulations that affect the District and Agency. The designation
frequently translates into additional criteria developed by the current
regulatory agencies. Both the Moss Landing County Sanitation District
and the Castroville County Sanitation District were not included on the
DEIS mailing list.

Response

The estuarine sanctuary shall not cause additional regulations to be
applied to the Monterey Regional County Sanitation District. We support
the demonstration project described. Omitting the sanitation districts
from the DEIS distribution was an oversight and we apologize for any
inconvenience this may have caused.

Henry Case
California Department of Transportation
(Public Hearing Comments, 6/2 0/7 9)

Comment

Why was sanctuary acquisition fragmented, documented, and funded
by two separate agencies (referring to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service EIS for acquiring the National Wildlife Refuge). Why do the
areas covered in the two documents not agree? Between the two proposals,
CALTRANS has a potential problem. If the area acquired contacts the
existing highway line, it would be more difficult to make even minor
improvements to that facility. Minor improvements and replacement of
the existing bridge is planned. Some additional land will be needed
to replace the bridge and a sanctuary proposal will delay this a minimum
of two years, and might prohibit it being done altogether.

Response

See General Response F and H.

Comment

Corrects DEIS statement that realignment of Highway 1 has been dropped from
the plan. Notes that it has not been proposed for funding in the short
range plan but is still in the long range plan and is on our list of
candidates to be funded when and if funds become available. Notes
that this is an important link in a route of statewide significance,
and is consistent with Department policy. Notes that the Coastal Act
is not absolute in prohibiting all such construction. States that the
proposed link provides the shortest route across the slough and that
eventually something more than the existing highway is going to have
to be done. States that the Department is taking no position on whether
this should be a sanctuary or not and that the Department would be
disturbed if an action were taken that would, by law, preclude the
study of possible solution to this transportation problem.

Response

See General Response A. OCZM encourages the examination of all alternatives
and cannot, by law, preclude alternatives to the solution of transportation
problems.

Fish and Game Advisory Commission, Santa Cruz

R.S. Montoya, (Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79 )

Comment

The Fish and Game Advisory Commission has its own problems, laws,
and agencies and does not need interference.

Response

No interference by OCZM is intended; also see General Response A.

Cal i form' a State University

(Robert A. Kennedy, Vice President, 6/11/79)

This area is under heavy pressure from all sides and needs protection.
Elkhorn Slough is an important resource and laboratory. The money and the
opportunity to establish the sanctuary are available now. They may never
be available again.

Response
Comment accepted.

California State University at Fresno

Brandt Kehoe, Dean--School of Natural Resources (Public Hearing
Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports preservation status. Elkhorn Slough serves six campuses in
the State college and university system. As one of a vanishing number
of major estuaries and surrounding wetlands, Elkhorn Slough is of
significance to the Nation and the world. It is important to understand
how the species in the estuary evolved and developed and how the chain of
life came about. To lose this resource is to lose an extremely vital
resource for all of mankind.

Response

Comment accepted.

California State University - Fresno

Graduate Studies and Research (Vivian A. Vidoli, Dean, 6/13/79)

Comment

The establishment of the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important,
The Slough is of inestimable importance to the teaching/research mission
at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories.

Response
Comment accepted.

Cali fornia State University, Hayward
(Edward 6. Lyke, 6/4//$)

Comment

Supports the inclusion of Elkhorn Slough in the National Estuarine
Sanctuary Program, noting that this unique area of estuarine habitats has
proven to be an extremely valuable natural resource and of considerable
interest to the scientist and layman for a number of years. Elkhorn
Slough as one of the few relatively "untouched" estuaries along the Cali-
fornia coast and has served as a valuable habitat for faculty from all
levels of education and should be allowed to continue to serve them.

Response
Comment accepted.

California State University, Hayward

(Detlef A. Warnke, Professor of Geological Science, 6/1/79)

Comment

Estuarine sanctuary status for Elkhorn Slough is imperative for the following
reasons: the passage of Proposition 13 suggests that no other estuary will
be accorded this status; estuaries are the most "important" segment of the
world's oceans because of the intense interaction between man and the marine
environment in this area. Estuaries, as little modified as possible, should
be available for baseline study, and closely linked to instructional /research
institutions. Elkhorn Slough fulfills these conditions as an invaluable study
site and training area to Moss Landing Marine Laboratories of the California
State University and Colleges system. Development of the slough would be a
staggering blow to educational programs whereas sanctuary status would
greatly enhance the value of the slough.

Response

Comment accepted.

Monterey Peninsul a College
(Winona Irason, 6/14//9)

Comment

Take all steps to ensure Elkhorn Slough's protection as a sanctuary.
Ever since the college began in 1949, biology classes have visited the
slough several times a year. Thousands of students have visited the
area and speak of it as a highlight of their time at MPC.

Response
Comment accepted.

San Francisco State University School of Science
(James C. Kelley, Uean, 6/18//9)

Comment

Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary at Elkhorn Slough is important.
The slough is significant as a wildlife habitat and as a subject for
basic research. There is a long record of research projects, making the
slough extremely important, especially in its natural state. There are
few opportunities left to study long term climatic changes. If preserved,
the slough may provide sufficiently long and continuous data sets which
may help predict the effects of catastrophic events. No major catastrophic
events have occurred on the slough, which makes it doubly important to
preserve it.

Response

Comment accepted.

San Francisco State University

(Dr. Jon Galehouse, Professor of Geology, 6/4/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is probably the best
area in California for estuarine teaching and research. Elkhorn Slough
must be preserved to foster continued cooperative estuarine environmental
studies programs.

Response

Comment accepted.

San Francisco State University

(Dr. Raymond Pestiong, Professor of Geology, 6/20/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important. Natural,
unmodified estuaries play an important role in our ecosystem. Few
environments such as the Slough exist in California and it is essential
to preserve those left to better understand the operation of these systems
Estuaries are complex systems, reflecting the interaction of physical
and biological elements in a constantly changing environment. Elkhorn
Slough represents such a system in a natural state.

Response

Comment accepted.

San Jose1 State University

(Glen E. Guttormsen, Director of Business Affairs, 6/18/79)

Comment

Awareness of the importance of wetlands and the need to preserve better
areas as sanctuaries for teaching and research is important. The
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories' graduates usually go into advance
studies or occupations in marine science. Elkhorn Slough is a rare area
and unique laboratory that must be protected as an estuarine sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

San Jose' State University

(L.H. Lange, Dean School of Science, 6/5/79)

Comment

Supports the nomination of Elkhorn Slough as an estuarine sanctuary,
noting its importance to the School of Science and to the Moss Landing
Marine Laboratories. Instuctional and scientific opportunities should not
be passed by. The people of California can regard designation of the
sanctuary as unique and important to the State and to the students for
whom San Jose' State University is responsible.

Response

Comment accepted.

San Jose State University

(Howard S. Shell hammer, Professor, 6/14/79)

Comment

Supports Elkhorn Slough as an estuarine sanctuary because it is an in-
valuable resource. It is used by a large number of birds, including the
endangered clapper rail and brown pelican. Numerous rare and potenially
endangered invertebrates are found at the slough. Many fish apparently
utilize the slough in their reproductive cycle and many species caught
in Monterey Bay are represented by juveniles in the slough.

Response

Comment accepted.

San Jose State University

(Ellen C. Weaver, Interim Executive V. P., 6/18/79)

Comment

Endorses the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. Presently serves as a
Professor of Biology on the Executive Committee for Sea Grant of the Insti
tute of Marine Resources, and on the MLML Advisory Board. Indicates that
Elkhorn Slough offers support to great number of flora and fauna. Since
the slough is adjacent to MLML, it will be a magnificant teaching area.

Response
Comment accepted.

San Jose' State University
(John G. Weihaupt, 6/4/79)

Comment

The nearness of Moss Landing Marine Laboratories to Elkhorn Slough is of
special importance. Every consideration should be given to the establishment
of this estuarine sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

San Jose University

(Joseph H. Young, Chairman, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Public Hearing

Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Tidal mudflats, such as in Elkhorn Slough, are a rare and valuable instructional
resource for the teaching of biology. Mudflat organisms display adaptations
that are unique to a unique habitat, and are rare on the Pacific coast.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The following institutions of higher learning in the central California
Coastal region send numbers of students to Elkhorn Slough:

Stanford University and Hopkins Marine Station

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, California University and College

Hartnell College

San Jose State University, San Jose

Fresno State University, Fresno

City College of San Jose, San Jose

West Valley College, San Jose

DeAnza College, Cupertino
Foothill College, Los Altos

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The sanctuary concept for Elkhorn Slough will protect it from further damage
due to commercial exploitation. Sensible restrictions on human activities in
the slough may permit the reestablishment of uninterrupted food chains that will
benefit the development of the larval fishes that live in the slough.

Response

Comment accepted, although any restrictions outside the proposed boundaries
will not be caused by sanctuary establishment.

Stanford University - The Hopkins Marine Station

(Colin S. Pittendrigh, Harold A. Miller Professor of Biology and
Director, 6/19/79)

Comment

The Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary designation is important. The
Hopkins Marine Station in the Monterey Bay area has made abundant use of
the slough in its teaching and research programs since 1920. The slough
is the most important example of an estuarine environment within Monterey
Bay and its availability has enhanced marine science programs at many
educational institutions. The Hopkins Marine Station's interests in the
slough lie primarily in its remarkably diverse, and in several cases
unique, marine invertebrate populations. Significant areas continue to be
available for long term studies and the National Estuarine Sanctuary
Program is clearly adequate for providing permanent protection, which is
presently lacking.

Response

Comment accepted.

University of California, Berkley

(John Daves, Research Zoologist 6/18/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important. Several
descriptions and accompanying arguments supporting preservation of the
slough are in the literature. Most of the favored habitats for col-
lecting salt marsh species in California have disappeared under land
fill or industrial installations. Species associated with these habitats
have also disappeared as is evidenced in statistics on marsh and wetlands
reduction. California salt marshes are pitifully limited in extent, sub-
ject to high development pressure, and of limited access for educational,
research, and recreational purposes. Elkhorn Slough is the finest re-
maining salt marsh south of San Francisco Bay and it should be set aside
for the benefit of future generations.

Response

Comment accepted.

University of California, San Diego

(Andrew A. Benson, Professor of Biology, 7/5/79)

Comment

The Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary will be a priceless asset to the
teaching and research programs of California State universities and colleges
and to Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. It will serve as a primary study
area of the environment essential to the nurture and success of countless
species of birds, plants, and animals depend on its stability. An opportunity
to utilize this area for demonstration of the nature of California's
formerly pristine environment will come only once. OCZM must act to preserve
this area.

Response

Comment accepted.

University of California, San Diego

(Walter Schmitt, Specialist in Oceanography, 6/20/79)

Comment

Acquisition of available lower section of Elkhorn Slough is necessary.
The area is particularly useful for research and education. Many marine
fisheries species occupy the slough during their life and will benefit
from an ecological status quo.

Response

Comment accepted.

University of California, San Diego
Scripps Institute of Oceanography'
(John S. Oliver, 6/14//9)

Comment

Supports Elkhorn Slough as an estuarine sanctuary. A variety of grammar
schools, high schools, colleges, and universities conduct classes at the
slough. Personally involved with teaching and research in the slough.
The area is a unique and extremely important site for teaching and
research.

Response

Comment accepted.

Hartnell College

(Dr. Marilyn Vassallo, 6/19/79)

Comment

Sanctuary status is necessary for Elkhorn Slough, for it is an inval-
uable area of learning and must be preserved as a natural resource
for future generations. College classes from the Monterey Bay area and
throughout California use the slough as a stucfy area.

Response
Comment accepted.

bernadette ai len

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports the estuarine sanctuary proposals, noting that as many as 139
species of birds, including 30 species of shorebirds, utilize the
slough.

Response

Comment accepted.

William Anderson

(Santa Cruz, Ca., 6/12/79)

Comment

The wildlife habitat represented in the environment of Elkhorn Slough is one
of the most important remnants of coastal estuary, salt ponds, and salt and
brackish marsh still remaining in California. Thousands of water-
oriented birds depend on this stopping place to feed and rest/nest. A
relatively little known aspect of Elkhorn Slough is its role as an essential
post-breeding area for birds nesting to the South. The Slough is an im-
portant gathering place for Heerman's gulls, elegant terns, and brown pelicans.
Americans avocets, blacknecked stilts and snowy plovers are permanent residents
in the area. Caspian and Forester's terns have established nesting colonies
on dikes and islands. A nesting colony of Caspian terns in Elkhorn Slough
is the only one in central California except for those in South San Francisco
Bay. Elkhorn Slough should be preserved and guarded with infinite care.

Response

Comment accepted.

Animal Protection Institute of America
(Belton P. Mouras, President, //1U//9)

Comment

The Animal Protection Institute of America strongly supports and appreciates
the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary Proposal. Elkhorn Slough is one
of California's last truly magnificent wetland areas. It contains diverse
and productive fisheries and wildlife values, and is a critical habitat
for several endangered species.

Response

Comment accepted.

Mrs. William Arnberg
(Gilroy, Ca., //<>/79)

Comment

Concerned about restrictions threatening the commercial fisheries
industry and feels that the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary
is another political ploy to defeat the fishing industry. There are
sufficient laws for protecting the area and the proposed sanctuary will
preclude public access and place severe hardships on small, independent
owners/operators of fishing vessels.

Response

OCZM totally supports the commercial fisheries industry and NOAA (OCZM and
NMFS) has given millions of dollars to support the viability of our country's
fishery industry and fish stocks. We feel this comment is without foundation,

Miriam Arozena

(Aptos, Ca., 7/9/79)

Comment

Expresses support for the establishment of Elkhorn Slough Estuarine
Sanctuary. This is a fine area for observing many species of birds on
the shore or in the water and it provides a resting and feeding area for
flocks of ducks and other migrating birds. An acre of salt marsh is
equal in productivity to an acre of Kansas farmland. California's
wetlands have been lost to development and Elkhorn Slough should be
preserved for its fisheries, recreation, and migratory waterfowl habitat
preservation values. The slough itself and its watershed should be
included in the sanctuary. Landowners should be given a fair price for
their lands.

Response

Comments accepted. Funding constraints prohibit inclusion of the watershed.

Dean Baird

(San Jose, Ca., 7/7/79)

Comment

An estuarine sanctuary would adversely affect Baird' s property at the
slough. His use of the property (raising pheasants and growing Christmas
trees) does not harm the environment of the slough. There is no need
for more government control.

Response

Mr. Baird is not listed as a property owner within the proposed boundaries
His activities will not be affected by establishment of the estuarine
sanctuary. See General Response A.

Leta Marie Bakke-Delungio, (7/1/79)

Comment!

The $3 million should be designated for land acquisition at Elkhorn
Slough. The 29 commmercial species of fish and many other species of
fish important to the food chain that use this are as a nursery as well
as various species of endangered birds that use this as a nesting
and feeding ground can not vote and put pressure on the government as
the property owners and fishermen can.

Response:

Comment accepted.

Sheila Baldridge

(Pacific Grove, Ca., 7/6/79, Public Meeting Statement, 7/11/79)

Comment

Favors Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. There is a contrast in land
use planning between Monterey County, California and Miami, Florida,
where, in the latter, unrestrained development has destroyed estuaries
and large tracts of mangroves and as a consequence there is loss of
nursery areas for fish and shrimp. Why would anyone oppose the estuarine
sanctuary proposal? We need the natural riches and diversity of the
slough both now and in the future. We can no longer afford the luxury
of the "Manifest Destiny" philosophy.

Response

Comment accepted.

Dr. and Mrs. Arthur E. Benoit
(Pebble Beach, Ca. b/i«//y)

Comment

Establishment of Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important. This
area is an irreplaceable spawning ground for a wide variety of marine

life and home for many birds.

Response
Comment accepted.

L.C. Blankenbecler, Sr.

(Watsonville, Ca., 7/8/79 )

Comment

Refers to pp.11 and 12 of the DEIS and requests suspension of action to acquire
the Elkhorn Slough for a sanctuary until all property owners and/or lease users
of property in the slough area, its adjacent areas, and watershed areas are
notified in writing exactly how the proposed acquisition will affect land
uses such as residential, agricultural, commercial, density, and zoning, etc.

Response

Written assurances regarding impacts on areas outside the proposed boundaries
are contained in General Response A.

Jean Bleick

(Pebble Beach, Ca., 7/5/79)

Comment

Creation of the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is a means of assuring
protection. The slough is threatened by development in the Moss Landing
area, including possible oil spills, OCS development north of Monterey
Bay, and additional industrial development.

Response

Comment accepted.

Estelle Blohm

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

The U.S. Soil Conservation Service is an example of an agency that has
been of benefit and assistance to people without dictation or regulation
Long range plans are being made for restrictions on hunting, fishing,
and other uses we do not need. Therefore, opposes more government
regulations.

Response

See General Response A.

Gary S. Bloom, (undated)
Comment:

As a property owner (five acres) within the watershed, I would like to
support the land acquisition and sanctuary plan. The "silent majority"
in this case is those who would support the creation of an Elkhorn
Slough Sanctuary.

Response:

Comment accepted.

David Bockman
Sierra Club

Elkhorn Slough Task Force
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/7 9)

Comment

Feels that there is no need for the construction of Highway 1 alignment,
especially in light of the Coast Act's "two-lane road" requirement. Feels
that the DEIS contains the essential facts and should be recommended.
Notes that people of Santa Cruz were notified about the hearing in The
Sentinal on May 21, 1979.

Response

Comment accepted. See General Response H concerning Highway 1.

Mrs. C. Bonestell

(Carmel, Ca., 6/18/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important. This area
is a valuable natural resource, breeding ground for fish, and important
waterfowl and wildlife refuge. Similar estuarine areas have been des-
troyed and each loss takes its toll, especially from the fishing industry,
Federal funds to match State funds should be approved.

Response

Comment accepted. However, we are not sure about the fishing industry
and the destruction of estuaries. Commercial fishermen do not normally
fish in small estuaries. Most destruction of estuarine habitats arises
from dredging and fill operations.

William Bradley

(Carmel, Ca. 7/11/79)

Comment

Plans should be made to preserve unique natural areas and the remaining
limited habitats of plants and animals for posterity before it is
too late. It is impossible to return a developed area back to a natural
state. Freshwater sloughs in California are rare and development of
Elkhorn Slough would be an atrocity.

Response

Comment accepted. It should be noted, however, that Elkhorn is predominantly
brackish.

William Brodsley, (7/11/79)
Comment:

To destroy a unique natural area of this limited kind in California is a
true injustice to us all. To destroy the remaining limited aquatic natural
habitats of living things, plants and animals, is unheard of. Fresh water
sloughs in California are rare. If development starts, there is no turn-
ing back.

Response:

Comment accepted.

Phi 1 i^ S. Broughton

TPebble Beach, Ca., 7/6/79)

Comment

Attached a description of his understanding of the function of marshes.

Response

Comment and description accepted.

R al p h Buchsbaum
" public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment^

Feels that estuaries all over the world have been destroyed and that the
ecological system of Elkhorn Slough should be maintained through sanctuary
status. Feels that commercial fishermen often "mine the sea" without re-
gard to protecting areas vital for replenishing the stocks.

Response

Comment accepted.

Ray and Catherine Burgess
(7/10/7$)

Comment

Opposed to the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. There are
enough existing governmental agencies preserving the environment for
all the living creatures in the area. Local property owners are preserving
the area by limiting access to it, which in turn prevents disturbance
and destruction of the area. Property owners in the area affected
should have the opportunity to vote on this sanctuary issue. Too many
governmental agencies are imposing their views on the electorate without
considering the majority views.

Response

See General Responses A and E. Property owners have been given input
into the sanctuary issue and changes have been made in the FEIS on the
proposed Sanctuary Advisory Committee to permit property owner input.
There is no attempt to impose governmental views on anyone. The proposal
as outlined in the DEIS and FEIS is straight forward. The acquisition
of approximately 1500 acres of land by the California Department of Fish
and Game (with 50% funding by 0CZM) is for scientific and educational
uses. Changes have been made in the FEIS that respond to legitimate
concerns.

California Coastal Council

Robert Nix (Public Hearing Statement, 6/22/79)

Comment

The DEIS is vague, incomplete, and it should be rewritten.

Response

The DEIS has been rewritten in response to comments and suggestions.

Comment

The Summary (p. 2) reference to adjacent land use should be clarified
to identify kinds of impacts anticipated, the kinds of controls or restric-
tions to be placed on adjoining lands, and what agencies will be controlling
or restricting.

Response

See General Response A. The reader is referred to the document itself
for a more general statements. The summary is only a broad description.

Comment

The reference on page 4 to removal of property from the tax base is in-
complete. There are far more impacts and tax losses that should be
documented, such as impacts to Highway 1, "buffer zones" that might be
established by other agencies, and impacts on watersheds and existing
industries.

Response

See General Responses A and H. We feel we have addressed all relevant
impacts resulting from the designation of the sanctuary.

Comment

The references to other sanctuaries (i.e. Coos Bay) does not include

information on their negative impacts.

Response

All estuarine sanctuaries are unique and the impacts of each one are
examined individually--as is being done in Elkhorn Slough. We are aware
of certain negative comments about Coos Bay and feel they are erroneous
and do not pertain to the present proposal.

Comment

Funds available might be inadequate and this should be discussed in
the DEIS.

Response

It is felt that funding will be adequate since there are possibilities
of "less than fee simple" acquisition. Possibly there will be dona-
tions of land, or partial donations. The Department of Fish and Game
has the option of completing acquisitions with funci^ from the 1976 Bond
Act Monies, if any remain. The boundaries could also be decreased if
funds were not available for complete acquisition.

Comment

Information on management, including the management board, is incom-
plete. The Board should include representatives of industry, labor,
and agriculture.

Response

The Advisory Committee has been expanded. See General Response I.

Comment

There is no information on whether the owners of properties to be
acquired have been contacted and are willing to cooperate.

Response

All property owners have been contacted by the WCB and several are
willing to negotiate.

Comment

The imposition of regulations that would "down zone" the properties
to get them into the price range for the sanctuary should not be a
part of the plan. This should be discussed.

Response

Comment accepted. See General Response A.

Comment

All actions or potential actions of the Coastal Commission related to
the sanctuary are directly related to the proposed action to fund the
sanctuary. Their effects should be a part of the EIS.

Response

See General Response A. The Coastal Commission's involvement with the
proposed estuarine sanctuary will include being a member of the Advisory
Committee.

Comment

Impacts on adjacent land and water uses by regulations of other

agencies related to, but not specifically a part of, the sanctuary should be

discussed. These may lead to yery restrictive land use controls.

Response

See General Response A.

California Marine Parks and Harbor Association
(Harold Land, Monterey Representative, 7/10/79)

Comment

The DEIS is found to be incomplete, particularly in regard to the interests
of local residents, local industry, and Moss Landing Harbor, the social and
economic effects of the proposal, and the effects of regulatory measures.
When these areas are covered, no factual back-up data is presented.

Response

Every effort was made to take the interests of all concerned individuals, as
well as commercial or industrial organizations, into account. The economic
effects are addressed and discussed in the FEIS.

Comment

The DEIS does not identify the impact of the proposed sanctuary regulations
on the viability of future of Moss Landing Harbor environment. The viability
- activity, industry, economics, improved facilities, etc. - of this harbor
is an absolute necessity to the social economic well-being of the area and
California's commercial fishing industry. The EIS should address factors
necessary to the viability of the harbor, sucti as periodic maintenance
dredging, construction of new and renovation of old facilities, improved
utilities and pollution control, on-shore support facilities such as boat
yards, fueling stations, and fish processing stations, access to shore
facilities, etc.

Response

The EIS is intended to describe the impact of the acquisition of lands
within the sanctuary's boundaries only. While we agree on the value of
the Moss Landing Harbor, this is outside the scope of the FEIS. Most
of the issues would seem to come under the LCP being prepared by Monterey
County.

Comment

Commercial fishermen and wholesale fish dealers are not represented on
the proposed sanctuary advisory committee.

Response

Commercial fishermen have been added to the advisory committee. See
General Response I.

Comment

California Marine Parks and Harbors Association feels that the proposed
sanctuary is not in the best interests of the commercial fishing industry
nor of the present harbor.

Response

We feel the sanctuary will pose no hindrance to the commercial fishing
industry; it may, in fact, provide a more productive environment as a
nursery for the fishery. Also see General Response A.

Comment

As a private citizen, Land feels that government agencies proposed to each
other that a sanctuary be established, without first obtaining direct
comment, opinion and consent on the proposal. There does not appear to
be any "pressure" for the establishment of a sanctuary as a necessity to
scientific progress.

Response

See General Response B. "Pressure" is not a criterion for sanctuary
establishment.

California Native Plant Society

(Betty H. Nybakken, President, 6/20/79)

Comment

The California Native Plant Society completely supports the proposed Elkhorn
Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. The slough is the only example in the area of
a large salt marsh in which pickleweed Salicornia is dominant. Cord grass
Spartina is absent. The slough community is relatively limited in area and
is disappearing as salt marshes are drained or altered. The local Native
Plant Society uses the slough for field trips. Declaring the slough an
estuarine sanctuary will increase its accessibility to interested groups
and insure continued survival of the slough community.

Response
Comment accepted.

Van Chambers

(Santa Cruz, Ca. 6/22/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary receives his support.
As a commercial fisherman for a short time, and a neighbor and frequent
visitor to the slough, urges protection of fish-growing area and the
slough as a whole.

Response

Comment accepted.

Mrs. J. Chandler

(Watsonville, Ca., 7/3/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough should become a sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Marion E. Chilson, (7/7/79

Comment:

Elkhorn Slough should be established as an Estuarine Sanctuary. The
area between Castroville and Prundale on Highway 156, is being built
up with homes. This area is bound to have problems. There are roads that
border closer to the slough where homes can be built. There are many
acres surrounding the slough itself that are no doubt flooded by high
and higher than normal tides. All of this area plus mudflats bared
during low tide are inhabited by various kinds of life. Making this area
fit for the home of water birds, fish, and sea animals, will make it a
boon for the fishermen, nature lovers and outdoors people. The pollution
that is there now should be cleaned up. The whole area should be estab-
lished as a Sanctuary.

Response:

Comment accepted. Please see General Response D for an explanation of
why the entire area cannot be included in the Sanctuary.

Coastlands

(Laurie Dillon, Big Sur, Ca., 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports the establishment of the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary
The slough is important to the ecological health of the whole area,
including the breeding grounds of the Big Sur Coast.

Response
Comment accepted.

Garth Con! an

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

The people in this area do not need a sanctuary.

Response

This sanctuary, like many others, is designed to meet the broader interests
of the region, State, and Nation. Nevertheless, your expression of concern
will be considered prior to any decision being made.

Rudd Mary Crawford

(Pebble Beach, Ca., 7/10/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary should be established.

Response

Comment accepted.

Dianne B. Corcia, R.N.
(6/21/79)

Comment

There is no indication that the various species of fauna in the slough are
diminishing.

Response

This is not a major consideration in establishing the proposed estuarine
sanctuary.

Comment

The slough is in no danger of becoming extinct. No one wants to dry up
the wetlands with dirt, cement, or structures.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Industry, farming, and people are not hurting the slough.

Response

Comment generally accepted; however all of the above users do have impacts on
the Slough--some positively, some negatively.

Comment

No one in the area seems to be threatened by the slough's wildlife.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The fishermen do not seem to be suffering from lack of fish to be caught
and sold. There seems to be no economic hardship on them at present.

Response

Comment accepted. The estuarine sanctuary should be a positive benefit
for the fishermen.

Comment

None of the residents have said that they are willing to sell their property.

Response

This is not correct. Several have and some are included within this
Comment/Response Section. See General Response 0.

Comment

No one has suggested that the Marine Lab is not a needed facility at Moss
Landing. There are experts there who have the training and facilities to
represent the wildlife of the slough.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Why is there a need for an estuarine sanctuary? Fishermen, property
owners, and industry will be losers if the sanctuary is established.

Response

Fishermen, property owners, and industry will not be losers. It has been
OCZM's experience that preserved lands in a community are perceived as
an asset; areas such as parks, wildlife refuges, and estuarine sanctuaries
are positive community assets.

Cindy P. Costa

(Castroville, Ca.)

Comment

Sponsored a petition objecting to the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine
Sanctuary. The petition claims that, while the purpose of the sanctuary is
"to provide a living laboratory for research and educational enhancement
of the natural resource values...," the program provides avenues of control
and regulations that could adversely affect landowners, fishermen,
business people, industry, and commercial interests. The undersigners
agree to a belief that local authorities and the present rules and regulations
are quite capable of enhancing and protecting Elkhorn Slough, as they
have proven in the past. 2237 signatures were obtained.

Response

OCZM accepts the petition and recognizes that large effort must have gone
into gathering the large number of signatures. Because of this petition and
comments received on the DEIS, changes have been made in the FEIS and in the
comment section to address the comments that have been made. These changes
have been additional explanations of the estuarine sanctuary proposal, clar-
ification of what was contained in the DEIS, or changes to the DEIS. We
feel that the clarifications provided and changes made, especially General
Responses A and E, address the points raised in the petition.

Cindy Costa

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79,

Public Meeting Statements, 6/22/79, 7/1 0/79)

Comment

Speaking for David Miller, President of Monterey Salt Co. The hearing was
held without due notice. He wishes to be added to the mailing list.

Response

See General Response B. Also note that the land owned by Monterey Salt is
not included within the proposed boundaries.

Comment

The use of Resource Protection Zones (RPZ's) to designate the sanctuary is
dangerous for property owners.

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

The Sierra Club would not buy her land, nor would the the Nature Conser-
vancy, the Parks and Recreation Department, or the Fish and Game Department.
Now, it is going to be taken at a rate that is confiscation on today's
land market.

Response

The Federal procedures for acquiring land assure that people's lands will
not be confiscated and a fair market value will be established. We realize
that people's expectations of the value of their land may differ from the
rates established by the appraisers. But these rates are established in
accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Ac-
quisition Policies published in the Federal Register, September 22, 1976,
Volume 41, Number 185, Section 916.22 (d), which say "Establish, prior
to initiation of negotiations, an amount which is believed to be just
compensation for the real property and make a prompt offer to acquire the
property for the full amount so established."

Comment

Designating the slough as a sanctuary means it will be invaded by thousands
of students from several colleges, high schools, and special interest groups

Reponse

See General Response G.

Comment

A sanctuary is a "quiet place". Elkhorn Slough will not be quiet when
a lot of people are attracted to the sanctuary. The agencies involved

should he honest with people and tell them that having a sanctuary will
mean taking their land at less than Fair Market Value.

Response

See General Responses D and G.

Tiny DeRay
(7/7/79)

Comment

Regional management is needed for Elkhorn Slough. The slough is priceless.
Preservation of Elkhorn Slough is vital to the ecosystem.

Response

Comment accepted.

Douglas & Janet Despard
(Carmel, Ca., 7/5/79)

Comment

Strongly support protection of Elkhorn Slough in Monterey County.

Response

Comment accepted.

Bill Doyle

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Served on a committee to nominate estuarine sanctuaries and is
fully supportive of Elkhorn Slough. Emphasizes the importance to
California of having a place such as Elkhorn Slough for long term study

where human activities willjjmanaged. There is a first class marine
laboratory adjacent to Elkhorn Slough to monitor the effectiveness of
the sanctuary status.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The subject of multiple use is not addressed in DEIS. Manipulative
research referred to in the DEIS (p. 18) may result in long term changes in
Elkhorn Slough. We should not try to preserve only, but should try to
manage human activities to increase productivity or utility to the
people of the State of California.

Response

Multiple-use is encouraged as long as it doesn't interfere with the primary
purposes: research and education. Manipulation that would affect the
slough in the long run is not permitted.

Robert Epperson, (7/8/79)
Comment:

The people who live in the area are taking care of it, otherwise there
would be no wildlife to protect. If they are taking good care of the
area, who needs the California Department of Fish and Game or OCZM?

Response:

The establishment of the Sanctuary will provide for uniform management
of the resources now and in the future.

Comment:

Environmentalists talk as if the slough is a piece of history, which must
be preserved for future generations. Sloughs come and go, they dry up,
and others form elsewhere, whether man interferes or not. So, what
are we protecting?

Response:

All coastal resources are changing, some slowly some faster. One of the
purposes of an Estuarine Sanctuary is to study those changes. We can
obtain information from these changes that can be applied elsewhere.
It is not a purpose of the Sanctuary to stop natural processes.

Comment:

The proposed Sanctuary would be a waste of money, a bureaucrat's delight
and a taxpayer's nightmare. Over a half a dozen local, state and Federal
agencies would have their fingers in the Elkhorn pie. The management
is too uncoordinated.

Response:

Your concern will be considered in the decision-making process, but we
feel the management will protect the estuarine sanctuary resources.

Comment:

The DEIS is purposely vague, and poorly researched. The maps on pages
6 and 7 are erroneous. The road south of Dolan Road is not Elkhorn
Road; it is Castroville Blvd. Castroville Blvd. and Dolan Road inter-
sect about a quarter of a mile west of the Dolan Road - Elkhorn Road
intersection.

Response:

See new map as discussed in General Response C.

Comment:

The Federal Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines demand that an acquisition
application contain "fair market value appraisal" The DEIS estimates
that the acquisition and establishment of the Elkhorn Slough Sanctuary
will cost a total of $2,930,000 for the 1510 acres. That is only
$1940 per acre, hardly fair price. Either the land owners will be
cheated, or the Sanctuary will cost more than $2.93 million. I think
the latter will prevail, although the land owners will have legal
hassles before they get what is due them. Either circumstance is
unacceptable.

Response:

See General Response D.

Comment:

The DEIS claims that one possible benefit of the proposed sanctuary
might be the increase in value of surrounding properties.
We affected property owners expect that the opposite would happen.
Landowners fear the restrictions that the Sanctuary will bring.

Response:

We still support our contention, but General Response A discusses restrictions

Butch Escobar Cement Contractor Co.
(Mr. & Mrs. S. S. Escobar, no date)

Comment

As owners of property in the Elkhorn Slough area, the Escobars
object to the sanctuary. They object to the expenditure of 3 mil-
lion dollars for a few selected people.

Response

See General Responses D and E.

Comment

They are opposed to their lives and property being controlled. The
proposed sanctuary is a far fetched idea involving more restrictions.
They are tired of U.S. government officials telling them what to do
and operating their tax money. They request to be "left alone".

Response

This position will be considered in the decision process. The concept
of protecting certain unique areas within the U.S. is not new, as can
be seen by the National Parks and Fish and Wildlife Refuges which have
been established. 0CZM is not telling anyone what to do, but is re-
sponding to a State request for matching funds to be used for land
acquisition to establish an estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

Mr. Escobar is a direct descendent of the first settler of Monterey
County. His ancestors came with Father Serra from Spain. He has
a big interest in the land which is to be taken from him.

Response

We can appreciate strong ties to the land. Fortunately, nobody "takes"
land in the United States any more. All public purchases involving
federal dollars are governed by rules to prevent taking advantage of
property owners.

The Forest Committee

(Janice O'Brien, Chairman, 7/4/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough should be protected as a precious and unique resource.
Development interests must be convinced that conservation and preservation
are most positive forms of progress.

Response

Comment accepted.

C.H. Francis

(Carmel, Ca., 5/22/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough is threatened. It is the last great area of its kind left
in California, and must be preserved as a sanctuary.

Response
Comment accepted.

Friends of the Sea

(T. Kowall, Santa Cruz, Ca., 7/9/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important for research and enhance-
ment of the region. Seldom are objectives of environmentalists and commercial
fisheries so complementary. There are economic benefits to be gained from
improved air and water quality and restricted urbanization. Conservation of
the slough is of utmost importance, especially Jn light of potential OCS
lease sales and natural disasters in other regions.

Response

Comment accepted.

Friends of the Sea Otter

(Betty S. Davis Executive Secretary, 7/9/79

Comment

The proposed Estuarine Sanctuary for Elkhorn Slough, and the boundaries
and land acquisition process outlined in the DEIS are supported by the
Friends of the Sea Otter. A preferred alternative appears neccessary
and reasonable. Coordinated management by the Department of Fish and
Game, an Advisory Committee, and U.S. Fish and and Wildlife Service,
as proposed, will be beneficial. Elkhorn Slough needs the additional
protection of sanctuary status and now is the time for such protection.
An estuarine sanctuary would coordinate well with the proposed marine
sanctuary for the Monterey Bay area. A few points of the DEIS need
correction: on pg. 19, the endangered California least tern is not listed
under l.a., para. 1. Fish and Wildlife paragraph. "(Appendix IV ...)" should
read "(Appendix III...)." On page pg. 31, G. "Marine Resources," the
reference "(Nybakken et al.,1977)" is not listed in reference section
Appendix VII. On pg TS^Tressus nattalli" should read "Tressus nattalla."
The Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary will provide long term gains in
estuarine and marine wildlife and fisheries, as well as supporting the
scientific research and educational opportunity. These will far exceed
short term loss to agriculture or private land and harbor development.

Response

Comment accepted, changes made. OCZM appreciates the work of Dr. Nybakken
and many others. One of the goals of the Advisory Committee will be to
establish a concise estuarine bibliography.

Noel Frodsham, (7/7/79)
Comment

Please do not listen to the industrialists, the landowners, those who want
only to make financial gain - listen instead to the scientists of many
hues from our areas.

Response

All comments are evaluated bv OCZM.

Ellen B. Gammack

(Pacific Grove, Ca., 6/22/79)

Comment

Expresses support for Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. Feels that
this area is very important to life there, in Monterey Bay, and in the
ocean, as well as for teaching and research.

Response

Comment accepted.

Dorothy W. Gay lord

(Pacific Grove, Ca. 6/22/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important. The
economic value of the slough is important to the Monterey Bay com-
mercial fish industry.

Response

Comment accepted.

Golden Gate Audubon Society
(Ingnd Lustig, 7/8/79)

Comment

The Society, representing more than 6,000 members, supports the proposed
Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. Remaining wetlands are becoming more
crucial to preserve wildlife. Elkhorn Slough is a major wintering and
feeding ground for large numbers of shorebirds, including the endangered
brown pelican and the California clapper rail. The slough is a historical
resting and pupping site for harbor seals. It is also a significant
field laboratory for research and education.

Response

Comment accepted.

Leonard Goulart

(Moss Landing, Ca., 6/29/79)

Comment

Why does anyone want to spend a lot of money to acquire land around
Elkhorn Slough for an estuarine sanctuary when it has been a natural
sanctuary for years? The California Coastal Commission alreacty has
jurisdiction over all this area.

Response

See General Response E.

Comment

Studies on the slough have been conducted for years and future studies
will not reveal "anything new (of any value)."

Response

We disagree. Research and education almost always reveal some new and
often valuable information.

Comment

Benefits of a sanctuary can be reaped without spending money on taxable
property.

Response

See General Response E.

Granite Rock Company

(Bruce G. Woolpert, President, 7/10/79, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Mr. Woolpert is the owner of parcel #2. Granite Rock Company owns 147 acres
(#5) on the map of Elkhorn Slough in the DEIS. There appears to be no justifi-
cation for taking the land above high-water mark, which comprises most of the
land in this 85-acre parcel of farm land. He has had "employmentcenter use
proposals" for this property because it is served by major roads and also
the main line of the Southern Pacific Railroad. This land could be used
as a recreational vehicle park, which is greatly needed in this area.

Response

See General Responses D and E.

Comment

Mr. Woolpert has over $10,000 per acre in his land and the amount discuss-
ed for the total acquisition appears inadequate. His land is being taken
after he dedicated it by quitclaim (63 acres) to the Moss Landing Harbor
District for their control in 1963. At the time, he was told that h£.
would never be harassed again by any governmental agency for acquisition.

Response

See General Response D. We certainly do not wish to distress or harass
Mr. Wool pert or Granite Rock Company.

Comment

The money necessary for rerouting Highway 1 will be appropriated and the

freeway between Castroville and Watsonville will include a bridge across

the slough. The present two-lane road is a parking lot shared by farm
equipment, automobiles, and trucks.

Response

See General Response H. To our knowledge the funding for rerouting
Highway 1 is still unknown.

Comment

There should be less governmental agency and bureaucratic control of the
Moss Landing waters. They are alreaoy adequately controlled by agencies
such as the Harbor District.

Response

The proposed sanctuary does not include the Moss Landing waters and there-
fore there will be no "bureaucratic control" caused by the estuarine
sanctuary.

Greenpeace Monterey

(Beth Bosworth, Director, 6/20/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough deserves protection under provisions of the Coastal
Zone Management Act and should be established as a sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.
Comment

The construction impact of the proposed Castroville - Watsonville segment
of Highway 1 across the slough is incompatible with the ecological value
of the slough. This project has not been recommended for funding in CALTRANS '
Regional State Transportation Improvement Program because it is not considered
cost effective as of June 1979. Improvement of present right-of-way
would be preferable and adequate.

Response

See General Response H.

Comment

The economic benefit of maintaining and improving the nursery and feeding
grounds of the slough should be of value to commercial and sports fisheries.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

How will "ownership of comparable control" over sanctuary lands be achieved?
Will it involve relocation, regulation of development rights, or what?
What "attempts will be made ... to ensure that acquisition is as nondisruptive
as possible?"

Response

See General Response D. The proposed acquisition will be by negotiation, and
by definition this should be non-disruptive.

Comment

The FEIS should include a provision that no land will be condemned and
that fair market value will be paid for private land.

Response

See General response D.

Comment

Will there be any expansion of the PG&E tanker terminal near the mouth
of the slough in light of potential dredging and oil spill impact?

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

Pesticide use and potential Monterey Bay oil spills could harm the slough.
These threats must be dealt with.

Response

Comment accepted. Threats to the slough should be addressed by the appro-
priate agencies and will most likely be included in the Monterey County
LCP.

Cheryl Ann Hannan

(Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, 6/21/79)

Comment

Designation of the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important,
The Slough represents a very unique fauna because it was only opened to
the ocean for direct mixing with salt water when the Moss Landing harbor
was dredged in 1946. Much of the slough serves as a nursery for certain
offshore fauna. The slough is an ideal place for research because it is
accessible by boat, conducive to year-round SCUBA diving, and supports
intertidal mudflats accessible for studies. Elkhorn Slough provides
rewarding educational opportunities to a variety of persons. Natural
history studies are unique and interesting and may be destroyed by
heavy consumptive use. Protection of Elkhorn Slough will perhaps insure
that one inland estuarine system and the "natural flora and fauna" remain
intact along the California coast.

Response

Comment accepted.

Bobbie Harms

(Carmel, Ca. 6/15/79)

Comment

It is imperative that Elkhorn Slough be declared a sanctuary to protect
marine and other wildlife.

Response

Comment accepted.

Bob Harris

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Notes that landowners do not fault preservation of wildlife in the
slough but are concerned with their own preservation. Notes that the
Coastal Commission has put restrictions on agriculture that will close
down present operations, and they fear a similar fate in the slough
watershed area. They fear acquisition of land at less than the value
of land and improvements. Feels that affected landowners should have
been notified in writing of impending restrictions proposed in the
DEIS. Feels that the total area affected should be defined and

landowners should be notified and offered a chance to comment. Feels
that not enough facts about future management of the sanctuary have
been presented and recommends postponement until these issues are
resolved.

Response

Comment accepted. We have attempted to do this in the FEIS, especially
see General Response A.

Harry Hicks

(Public Meeting Statement, 6/22/79)

Comment

Concerned about the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Fish Hatchery
closing in Mount Shasta. Money for sanctuary might be better spent
keeping hatchery open.

Response

These are two separate proposals.

Rod Holmgren

(Public Hearing Statement, June 20, 1979)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough is one of the most highly productive habitats on this continent
It must be declared a sanctuary so it can be protected.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Some of the problems that should be studied in the sanctuary are:

- the effects of discharge of hot water from the PG & E Moss
Landing Plant;

- the effects of trace chemicals discharged into the slough;

- the effects of the slough on all forms of marine life in Monterey
Bay, with special emphasis on commercially useful fish and the
effects of oil spills on marine life in the estuary.

Response

Suggestions accepted.

Hopkins Marine Station
Alan Baldridge
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports designation of the sanctuary. Notes that availability of the
slough has aided the growth of marine science educational institutions
bordering Monterey Bay and also notes that Hopkins has made abundant
use of the slough for research and education. Feels that Elkhorn
Slough has national importance and is valuable for long term studies.
Notes that while Hopkins is primarily interested in invertebrates it
also feels that the health of the total environment is essential to
the survival of its parts.

Response

Comment accepted.

Dorris K. Horn, (7/7/79)

Comment:

Elkhorn Slough is a valuable wildlife habitat area that should be
protected. Many species of birds utilize this area for wintering
and stopovers during migration. Preserving this area is important
to people who enjoy the Slough for its asethetic and scientific values

Response:

Comment accepted.

Dan Hudson

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79, 7/10/79)

Comment

Expressed concern with the way the meeting has been handled, the way
notice was given, and the location of the hearing. Congressman Panetta
gave the impression that the hearing would be continued Friday and
would not be only an information meeting.

International Shellfish

Richard Kissinger (Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

The consultants that helped prepare EIS limited their contact with
International Shellfish to a 1 1/2 minute telephone call. This was
not enough time to explain the impacts and information needed. The
DEIS is not fact; it is rhetoric made up in Sacramento rather
than on the site.

Response

Additional information has been added about mariculture in the FEIS
body and the comments and responses section.

International Shellfish and Elkhorn Sea Farms

Scott Hennessy (Public Hearing Statement, June 20, 1979)

Comment

Mariculture should be included in any management plan for Elkhorn Slough.

Response

Comment accepted. Mariculture will be represented under "industry"
within the Property Owners Subcommittee.

International Shellfish tnterpnses
(Steven P. Henderson, 7/10/79)

Comment

The International Shellfish Enterprises is an advanced mariculture enter-
prise situated in Moss Landing, California. It has been licensed since
1973 to use designated areas of Elkhorn Slough for the breeding,
nursery, and growing of various species of oysters and clams. This has
enabled it to become a leading example of the potential and value of
commercial mariculture. The International Shellfish Enterprises has estab-
lished a constructive and favorable professional reputation throughout
the U.S. and abroad. The company's production is dependent, to a major
degree, upon the quality of the waters in Elkhorn Slough, and thus many
of their objectives clearly match the goals and objectives for the mainte-
nance of a natural estuarine balance, as outlined in the Estuarine

Sanctuary guidelines. The ability to survive as a commercial enterprise,
and as an ongoing laboratory for maricultural development, is acutely
dependent upon continued access to slough waters. This includes the
implementation of Elkhorn Slough and its preservation in an undeveloped
state. At the same time, International Shellfish is worried about the
burden of additional layers of governmental regulations and the unpre-
dictable impact that a new management agency may have upon both existing
and proclaimed policies and objectives. The proposed sanctuary will do
much to advance the preservation of the slough. The International Shellfish
Enterprise is a source of support and a reinforcement of the recognition
of the value of aquaculture.

Response

Comment accepted. OCZM and California Fish and Game support mariculture in
Elkhorn Slough. We agree that the goals are compatible and look forward to
the possiblities of mutually beneficial research. The waters are not with-
in the proposed sanctuary boundary and you will continue to lease from the

MLHD.

Comment

The Madrone Associates Stucly created substantial ambiguity on the subject
of mariculture. On pages 131-132 of this stud(y, there is claim that the
"opportunity for commercial mariculture will benefit...." and on page 36-38
there is a recommendation that only "small-scale commercial mariculture"
be allowed as a compatible resource use within the proposed sanctuary.
How will these terms be interpreted by a new management agency, the
proposed Sanctuary Advisory Committee, and other groups having influence
over use of the slough waters if the area becomes a sanctuary? Classification
of International Shellfish operation in relation to these terms should be
given, as well as written assurance that these operations, as planned and
under implementation, will not be required to undergo change as a conse-
quence of sanctuary designation. Because mariculture is still an imprecise
art, subject to change and refinement in terms of operational application,
assurance of an understanding and responsive agency will be needed for
matters of permit modification. The DEIS does not clarify the ambiguities
referred to, and fails to adequately identify the needs of mariculture
and its opportunity for continued existence and compatibility within the
proposed sanctuary. This matter should be resolved.

Response

As stated previously, mariculture is a desired use of Elkhorn Slough. The
size and number of operations is the responsibility of State or local
agencies. Assurance is given that your present or planned operation will
not be required to undergo change as a consequence of sanctuary designation.
Assurances are also given that mariculture will be viewed by NOAA/OCZM, and
the California Department of Game and Fish, to be a positive use compatible
with the proposed estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

The sanctuary "buffer zone" is not discussed in detail in the DEIS but
continued reference is made to Sanctuary Management working closely with
other existing (governmental) agencies to amend procedures as neccessary.
What types of consequences might the Sanctuary Management group determine
to be an interference? Will existing regulations be altered to create
an additional burden on those living and operating within the buffer
zone? The following questions should be addressed and satisfactorily
answered:

1. Will there be a "buffer zone" or perimeter influence area that will
be subject to regulatory change as a direct or implied consequence of
Sanctuary Management needs.

2. Whether or not such a "buffer zone" exists either in fact or in prac-
tice, what future influence will the sanctuary impose on existing water
quality and air quality standards as applied in the peripheral area?

Response

No buffer zone will exist in fact or in practice. The sanctuary, itself,
will not affect existing or future water quality standards. See General
Response A.

Comment

How will management disputes be resolved when differences of opinion
occur among the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California State
Department of Fish and Game, and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee
(S.A.C.) (generally and especially in relation to those "approved"
authorities granted to S.A.C.)?

Response

Cooperation is obviously the goal, but each agency has legal responsi-
bility to manage lands according to either Federal or State Law. Differ-
ences of opinion will remain as such. The Advisory Committee is designed
to minimize difference, but does not have authority to legally resolve
them.

Comment

How can effective cooperation exist between the Sanctuary Management
group and the Moss Landing Harbor District when the latter agency, which
is given continued jurisdiction over Slough waters in the Sanctuary plan,
has publicly proclaimed their opposition to the Sanctuary (Resolution
223, May 10, 1979)?

Response

If the estuarine sanctuary grant is awarded, it is hoped that the Moss
Landing Harbor District will be a positive member of the Advisory Committee
The MLHD, or any other member, may request to be taken off the advisory
committee at any time.

Comment

Is it possible that U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service lands could be transferred
to the Sanctuary or vice versa as a consequence of the proposed actions or
in the event of management disputes?

Response

It is not legally possible.

Comment

Is there any way in which the slough waters could or might be taken from
the jurisdictional control of the Moss Landing Harbor District; if so when
and how could this occur and what would trigger or stimulate such action?

Response

This is not known. We presume that the State Legislature/Governor could pass
a law to this effect.

Comment

Since a part of the effective sanctuary area is to include U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service lands, is it possible in the future management of the
sanctuary that the California State sovereignties could erode and in turn
be influenced and/or controlled by Federal directives?

Response

Legally or practically it is not yery likely.

Comment

What guarantees will exist, in advance of the formal approval for the
sanctuary, that the featured public benefits (i.e., land and water recre-
ational opportunity, wildlife observation, commercial mariculture, fishing,
hunting, etc.) will survive the creation and management of the sanctuary
over time?

Response

There are always legal remedies for any substantial changes in the use of an
estuarine sanctuary. This type of question is difficult to answer since no
guarantee can be given that commercial mariculture, wildlife observation,
or recreation will survive over time.

Comment

What changes in attitude and/or law will occur with respect to the consid-
eration of residential and commercial development or expansion? What will
be the impact on highway and rural traffic patterns in the peripheral areas?
Will any restrictions evolve regarding trucking and commercial vehicles in
the influence zone of the Sanctuary? Would Sanctuary status specifically
preclude the re-routing of Highway 1 through the Sanctuary should the State
Department of Transportation decide to pursue reconstruction or re-routing
between Castroville and Watsonville?

Response

See General Responses A and H.

Comment

Should drainage from peripheral areas by considered detrimental to the manage-
ment of the Sanctuary by the then acting management agency or agencies, what
power and influence would exist and combine to force a change in existing
drainage and wastewater management regulations and polices? What types
of changes could be anticipated? Would Sanctuary status and subsequent
sanctuary management cause any change in the existing rights of peripheral
or influence zone property owners to claim and/or extract water from wells
and/or existing streams? Could Class 1 Air Quality Control designations
by applied to the influence zone areas as a consequence of the need for
effective sanctuary management?

Response

See General Reponse A. However, it should be recognized that existing Federal
and State Law control air and water quality. The proposed sanctuary will not.

Comment

Could mariculture be deemed compatible at one point and later classified as
incompatible by management authority? What is the jurisdictional authority
of the Sanctuary Management group to (objective B) "Preserve and maintain
the Slough for ecological and cultural /historical research ..." when
those very waters will be owned by (California) State Lands and managed
by the Moss Landing Harbor District?

Response

As stated, mariculture is currently, and will be for the foreseeable
future compatible. We do not expect or forsee this situation changing.
There is no jurisdictional control over the Elkhorn Slough water; it is
retained by the Moss Landing Harbor District.

Comment

Why do you consider that the "no-action" alternative (referenced on page 23)

would have adverse environmental effects on the area? Is it not true that
a carefully adopted Local Coastal Plan, through the auspices of the Cali-
fornia State Coastal Commission, could perserve many of the "net benefits"
and probably at a lower cost to government. Is this not a realistic
alternative that should be considered?

Response

If it were possible for the LCP to exclude development over 1500 acres of
land and provide education and research opportunities over time, it would
be the preferred alternative. However, we do not consider this to be a
realistic alternative for establishing an estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

What acts constitute "tampering with the natural system" and what is consider-
ed "manipulative research" as referred to in the DEIS? Is it possible that
mari culture could be classed as one of these and thus be considered disruptive
or unacceptable within the sanctuary boundaries?

Response

Basically, manipulation or "tampering with the natural environment" involves
an alteration to the natural environment for human needs. The filling or
dredging of wetlands is an example. Mariculture does not take place within
the proposed boundaries. However, we feel mariculture is relatively non-dis-
ruptive to the national system and would be acceptable if it were within the
boundaries.

Comment

On page 35 of the DEIS under paragraph 5, there is a reference to oyster growth
(on racks) that it "... is stimulated by the warm water discharge from Pacific
Gas and Electric." This statement is in error. We have used these racks more
than 3 years and have not been able to measure any such "stimulation" or other
associated benefit.

Response

This reference has been omitted; further research is recommended on this subject.

Comment

In addition to the Industrial and Commercial listing on page 33, you should
add the names of the following for commercial mariculture purposes:

Pacific Mariculture, Inc.
Pigeon Point Shellfish Hatchery
American Shellfish Corporation
International Shellfish Enterprises
Response

Comment accepted, and additions made.

Jane Jewett, (6/20/79)
Comment:

There is a very important perspective that many people have not considered,
it is the value of the Slough as a human experience providing pleasure and
enjoyment. There is so little left to save in California - certainly
nothing like Elkhorn Slough. It would be wrong to let this opportunity
slip away.

Response:

Comment accepted.

Robert Jazwin, Castroville, Ca., 7/8/79

Comment

Is in strong agreement with the concept of keeping this area as
beautiful as possible. The Elkhorn Slough project has not been and
cannot be effectively managed as it is now structured. It is the
responsibility of Federal /State agencies to make contact and advise of
the scope and effect of the proposal. Jazwin feels that he cannot make any
substantial comment regarding the fairness of the offer until one is
made. The notice of hearings has been mismanaged. Notes that the Depart-
ment of Fish and Game have only provided an approximation of effects the
proposed sanctuary would have on his property. Questions the impact of
sanctuary acquisitions on mortages if land is sold and the balance is
due on the whole property. States that unless this issue is addressed,
people may lose their property even if most of it is not intended to be
purchased. Feels that the planning of this project is difficult to
manage and later acquisition will be even more difficult because of the
fuzziness of management issues and lack of public participation.

Response

See General Responses B and D. The question of effect on mortgages should
be discussed with Mr. Schmidt of the Wildlife Conservation Board. A partial
release might be a viable alternative. The California Fish and Game
Department manages thousands of acres in California similar to Elkhorn
Slough. In Elkhorn Slough, substantially more involvement by various
organizations (i.e. education, scientific, property owner, and fisher-
men) is proposed with the creation of the Advisory Committee.

Comment

There should be an election of the project manager and governing board.
Payments of fair market price for all land acquired should be made and
responsibility should be taken for solving any legal questions arising from
transfer of only a portion of a parcel. Property owners should be allowed
to participate and manage the sanctuary so homeowners can remain living
in the area they have alreacfy preserved. Affected parties should be con-
tacted directly rather than allowing them to discover for themselves intended
plans, and sufficient information should be provided that they can make
substantive comments. Recommends that if more land is needed for a buffer
zone around the sanctuary, it should be purchased at fair market value.

Response

Election of the property manager and the governing board is not possible
because of State and OCZM requirements. Fair market value will be paid for

all purchased land (see General Response D) and the State will ensure that
no legal problems arise from the sale of a portion of any parcel. It is the
intent of Public Law 91-646 that the public will compensate any property owners
for any additional expenses incurred by selling to a public agency. All
property owners have been sent an assessor's map roughly depicting the pro-
posed acquisitions. There will be no buffer lands, and any lands within the
sanctuary boundaries shall be purchased at fair market value.

Gregory L. Johnson

(Watsonville, Ca. 6/22/79, Public Meeting Statement, 7/11/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough should not be designated as an Estuarine Sanctuary.

The preparers of the DEIS expressed great concern over the protection of

various plants and animals but made yery little mention of the impact

on property owners and residents surrounding the proposed sanctuary.
The $1000 per acre assessment of proposed sanctuary land is barely 10%
of the fair market value.

Response

See General Responses A and D.

Comment

Landowners and residents should have an opportunity to express their
concerns. Other participants at the public hearing were given advance
notice and were well prepared.

Response

See General Response B.

Comment

Why fund research on obscure plants and animal life?

Response

Sulfa drugs, synfuels, and many other important products now or soon to be
in everyday use come from research on obscure plants and animal life.

Comment

At the hearing there was a total lack of concern for agricultural
interests that would be affected by this proposal. Reference to regu-
lations on agriculture in the sanctuary buffer zone is lacking.

Response

See General Responses A and I.

Comment

The government will implement condemnation proceedings, forcing sale of
home and property at greatly reduced price and relocation of families.
Elkhorn Slough is already protected and regulated by a number of State
and Federal Agencies. Seizure of private lands is not warranted.

Response

See General Response D. Legally, such condemnation and seizure is not
possible. Also see General Response E.

Christine Jong

(Soqual, Ca., 6/8/79)

Comment

Expresses support for Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. The slough is
a unique area--one of the only remaining undeveloped salt marshes on
the Pacific coast. The slough provides refuge for many migrating birds,
several species of endangered animals and plants, and is important to
many populations of fish and invertebrate species--some of commercial
value. The slough is needed for recreation, is important to scientific
research, and serves as a model for understanding shallow water processes
Public recreation and education programs should reflect these values.
Funds for the project should be made available as soon as possible.

Response

Commented accepted.

James Josoff

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Feels that the sanctuary proposal is another "land grab." Feels that
resource protection zones will encompass a huge area around the sanctuary.

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

Contradicts the scientific testimony on the value of the estuary, based
on a March 24, 1979, article of Science News, claiming that estuaries
are not ecologically vital for the species that inhabit them.

Response

There are differences of opinion regarding the content of the referenced
article.

Kaiser Refractories

(Jack Elmor, 6/Z0//9, John T. Corcia, 6/22/79, Public Hearing Statement)

Comment

In the DEIS it is stated that "Kaiser Refractories. . .will not be affect-
ed." The DEIS does not address several areas that should be of concern
to surrounding property owners as well as to Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical
Corporation. NOAA and the California Department of Fish and Game have con-
demnation authority. Will they or other agencies on their behalf use
condemnation procedures in cases where the property owners are unwilling
to sell?

Response

See General Response D. The use of condemnation is not foreseen on
land owned by Kaiser.

Comment

Parcel #7 is essential for Kaiser's groundwater operations. What pro-
visions will be made to insure and protect present and future water
supplies and pipeline rights of way?

Response

Negotiation with Kaiser will be made on a willing seller-buyer basis, and
the State recognizes concern about groundwater supplies, pipeline rights
of way, or other uses (See above also).

Comment

The DEIS fails to recognize the impact of the sanctuary under the Federal
Clean Air Act of 1977. Designation of a Class I air area could effect
surrounding area.

Response

There will be no impact; also see General Response A.

Comment

What effluent discharges to the sanctuary will be allowed and what re-
strictions will be imposed?

Response

The sanctuary will not affect any discharges/restrictions which currently
exist under State or Federal law. See General Response A.

Comment

The establishment of Coos Bay Estuarine Sanctuary has had a significant
negative effect on industrial development. Will the establishment of
Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary discourage future development

at Moss Landing? What specific new rules will be imposed on surrounding
areas that might effect future development?

Response

Erroneous information has been disseminated about the South Slough (Coos
Bay) Estuarine Sanctuary. There is no legal mechanism for any sanctuary
to influence activities outside its boundaries.

Comment

The discussion of "buffer zones" is not adequately addressed in the
DEIS. If the sanctuary is approved, would it be possible to expand land
areas at a later date, such as to include Moro Cojo Slough and land between
it and Elkhorn Slough?

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

Will transportation (rail, truck, or marine) in and around the sanctuary
be restricted in the future and, if so, what specific rules and regula-
tion could apply? The DEIS discusses the beneficial effects of increased
access but fails to discuss whether property owners will be required to
provide access.

Response

Transportation will not be affected. For the effects on Highway 1 see
General Response H. Private property owners outside the sanctuary boundar-
ies will not be required to provide access. Also see General Response G.

Comment

The DEIS should be rewritten to address both economic and environmental
impacts.

Response

The FEIS reflects economic and environmental impacts that were brought to
our attention.

Comment

The duties of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee appear to extend influence
beyond the boundaries of the sanctuary.

Response

The authority of the Advisory Committee is defined in the FEIS. Any
actual influence will be purely advisory, only in those areas mentioned.

Kirby Ranch Road Association

Greg Johnson, (Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Members of the association have property in the proposed buffer zone,
and property is proposed for acquisition. The affected property owners
have not been contacted. Contrary to section 921.21(a) of the Federal
guidelines, affected property owners and agricultural interests have
not been considered. The impact of sanctuary designation on property
owners is not discussed in the DEIS. Only the directly affected are in
favor of the sanctuary and these sanctuary proponents are out to stop
agricultural use, industry, or anything that will conflict with bird-
watching.

Response

See General Responses A and E. Affected property owners have been
contacted and the impact on them is addressed in the FEIS. We do not
feel that the DEIS or FEIS indicates a desire to "stop" existing
activities.

Comment

The amount of money appropriated will be only 10% of the proposed
acquisition, at fair market value. The DEIS does not mention
appraisal of property to be acquired. The loss of property taxes
is grossly underrated in the DEIS. It is less than 10% of the actual
property tax loss.

Response

See General Response D.

Comment

If the planning and organization of the public meetings is any example
of the ability involved organizations have to plan for the sanctuary,
we are in trouble. There is no need for another "cancerous growth" of
bureaucracy in the area and property owners should band together
to stop this proposal.

Response

See General Response A,B, and E.

Sylvia Knapton, 7/10/79

Comment:

It is important to preserve this precious Elkhorn environment for future
generations. The establishment of the Sanctuary will enhance life for the
residents of Monterey Bay - educationally, recreational ly, even commercially

Response:

Comment accepted. Ms. Knapton also submitted a chart suggesting uses of
the marine education center, we wish to thank her for her excellent
suggestions, these will be taken into account in the management of the
Sanctuary.

Nada Kovalik, (6/18/79)

Comment:

Elkhorn slough is important and beautiful and it must be preserved. The
slough is the mother and protector of many forms of life.

Response:
Comment accepted.

Frances and Jefferson Lackey
(Pebble Beach, Ca. , 7/4/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough is a most important natural resource for California Coastal
waters. No commercial or recreational activities should be allowed to
expand to the extent of endangering the marine productivity of the coast.

Response

Comment accepted.

Betty Landess

(Property Owner, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

There is a need for a bird and marine sanctuary, but property owners
are concerned with due process, such as receiving proper advance
notice and information on the future public meetings.

Response

Comment accepted. See General Response B.

T. B. Landress, (7/10/79)

(Property owner in Elkhorn at Elkhorn Road, Strawberry, and Hidden Valley

Road)

Comment:

Opposes the "Elkhorn takeover". The property owners have been taking
care of the property for years, and want to continue to preserve it,"
without the government. How big will the restricted zone be?

Response:

See General Responses A and E.

Glynn and Lorri Lockwood
(Big Sur, Ca. 6/22//9)

Comment

The designation of Elkhorn Slough as an Estuarine Sanctuary is important,

Response

Comment accepted.

Kay and Carl Larson

(Monterey, Ca. , 6/19/79)

Comment

Establishment of an Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important.
The slough is a unique and fragile wetland, highly vulnerable to contam-
ination from urbanization or commercial enterprises, and easily des-
troyed by human intrusion. The slough desperately needs its scientific,
educational, and natural economic values protected, particularly the
Monterey Bay Fishing Industry. The slough supports spawning grounds, is
a habitat for amphibians and small mammals, and is a permanent or sea-
sonal residence for around 150 avian species, including the endangered
California clapper rail and the brown pelican. Well -organized and
well -financed organizations exert extreme pressures on local government
and agencies to abandon restrictions. The California Coastal Council is
one such developer. Monterey Bay -based Fishermen's Organizations are
not opposed to protecting the slough, the nursery of their livelihood, but
may be leery of federal controls of any kind. Fishermen's opposition
may be aleviated if the California State Fish and Game is made lead
management agency.

Response

Comment accepted. However, all comments will be considered prior to
a final decision. The California State Fish and Game is the lead
management agency.

League of Women Voters of the Monterey Peninsula

(Caroline Sage, President, 6/20//9) and

(Mary Ann Mathews, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

The proposal to designate Elkhorn Slough as an Estuarine Sanctuary is
important. Without the protection of sanctuary status, the slough, which
is already threatened by potential oil spillage from the PG&E facilities
at Moss Landing and by overdevelopment in its watershed, will go the way
of other estuarine systems in California. Elkhorn Slough provides an
invaluable habitat for breeding fish and various other forms of wild
flora and fauna. The slough is an outdoor laboratory for students and
scientists from many schools in Monterey County and surrounding areas.
Elkhorn Slough is a non-renewable resource which, once destroyed, cannot
be brought back. OCZM should accept the DEIS and proceed with sanctuary
designation.

Response

Comment accepted.

Mavis A. Martin, (undated)

Comment:

There is no advantage to spending millions of dollars buying property
that is already being taken care of by the owners who are paying taxes.
The area is already strictly regulated, so the danger of further deter-
ioration is pretty remote. The designation of the Sanctuary is unnecessary

Response:

Your concern will be considered by the Office of Coastal Zone Management
before the Sanctuary is designated. Also see General Response E.

Melvin Martins, (undated)

Comment:

The formation of a Sanctuary will provide assurance that there will be
a place to moor his boat in the mooring basin. The Moss Landing Harbor
should be maintained for the fishing industry, much needed new berths
should be built, and the Sanctuary should not include this part of the
Slough. Moss Landing Harbor is now protected with many Commissions,
Committees and Agencies. The Sanctuary may jeopardize the fishing
industry.

Response:

See General Response A. The sanctuary will not impact activities in
Moss Landing Harbor, including mooring of boats.

Mrs. W.V. Gramham Matthews

(Carmel Valley, Ca., 7/3/79)

Comment

Supports the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. Scientific,
economic, and educational values have been recognized by specialists for
years but only recently has the public become aware of this multi-purpose
resource. The estuarine sanctuary proposal is a timely effort to prevent
dredging, filling, and pollution. Earlier efforts were made to identify
sensitive and threatened coastal areas along Monterey County, but were
thwarted by pressures from development, industry, Moss Landing Harbor
District, and landowners. The Fish and Wildlife Service's proposed
Wildlife Sanctuary on the north and west of the slough should be established.
The sanctuary will serve as a benefit to the whole area.

Response

Comment accepted.

Dolores McGlochlin, (7/5/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough should be protected.

Response
Comment accepted.

Marilyn D. McLoughlin, (undated)

Comment:

Supports establishment of Elkhorn Slough as an Estuarine Sanctuary to maintain
the Slough as a valuable resting place for numerous bird species;
protected growth area for juvenile commercial and sport fish; and an
irreplaceable facility for biological and botanical education.

Response:

Comment accepted.

Dr. and Mrs. H. Medwin
(6/21/79)

Comment

Establishment of the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important,
Natural resources are being destroyed by development, pollution, etc,
It is most important to preserve what is left.

Response

Comment accepted.

Mr. & Mrs. David Metz
(Carmel, Ca., 7/7/79)

Comment

Concerned about protecting Elkhorn Slough for future generations. We
must cease dredging, filling, and pollution. Elkhorn Slough is one of
the few natural estuaries left in California.

Response
Comment accepted.

Elizabeth Monning, (7/7/79)
Comment:

Preserving Elkhorn Slough as an Estuarine Sanctuary is vitally important.
Response:

Comment accepted.

Monterey Bay Aquarium Foundation
(Stephen K. Webster, b////9)

Comment

The Slough is important as a resource for outdoor education and interpretive
programs. The great abundance and diversity of organisms and habitat types
within the Slough is valuable. It must be protected in its natural state
and utilized as a center for public education.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The vociferous opposition to the sanctuary program being mounted by property
owners and others with economic interests is both predictable and understand-
able. It should not carry more weight than it deserves in the deliberations
concerning the future of Elkhorn Slough.

Response

Careful consideration is being given to all who have expressed concern.

Monterey County Foundation of Concern, Inc.

IHeiimut L. Meyer, txecutive . ui rector, 7/6/79, public hearing presentation,
and public meeting)

Comment

r^au6S flrm °PP°sUion t0 the establishment of an estuarine sanctuary for
Uknorn Slough at Moss Landing. Remains unconvinced of the alledged need
to regulate uses and activities outside the sanctuary." Neither PG & E's
or Kaiser Refractories operations have had any observable or documented
impact and to establish "a functional buffer from human activities and
disturbances, when such activities have coexisted without any inimical
effects on the fauna for all these years, is not necessary.

Response

See General Response A and E.

Comment

Funds available for land purchase above the 10-15 foot contour line
offer current property owners less that one-fifth of the money they paid
for it and about one-tenth of its current market value. This is unreal-
istic and in contravention to the law, which precludes the taking of private
lands for public use without just compensation. The proposed sanctuary
has alreaaV served to cloud title on properties in this area.

Response

See General Response D. We have no presented proof that the sanctuary has
clouded any titles in the area.

Comment

The DEIS does not spell out possible restrictions that might be imposed
on persons in the area immediately outside the proposed sanctuary boun-
dary.

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

How will the sanctuary regulations relate to the interpretation of
California Statute 1968, Chapter 1257, #1583 which states "it is un-
lawful to enter upon any ecological reserves established under the pro-
visions of this article or to take therein any ... fish, mollusks,
crustaceans ... except in accordance with the regulations of the com-
mission ..."?

Response

This regulation does not apply to the estuarine sanctuary, since the
water area, which includes substantial mudflats, is not within the
proposed boundary.

Comment

If an Environmental Impact Review is required under the California
Environmental Quality Act for PG&E transmission lines or for any
development in which there may exist adverse impacts on the environ-
ment, the onus of proof and the expense involved should rest with the
State.

Response

The intent of the California Environmental Quality Act places the burden
on the applicant proposing changes affecting the environment. OCZM or
the Federal Government has no influence over the provisions of this Act.

Comment

Why are existing authorities deemed insufficient to preserve the "en-
dangered" fauna of Elkhorn Slough unless an estuarine sanctuary is es-
tablished? The proposed sanctuary represents another unneeded layer
of government, which would serve to restrict commercial and recreational
fishermen, disenfranchise property owners, and throw farmers off their
land.

Response

See General Response A and E.

Comment

Paragraph 921.21 of the Federal Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines covering
citizen participation, location, and notice for public hearings and
notice of property owners has not been met. The hearing should have
been in Castroville.

Response

We feel all provisions of our guidelines have been met. The public
hearing in Monterey was in the project area (20-25 miles from Elkhorn
Slough). However, to avoid any inconveniences, two meetings were held
in Castroville. Also see General Response B.

Monterey Peninsula Audubon Society
Jud Vandever
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

States that they have studied the DEIS, find it adequate and, are very
pleased with it. States that the Audubon Society is in full sympathy
with the creation of such a sanctuary. Suggest (p. 33) listing the
Monterey Peninsula College as a user of the slough.

Response

Comment accepted, suggestion added to FEIS.

Mrs. James Moody

(Carmel, Ca., 7/6/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough is a unique feature of the California coastal ecology,
important feeding and breeding grounds for many species of fish and
mollusks, a vital stop-over for thousands of migratory waterfowl, and it
supports one of the finest stands of salicornia on the West Coast. The
Nature Conservancy protects a portion of the slough, and sanctuary status
will facilitate similar protection for the rest of the slough. The
slough must be preserved while there is still time.

Response

Comment accepted.

Margaret Moody, (7/6/79)

Comment:

Elkhorn Slough in Monterey County is a unique feature of our coastal ecology.
These waters are important feeding and breeding grounds for many species
of fish and mollusks. It is a vital stop-off for thousands of migratory
duck and shorebords. The bordering wetlands are fairly active with dowitchers,
dunlins, egrets, yellowlegs, etc., as well as some species of duck, such as
mallard and teal which remain to nest in the territory. The Slough contains
one of the finest stands of salicornia on the West Coast. The Slough must
be protected while there is still time.

Response:

Comment accepted.

Earl L. and Lois L. Moser
(Carmel, Ca., 7/10/79)

Comment

Too many wetlands along the U.S. Pacific Coast have been destroyed,
and Elkhorn Slough is among the remaining. It should be protected as a
breeding and nursery area for many ocean species. Supports the proposed
Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary.

Response
Comment accepted.

Moss Landing Chamber of Commerce
(Donald Dunsford, Member, June 1979)

Comment

Do not create any Federal or State managed sanctuary in or around Elkhorn
Slough.

Response

Comment will be taken into consideration.

Moss Landing Commercial Fishermen Association

Dave Danbom, President, (Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

The people in Castroville will be paying the bill for the sanctuary
and that is why the testimony is different from that in Monterey.
Commercial fishermen are concerned about the environment and will
suffer from environmental loss. Commercial fishermen would like to
see the slough as it is; they are not supporting major industrial or
commercial development on the slough, or removal of the bridge. In-
forr'.^.ion provided by Bob Hudson from the Coos Bay Sanctuary District
indicates that the sanctuary designation has stopped everything, pile
driving, harbor expansion, etc. Because of this, the membership voted
to oppose the estuarine sanctuary.

Response

See General Response A. We feel that estuarine sanctuary status will
not basically change the present status of the area. The information
provided regarding the Coos Bay Estuarine Sanctuary is erroneous.

Moss Landing Commercial Fisherman

(Edward A. Martin, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Martin is not opposed to Elkhorn Slough becoming an estuarine sanctuary
but does oppose the "wholesale rape" of property owners, sport fishermen,
hunters, and commercial fishermen if the sanctuary comes into being and
a dozen agencies govern it. It will be too valuable for public use;
only a few students and the environmental community will be able to
use it.

Response

We do not agree that only a few students and the environmental community

will be able to use the slough. One reason for acquiring property

is to provide more access for the general public to see and use the area

in a constructive way, including property owners, sport fishermen, hunters,

etc.

Comment

The slough is a valuable nursery area for fish. However, the estimate
given for the percentage of commercial oceanic species originating in
the slough (40%) is a gross exaggeration. The impact of the slough
on commercial fishing is very minimal.

Response

We agree that the impact of the slough on commercial fishing fleets is
minimal. The economics of species originating in the slough would
be an excellent research project for future study.

Comment

Criticizes the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary (i.e. to provide
long term research and education and to provide information essential
to coastal zone management decisionmaking), saying that this is like
raising beef for a monster.

Response

California law gives authority to various levels of government to reg-
ulate, control, and manage the coastal zone of the State whether or
not a sanctuary is established. The knowledge which the sanctuary
research and education will provide can be used to make better, more
informed governmental decisions which impact on the use of similar
estuarine environments along the entire coast. We believe this is a
desirable benefit for all people who reside, work, and recreate on the
California coast.

Comment

The DEIS fails to show how this project is going to be funded after
three years. Will the funds come from increased taxes in Monterey
County?

Response

After three years, the funding responsibility rests with the State.
Funds will come from the CF&G Department Budget or from outside grants
for management, research, or operations.

Comment

Landowners, farmers, commercial fishermen, and industrial representatives
are not listed on the proposed Advisory Committee.

Response

These representatives have been added. See General Response I.

Comment

If the sanctuary is limited to the high water mark without excessive
"buffer zones", it will receive more support.

Response

The rationale for acquiring land up to the 10 foot contour line (and
above that line for certain purposes) is explained in General Response
E. The "buffer zones" that were involved in the Madrone Study are not
incorporated in the sanctuary proposal. See General Response A.

Comment

Unless it is written into the law that the proposed sanctuary will not
hinder commercial fishermen or any of their support facilities, in-
cluding additional berthing, shipyards, fuel docks, buying stations, and
any other facility deemed necessary to the fishing industry, we could
not support the estuarine sanctuary and suggest no action be taken.

Response

Language was added to the FEIS clearly stating that the proposed sanctuary
will not hinder commercial fishermen or any of their facilities.

Moss Landing Commercial Fishermen's Association
(Lillian Martins, no date)

Comment

Opposes the establishment of Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. The
slough and the fauna are alreacjy protected by Federal, State, and local
legislation, commissions, and agencies. Public funds will be used to
buy land for the sanctuary that will not be for public use. No thought
will be given to friends and neighbors who own land in the proposed
sanctuary region and in the buffer zone nor to the loss of tax revenue
on the land to be acquired or in the buffer zone. The 36 estimated land
acquisition parcels include 1510 acres @ $1940.36 per acre (total acquisi-
tion $2,930,000). That is not near the going price in Monterey County.

Response

See General Response D and E. While it is true that the slough and fauna
are covered by various regulations, the sanctuary will provide an educa-
tional/scientific management plan for the slough which does not currently
exist. There will be no "buffer zones", see General Response A. The loss
of tax revenue has been estimated at $12,000.

Comment

The Marine Laboratory now has full use of the slough for "Research and
Education". What possible gain would there be from designating an
estuarine sanctuary?

Response

The establishment of a sanctuary would ensure the continued availability
of the slough for research and education in the future as well as the
present.

Comment

Increased research and visitor use could potentially produce adverse
impacts on natural resources (i.e. littering, water contamination, habitat
destruction, and tresspassing on private lands).

Response

See General Response G.

Comment

Proposed expansion of the Moss Landing Harbor and marinas will possibly
be prevented by the presence of the sanctuary. Development of a new
marina in the slough will be prohibited by the sanctuary.

Response

The expansion of Moss Harbor Landing is controlled by State laws and the
local zoning plan (LCP) and will not be affected by the sanctuary. The
same is true of the marina since this is also outside the sanctuary.

Comment

Commercial and industrial uses will suffer loss of property value.
Existing agricultural use will lose resale value and agricultural lands
will probably discontinue that use. Conversion of vegetative land to
cultivated speciality crops, such as strawberries, might be discouraged.

Response

The present industrial use by PG&E and Kaiser will not adversely affect
the sanctaury or vice versa. We also believe that agricultural lands
will not lose resale value, but will potentially gain in value.

Comment

A primary cause of air pollution is motor vehicle emission. Visitors
attracted to the sanctuary will increase emissions.

Response

Given the strict California laws on air pollution we feel that the State
-will ensure compliance with these laws. See General Response A, also.

Moss Landing Harbor District

George F. Humphries, (Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

The DEIS will become obsolete when the rules and regulations for
the sanctuary are drawn up. The Coastal Commissions and the
sanctuary will go far beyond its limits.

Response

The estuarine sanctuary proposal involves land acquisition of 1,500
acres, whereas the California Coastal Commission has regulatory powers
over the entire California Coastal Zone.

Comment

The Monterey location of the public hearings, with such poor facilities,
was not good salesmanship for the sanctuary.

Response

See General Response B. We agree that a larger facility would have
been better to handle the large number of people.

Comment

More access to the sanctuary will increase pollution. You'll have to
get rid of the hawks to save the clapper rails. This would be going
against the balance of nature.

Response

See General Response G.

Comment

The President of the Moss Landing Harbor Commission should not be on
the Governing Board of the Sanctuary. A Harbor Board Commissioner,
selected by the fellow commissioners should be on the Board.

Response

The composition of the Advisory Committee is designed to provide maximum
representation for all interests, which includes the Chairman of the Moss
Landing Harbor District. The Chairman may appoint any fellow commissioner
to represent the Commission on the Elkhorn Slough Advisory Committee.

Moss Landing Harbor District

(Werner D. Meyerberg, Attorney, Public Hearing Statement, June 20, 1979)

Comment

Regulations require 30 days notice of public hearing and distribution of
DEIS.

Response

A public hearing cannot be held any sooner than 30 days after OCZM issues
a statement, but can be held within 15 days public notice. (See §921.21
of Appendix 1 and §1506.6 of the NEPA Regulations.)

Comment

The Moss Landing Board found out about the hearing by accident and received a
copy of the document at the 6/20/79 hearing.

Response

A copy was mailed in May. We appologize for the inconvenience resultinq from
your not receiving it. b

Comment

The extension of the comment period to July 11 (15 days) is not sufficient.
A JO-day extension should be granted.

Response

See General Response B.

Comment

A public hearing should be held in the "area affected" as close to the
Slough as possible.

Response

We agree, and subsequently two Public Meetings were held in Castroville.
See General Response B.

Comment

The Moss Landing Board of Commissioners passed a resolution stating that
the sanctuary will:

- deprive people of use of land

- add unneeded layer of government

- not afford additional protection to fish & wildlife not covered by
present laws and government

- inhibit commercial and agricultural activities

- based on experience in Coos Bay, Oregon, impose restrictions
precluding expansion or maintenance, and restrictions on pleasure
boaters and fishermen.

The Harbor Commissioners oppose establishment of the sanctuary.

Response

We accept the resolution as an expression of your concerns and interest
but do not feel it accurately describes the impacts of the the proposed
estuarine sanctuary as outlined in the FEIS.

Moss Landing Harbor District

William Wimmer, Manager (Summary of Comments made at

June 20th heading, June 22 meeting and July 10th meeting)

Comment

(on June 20, 1979)

Requested an extension of three weeks for submitting comments, and requested
a meeting be held in the vicinity of the project with adequate public
notice.

Response

The comment period was extended 15 days and two meetings were held.

Comment

The only endangered species in the Elkhorn Slough area are people....
who don't need more bureaucracy.

Response

"Bureacracy" over lands outside the proposed boundaries will not occur.
Within the boundaries, efficient management is the goal.

Comment

Present and former agricultural lands will be lost (p.20-DEIS) by imposing
regulation. Farming helps provide nutrients for the slough.

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

The statement that the no-action alternative is contrary to the public
interest is inaccurate.

Response

The FEIS documents the benefits to the public.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

(Gregor M. Cailliet, Ph.D., 6/6/79, 7/9/79, Public Meeting Statement, 7/11/79)

Comment

The DEIS is accurate and presentd potential impact. Supports the proposal
for the Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary as a professor of biology, a
citizen, and a resident of Monterey County. The Estuarine Sanctuary plan

is important for maintenance and enhancement of breeding areas of
commercially important species. The sanctuary will not affect commercial
fisheries in Monterey Bay nor normal harbor activities of commercial and
recreational vessels. There will be positive impacts on research, education,
public access, and economy (from increased involvement and enrollment by
students studying the slough). Supports protection of disappearing wetlands;
we must utilize funds now available and protect wildlife habitats from
development pressure.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Sanctuary designation may be necessary to protect the fish in the slough
for commercial fisheries. The Sanctuary can enhance recreational and
educational opportunities for people.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Fish species, such as the Pacific Herring and the Northern Anchovy, as
well as the English Sole, need sanctuary protection.

Response

Comment accepted.

Commc t

Studies show that several commercial species of fish utilize Elkhorn
Slough waters, tidal creeks, and salt marshes in great numbers at least
during some portion of their lives. Sanctuary status would enhance and
protect use of the slough by fish, and would allow further study on the
slough-dependence of these species. The slough serves three main roles
in the life history of commercially important fish: as an area where some
larvae grow and thrive, as an area where several species of fish undergo
a considerable portion of their reproductive activities, and as an area
where juvenile individuals of commercially important species aggregate
to feed. It is difficult to estimate the commercial value of Elkhorn
Slough to local commercial fisheries. The slough must be of some signi-
ficant value to commercial fisheries in Monterey Bay because of the
41,700,000 pounds of fish, worth about $4,300,000, landed in Monterey
Bay 1n 1974, 41% of the poundage, or 25% of the total value, was repre-
sented by fish that spend part of their lives in the slough. Further
stucjy will refine these estimates, but it appears that Elkhorn Slough
waters help produce a considerable amount of income for the commercial
fishing industry. Elkhorn Slough should be seriously considered as
California's Estuarine Sanctuary to provide education and research
opportunities to citizens and educators alike.

Response
Comment accepted.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

(W.W. Broenkow, Professor of Oceanography, 5/25/79)

Comment

Supports establishment of Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary, noting that the
slough is and continues to be of considerable importance to teaching programs
in oceanography at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories. It is also the focus of
continuing research. Without sanctuary status, both teaching and research
will be reduced or hampered through development. The slough has unique
chemical and physical features; there is little interchange of water
between the slough and the Bay, so there should be little negative impact of
harbor development on Elkhorn Slough.

Response

Comment accepted.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratory
(Elaine Goepfert, 7/b//9)

Comment

As a student and employee at Moss Landing Marine Laboratory, feels direct
concern for preserving Elkhorn Slough for research and teaching. The
Laboratory's use of the slough has been expanding and long term experi-
mentation has begun. Elkhorn Slough is the only habitat of its kind
between San Francisco and Morro Bay, but its relatively undisturbed
character is endangered by development pressure. Notes concern about an
apparent collapse of the mudflats near the harbor, probably due to dredging,
and about expanded home construction in the slough drainage basin and
subsequent increase in sediment runoff, infauna population crash, and
detrimental consequence to Monterey Bay fishing industry. Notes that
the slough is an important breeding and/or wintering ground for many
bird species and is the habitat of the endangered Clapper rail and Santa
Cruz long-toed salamander and the rare estuarine snail Tryonia imitator.
Requests support for preserving this unique habitat and the species that
depend upon it for all who wish to understand the interaction between
living things and their environment.

Response

Comment accepted. To date, the Santa Cruz long-toed salamander has not
been documented to OCZM within the proposed sanctuary boundaries.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

(Thomas t. Harvey, 6/2U//9, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

A graduate student at MLML, Harvey is involved with research on breeding sea-
birds at the slough. He is presently conducting a population survey of en-
dangered California clapper rails for the CF&G. At least two individuals
were seen in early 1979 and breeding may have occured. The population of Calif-
ornia clapper rail is estimated at 6,000(1979), with 90% in the South
San Francisco Bay. Harvey supports Elkhorn Slough as an estuarme sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.
Comment

Research indicates that salt ponds are a critical part of the slough environ-
ment and should be included in sanctuary boundaries.

Response

Comment accepted, however salt ponds are within the boundary of the Fish
and Wildlife Refuge.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

(Ann C. Hurley, 6/20/79, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports designation of Elkhorn Slough as an estuarine sanctuary. It is
necessary to preserve valuable wildlife habitats which serve as breeding
and wintering areas for many species. The slough is a nursery ground for
important commercial fisheries of the area. It is crucial that funding be
given at this time since there are many development pressures, especially
harbor expansion and home construction.

Response

Comment accepted.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

(John H. Martin, Director, 7/9/79, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

OCZM should make Elkhorn Slough an estuarine sanctuary for education and
research. Notes that salt marshes in Connecticut are now parking lots and
warns against a similar fate for Elkhorn Slough. Opposition to the proposal
is from local landowners and business owners who fear government control
over their activities and who have spread rumors and have managed to
scare other individuals into supporting their cause.

Response

Comment accepted regardinq sanctuary. However, all comments are con-
sidered by OCZM.

Moss Landing Marine Laboratories

(James Nybakken, Professor, 6/11/79, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Would like to go on record in strong support of the establishment of this
sanctuary. Elkhorn Slough is the only habitat of its type between Moro Bay
and San Francisco Bay and functions as a repository for a number of species
not found elsewhere in the area. Areas like the slough are lacking and
needed for long term study.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The Tryonia imitator, a small snail, is currently being considered for
addition to the endangered species list and occurs only in Elkhorn Slough
and in two other areas in the State.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

The major clam species taken in the sports fishery, the gapher and the
Washington, are not found elsewhere in this area. A positive impact of
this sanctuary would be the protection of a unique habitat in central
California.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Another positive aspect of the sanctuary designation will be to offer
increased access to the public and possibly a positive economic benefit
to the area. Such access is now restricted to the Highway 1 Bridge and
Kirby Park. Increased access will also go far toward enhancing public
appreciation of estuaries.

Responses

Comment accepted. Also see General Response G.

Comment

Sanctuary status will not have any deleterious effect on the current
normal harbor activities. The Sanctuary should enhance commercial
fisheries by protecting the nursery grounds, which might otherwise be
degraded by development.

Response

Comment accepted. Also see General Response A.

Comment

Sanctuary status is of scientific, economic, and public interest. State
money is available now, but may not be in the future.

Response

Comment accepted.

Mo^J.andin3_Marine Labs

Bruce Stewart (Public Hearing Statement, June 20, 1979)

Comment

The full potential for Elkhorn Slough as a natural field laboratory has
not been realized.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Many requests for science tours of the slough cannot be filled due to
limited access and funding. Improved public access and careful management
of the slough will provide a resource for schools and community residents.
The planned visitors' center is an important element of the sanctuary plan.

Response

Comment accepted.

G. Victor More John
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
(Written Comment and Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough is an excellent place for ecological studies of estuarine
fish, birds, and mammals. The shorebird populations include numerous
species of migrant birds and the slough supports the only mainland rookery
of the Brown Pelican. The Harbor Seal uses the slough as do other marine
mammals. The long toed salamander is found in fresh water drainage
area of the slough, and the endangered clapper rail is found in the slough
The ecological integrity of this unspoiled area must be maintained so we
can study and learn about the interrelationships. The DEIS is well done.
Elkhorn Slough merits preservation as an estuarine sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Michael Foster
Moss Landing Marine Laboratories
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports designation of the sanctuary and feels the DEIS is generally
accurate and presents potential impacts well. Feels that the sanctuary
will preserve and enhance the commercial fisheries in Monterey Bay,
will not interfere with harbor activities, and will provide a natural
laboratory with educational benefits. Feels that further consideration
of water quality in the sanctuary is needed and it should be given
priority to the management framework. Feels that if the sanctuary proposal
fails, California may not support protection of other wetlands, especially
in light of fiscal constraints.

Response

Comment accepted.

William Murtha, (undated)

Comment:

Government control must stop. The Sanctuary is a mistake.

Response:

Your comments will be taken into account by the Office of Coastal Zone
Management before a decision is made.

Natural Resources Defense Council , Inc.
(Peter S. Holmes, 7/11//9)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough merits the maximum protection possible under the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program as a typical Californian class estuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Is there potential conflict in future management of the sanctuary and
adjacent Fish and Wildlife Service proposed wildlife refuge? "Coordinated
management policies" should be initiated immediately in order to identify
and work out conflicts. The role of the Moss Landing Harbor District (MLHD)
must be explicitly defined to avoid potential conflicting activities.
Interagency relationships must be thoroughly analyzed and defined in the
FEIS so that prohibited, permitted, and restricted uses within the sanctuary
can also be included to facilitate predictablity of management.

Response

The sanctuary and the USF&WS refuge will work together to help protect the
slough's watershed. There is no conflict. The USF&WS, MLHD, and others all
have representatives on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee to assure a "coordi
nated management policy."

The Nature Conservancy

(Diane Porter Cooley, Watsonville, CA. 6/16/79)

Comment

For over a century her family has lived on the edge of Elkhorn Slough and
have come to know and deeply appreciate its worth, not only as a home and
an evergreen summer pasture, but more significantly, as a vast ecological
link of life between land, fresh water and sea. They contributed their
property to the Nature Conservancy as a gift of personal affirmation and
emphasis to the overwhelming testimony of the immense biological signifi-
cance of the slough. Elkhorn Slough must be protected as an estuarine
sanctuary to protect and assure good stewardship of the rich and diverse
habitat of this natural heritage.

Response

Comment accepted, and the contribution of land indicates a strong personal
attachment to its preservation within the slough system.

The Nature Conservancy

(Thomas K. McCarthy (Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

The Conservancy considers the Elkhorn Slough as one of its top priority
projects and is actively engaged in land acquisition on the North end of
the Slough, offering additional protection outside the sanctuary's
boundaries and those of the proposed national wildlife refuge.

Response

The Nature Conservancy's interest and acquisitions are appreciated.

Comment

Endorses the DEIS and the proposed Sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

If the sanctuary is not designated, funds will not be available for the
purchase of needed lands.

Response

The basic decision is whether or not to award a OCZM matching land
acquisition grant.

Comment

Page 27 of the DEIS refers to 200 acres owned by the Conservancy. They
are prepared to transfer this land to the sanctuary project.

Response

The offer is geatly appreciated and the Wildlife Conservation Board will
contact the Nature Conservancy.

The Nature Conservancy
(Steve McCormick, 6/20/79)

Comment

The DEIS prepared on the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary
is well done. The Conservancy has worked assiduously since 1971 to
protect critical pieces of this environment and the DEIS appropriately
recognizes the need to acquire additional acreage in the slough to en-
sure proper management of the area. The DEIS accurately defines the exist-
ing situation and properly assesses the effects of the proposed action. The
Conservancy will assist California Fish and Game in any way it can.

Response

Comment accepted, and the offer of assistance is appreciated.

Nature Conservancy

(Elkhorn Slough Management Committee, John S. Warriner, Chairman, 6/14/79)

Comment

The slough should be given sanctuary status as soon as possible. As a
feeding and wintering ground for migratory birds it is unsurpassed for
many miles along the coast in either direction. The snowy plover, gulls,
terns, avocets, and stelts that live on the slough are threatened species.
The wildlife values along the slough cannot be protected without sanctuary
designation. There are continued pressures for incompatible uses of the
slough now and it cannot be expected that the demands will change in
the future.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

On page 31, F and G, "Wildlife and Marine Resources," no reference is made
to the reproduction aspects of the area. The loss of breeding ground
suffered includes the demise of fauna, decreased food supply for animals
and man, and loss of jobs in the fishing industry. (Example: The nesting
area of the endangered clapper rail, as well as the sea hare.)

Response

Comment accepted regarding reproduction aspects, but not added to FEIS
because of limited value for decision making.

The Nature Conservancy and Point Reyes Bird Sanctuary
John Warriner (Public Hearing Statement, b/2U//9)

Comment

The salt ponds in the slough should be included in any sanctuary boundary
because of their importance as a breeding area.

Response

The salt ponds have been included within the Wildlife Refuge.

Northern California Coastal Trust

Al Haynes (Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Feels that conflicts over the sanctuary are based on varying perspectives
of land as a commodity and land as a resource. Commercial fishermen
should realize that the value of the slough lies in its protection as
a sanctuary. The protection of wetlands like the slough is of the
utmost importance because of the intrinsic and economic values of the
species that live and breed in the slough, and for the continued long
term existence of man.

Response

Comment accepted.

Robert Oleson
Oleson Ranch
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79, Public Meeting Statement, 7/10/79)

Comment

Questions the impact of increased numbers of students and faculty on the
slough, which was not discussed in the DEIS.

Response

See General Response G.

Comment

Notes that the Advisory Board of the areas Local Coastal Programs has
not received information on the project.

Response

See General Response B.

Comment

If the State takes over the sanctuary lands, additional restriction
will be placed on lands around the sanctuary, such as through a
"resource protection zone" by the Coastal Commission. Is concerned
about an increase in jurisdiction to protect the sanctuary, especially
in San Benito County. Questions that if lands are taken over, who
will care for maintenance, such as prevention of weed patches and fire
hazards?

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

Does not object to the sanctuary concept if it is limited to the high
water mark and is without additional restructions beyond. As a proper-
ty owner in the buffer zone, notes that property owners in the sanctuary
area did not receive notice or copies of the DEIS. More studies should
be conducted and information included in the DEIS before sanctuary
approval.

Response

See General Responses A and E. u.ianges have been made to the FEIS to
reflect comments and additional information.

Comment

The sanctuary may be a fire hazard, inhibit private use of herbicides/
pesticides by farmers, and bring questionable impact to the area from
increased student visitation. Mr. Oelson feels that coastal erosion
has not been enough of a problem to warrent a sanctuary.

Response

See General Response A and G. Erosion is not a factor in establishing
an estuarine sanctuary.

Comment

The sanctuary will threaten private property owners and bring too
much bureaucracy into local people's lives. The effects of the sanc-
tuary, under the California Resources Protection Zone (RPZ) Program

might place too restrictive property use measures on landowners within
the sanctuary buffer zone.

Response

See General Response A.

Joy B. Osborne, (6/30/79)
Comment

Elkhorn Slough should be established as an estuarine sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Pacific Grove Museum of Natural History
(Verna L. Yaden, Director, 6/Z3//9)

Comment

Supports the OCZM grant application for the purchase of land and estab-
lishment of the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. The
slough is a valuable resource having influence on wildlife populations
of many types and its watercourses are habitats for waterfowl,
shorebirds, marine fishes, and invertebrates. Elkhorn Slough is one of
the few relatively unspoiled wetlands remaining in California and its
loss to industrial or urban development would have dire effects on wildlife

species requiring its resources. Preservation of the slough will
promote many future benefits to the local economy, such as passive
recreation and controlled hunting.

Response
Comment accepted.

Donald Phipps

Pacific Gas and Electric

(Public Hearing Statement-6/20/79)

Comment

Notes that the Moss Landing Facility represents 20% of company's generating
capacity and serves a vital and indespensible role in supplying energy
for which there is no substitute. The facility is important to the public
health and welfare of northern California.

Response

Comment accepted, and PG & E's energy contribution is recognized.

Comment

Feels that there have been no documented adverse impacts on Elkhorn Slough
from this facility in the 30 year period of its existence and that the DEIS
should state that PG&E's continued land use at Moss Landing is not incompati
ble with sanctuary. Feels that the warm water discharge from the facility
is beneficial due to straining of debris, and the acquaculture industry
from the discharge.

■Response

"PG&E's continued land use at Moss Landing is not incompatible with
the proposed estuarine sanctuary" has been added to the FEIS.

Comment

Note that PG&E's facility is not accurately described in the DEIS (p. 21)
It should read:

"Two large industrial facilities are located on the South side and one
adjacent to the proposed sanctuary. PG&E has operated major electrical
generator and transmission facilities adjacent to the proposed sanctuary
since 1950. These facilities include the seven large generating
units plus 5,750,000 barrels of fuel storage, switchyards, transformers,
and extensive transmission lines. Transmission lines are located in
easement across lands which are proposed for acquisition. No adverse
impact on the ecology of Elkhorn Slough has resulted from the existence of
these facilities."

Response

Proposed language added to the FEIS except the last sentance, which is

opinion rather than fact.

language above basicaly reflects this statement.

Comment

We concur with the multi -disciplinary approach to management, but do not
agree with the makeup of committees, representatives of industries, and
agricultural associations whose operations will be affected.

Response

Comment accepted. See General Response I for changes.

Comment

The description of "disastrous" effects of the no action alternative is an
unsupported conclusion. The slough is protected by the Coastal Commis-
sion, the Department of Fish & Game, and certain laws.

Response

Word "disastrous" deleted.

Point Reyes Bird Observatory

(Deborah A. Clark, Ph.D., Director, 6/13/79)

Comment

Designation of the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important
The slough is an outstanding site--one of the few estuarine habitats
left on the U.S. Pacific coast — and is an exceptional wildlife resource and
important nursery, utilized by many bird populations and fish species.

Response

Comment accepted.

Bob Ramer

(Watsonville, Ca., 7/1/9

Comment

OCZM has done fine work on the Elkhorn Slough DEIS. Supports the proposed
estuarine sanctuary. Elkhorn Slough plays a vital role in the ecology
of the central California coast and failure to protect the slough would
be a crime against mankind as well as nature.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

In certain cases, manipulation of the environment by man is not always bad.
The slough contains salt evaporation ponds which, while being anthropogenic
modifications of the "original" slough environment, are highly productive and
vital to migrating shorebirds and "wintering" brown pelicans as feeding and
roosting areas. The salt ponds should be preserved in any sanctuary plan.

Response

We agree with the statement; however, the salt ponds are not within
the proposed estuarine sanctuary boundaries. They are within the pro-
posed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge.

Comment

On page 31, section F, a comment is made that 138 bird species have been
listed for the slough. This is a conservative estimate; several field
sightings, including those published in American Birds, record over 200
species. More intensive field work is needed.

Response

Comment accepted. We recommend such field work if the estuarine sanctuary
is established.

William Reese, (6/20/79)
Comment

The Elkhorn Slough Estuarine area is an important resource. Tens of
thousands of birds use the slough as a resting spot on fall and spring
migrations, as well as those who overwinter alone in the slough. The
slough and its surrounding area should be put under some form of protection
Elkhorn Slough is an ideal place to establish a management area since it
is minimally developed at present.

Response

Comment accepted.

C. "Sam" Samples

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/22/79)

Comment

The problem of government began in 1969 when the country was broken
down into Federal regions. Is opposed to the sanctuary and will
fight it.

Response

We are not aware of the problems with regional Federal offices. Your
concerns will be considered by the Assistant Administrator for Coastal
Zone Management before designation.

Dennis Sandeneby

(Seaside, Ca. 6/18/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough should remain in its natural state with as little distur-
bance as possible. Elkhorn Slough is a valuable spawning area for fish,
birds, and invertebrates and one of the last strongholds for several
endangered species. Loss of the slough would be incalculable.

Response

Comment accepted.

Santa Catalina School

(Ferdinand S. Ruth, Marine Biologist, 7/8/79)

Comment

The proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important. It must
be protected as an educational resource used for many significant studies
of marine ecology and natural history, and as a nurturing ground for
invertebrates and plank tonic organisms that are so important in the food
chain. Through education, those who oppose the sanctuary (i.e., fishermen)
may change their views.

Response
Comment accepted.

Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Inc.
(Ferol Burn's, Conservation Chairman, 7/6/79)

Comment

A majority of California's wetlands are irrevocably converted to developers'
uses. Elkhorn Slough is in a unique, pristine state of priceless value
and all efforts should be made to purchase the proposed lands. This wetland
habitat is a wildlife area for breeding, feeding, and rearing young,
a nesting and feeding area for migratory species, and a wintering ground.
There are additional values of the slough to education, research, commercial
fishermen, and to birders. Preservation of this incomparable area as a
sanctuary is necessary to insure unimpaired benefits to those who use it
today and for future generations.

Response
Comment accepted.

Santa Cruz Bird Club

Irene L. Manicci, Conservation Director (Public
Hearing Statement, June 20, 1979)

Comment

As a wildlife habitat, Elkhc-n Slough is one of the most important coastal
estuaries and salt-brackish marshes remaining in California. Thousands
of birds use the Slough. Elkhorn Slough is the first suitable place for
migratory waterfowl after they leave San Francisco. Caspian and Forestry
terns have established nesting colonies on dikes and islands in the Slough

Response

Comment accepted.

Anne S. Sawhill

ICarmel Valley, Ca., 7/16/79)

Comment

Protect Elkhorn Slough. The abuse of dredging and pollution could
jeopardize this valuable breeding area.

Response
Comment accepted.

Walter L. Schroeder

(Public Hearing statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

No consideration was given to man in the ecology of the slough.
People in the area are already protecting the slough and allowing for
educational uses.

Response

See General Response E.

Mrs. Beverly Shea

(Moss Landing, Ca., 7/8/79)

Comment

Encourages sanctuary status for Elkhorn Slough. This is a last chance to
preserve the slough intact before it becomes developed. The estuarine
environment must be protected as a spawning ground and the harbor life-
style must be protected from projects such as tanker terminals. It must
be protected from CALTRANS's proposal to reroute Highway 1. Although there
exist protests from landowners and fishermen, the long range reward of
granting sanctuary status will become more obvious in the future.

Response

Comment accepted. However, see General Response H, which discusses Highway 1

Russell E± Shea

(Moss Landing, Ca., 7/9/79)

Comment

Expressed support for the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary.
Sanctuary status is essential to preserve fragile and important habitats
that might otherwise be encroached upon and lost forever. The slough is
a valuable ecological asset, for personal enjoyment and as a wildlife
habitat, that should be protected from industrial development.

Response
Comment accepted.

Sierra Club
Janie Fagan
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports the estuarine sanctuary as the only means of preserving this
valuable piece of land.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Notes that the DEIS neglected to mention the long-toed salamader, which is
found in fresh water habitats of the proposed sanctuary boundary and
the DEIS also underestimated the number of birds. Notes that as many
as 4,000 Brown pelicans, or 1/3 of those found in the Western United
States, reside here. Disputes PG&E's no adverse affect claim, noting
that its facility site was formerly a heron rookery.

Response

Information available to OCZM does not list the presence of the long-
toed salamander within proposed boundary. It may be that the salamader
exist in Elkhorn Slough but, because of uncertainty, it is not felt
essential to include it in the FEIS.

Stephanie Singer

(Santa Cruz, Ca., 7/7/79)

Comment

The DEIS adequately states the importance of Elkhorn Slough as a natural
ecosystem and wildlife habitat area. Opposition to the proposal as
expressed at the hearings may reflect the popularity of the anti -government
movement because people of the State as a whole support the proposal.

Response

Comment accepted. However, we make no judgements regarding the motives of
those who support or oppose the proposal.

Ronald & Genevieve Smi th
(Gilroy, Ca., W9)

Comment

Creation of Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is wrong because the
Government will deprive landowners of the use of their land, (agriculture
and home building). The Smith property, located a mile from the slough, has
already experienced restrictions from the California Coastal Commission.
Arbitrary government interference that can take over private property must
be stopped.

Response

See General Responses A and D.

Robert L. Speer, (6/22/79)

Comment

The entire 70 square miles of watershed will be ruled by the Coastal
Commission if the sanctuary is designated. Lands outside the land targeted
for sanctuary designation should be free for normal uses, controlled only
by existing Monterey County zoning codes.

Response

See General Response A.

Jo Stallard, 6/19/79)
Comment

To not fully protect the Elkhorn Slough area now will be a great mistake
Action must be taken to assure the formation of the Elkhorn Slouqh
Estuarine Sanctuary as soon as possible.

Response
Comment accepted.

Gary Stelow

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Moss Landing fishing is a clean industry with a significant economic contribution
to the area that the sanctuary will perpetuate.

Response
Comment accepted.

Comment

The Slough is important to the fishing industry which is important to
the area's economy. It is less expensive to preserve the sanctuary now
than it will be 10 years from now when money may not be available.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

As a lawyer, feels the there are a number of ways to recover the fair
value of property to be acquired.

Response

Comment accepted.

Comment

Notes that there is an advantage to managing development through establish
ment of a sanctuary and that the university should not have to oppose
piecemeal development which impinges on the estuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

George Strazicich

(Vancouver, B.C. 6/29/79)

Comment

States opposition to the purchase of land for the sanctuary at less than
market value. Special interest groups persuade the government to take
away individual's rights by forcing them to sell at less than market
value. Owners are then restricted in use of lands and land values decline
This is also an indirect subsidy to purchase land without compensation
to current surrounding landowners.

Response

See General Responses A and D.

David R. Suggs - Commercial Fisherman
(Aptos, Ca., 6/22/79)

Comment

Commercial fishermen have been put under Federal control and are better
off when there is little government control. The slough alreacjy has
government control all around it and additional control is unnecessary.
The three million dollar figure stated for the proposed sanctuary should
be used for other purposes.

Response

The proposed sanctuary will not affect or regulate commercial fishing.
See General Response A.

Judy E. Suggs

(Aptos, Ca., 6/22/79)

Comment

Protests the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary, focusing on the
large sum of money allocated for this project, the fear of government
control, jeopard^ to privately held property, and concern for fishermen and
their livelihood. Feels that the Moss Landing Marine Laboratory is
adequate for the education aspects of the sanctuary plan. Fears govern-
ment control on fishermen, fish buyers, shipyards, and farmers in the
surrounding area.

Response

See General Responses A and E.

Ernestine M. Tarr

(Salinas, Ca. 6/18/79)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough is truely unique and must be preserved to maintain the
continuance of natural life there and eliminate encroachments on wildlife
habitats.

Response

Comments accepted.

Eleanor Taylor
Central Coast Regional Commission
(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

DEIS is excellent in coverage and well organized; however, notes that the
section on conflict of uses could be strengthened through more detailed
examination of potential industrial development. Large areas around
the slough are currently zoned for heavy industry and changes in operation
or expansion of existing facilities could have impacts on estuarine en-
vironment. Notes that if drilling for oil takes place in response to
OCS lease sale 53, impacts on the slough need to be discussed. Pre-
liminary discussion paper shows Moss Landing as potential onshore service
base. DEIS should be amended to identify potential problems arising from
future development.

Response

See General Response A. It is the responsibility of the Department of
the Interior to describe the potential impacts from OCS development on
the surrounding land and water resources and beyond the scope of this
EIS.

Save Our Shores

(Nelson Wolfe, Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Supports the sanctuary but feels that the proposal does not reflect the
complex and interdependent nature of the slough environment. Feels
that acquisition of adjacent lands and water quality should be given
more consideration in the sanctuary proposal.

Response

See General Response F. Funding is a constraint.

Peter Trundle

(Watsonville Ca., 7/10/79)

Comment

(Phoned in 7/10/79 4:30 from (408)722-9689) Approves of the designation
of the proposed Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary.

Response

Comment accepted.

Dr. Marilyn Vassalo

( Publ i c Heari ng Statement , 6/20/79 )

Comment

Her studies of Elkhorn Slougb as a student at Moss Landing significantly
contributed to later work in San Francisco Bay, and as a college instructor
she used the slough as a natural living laboratory, as do many colleges
and universities in the area. Many of her students are teachers who
will pass on their knowledge to their students, an extremely important
endeavor, since the general public still does not understand the value
of such a resource in terms of economics and education. Without sanctuary
status we will lose the slough as an educational and economic resource.

Response

Comment accepted.

David W. Vollmer

(Santa Cruz, Ca., 7/6/79)

Comment

Expressed support for preserving Elkhorn Slough.

Response

Comment accepted.

James and Cynthia Waddington
(Monterey County)

Comment

Establishment of Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary is important. The
sanctuary would provide permanent protection to an irreplaceable spawning
ground, an area of considerable scenic and educational value, and an area
of economic value to Monterey Bay commercial fishery.

Response

Comment accepted.

Watson vi lie Chamber of Commerce

(Edwin C. Hall, President, //9/79 )

Comment

Opposes designation of Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. There will
be a loss of needed agricultural production, jobs, and private property
rights. Elkhorn Slough should be protected and preserved but not iso-
lated with the designation of an estuarine sanctuary. It is now and could
continue to be a fine sports, recreation and fishing area, and adjacent
lands can and should remain in agricultural production.

Response

The loss of agricultural production will be small but the gain in the
economy from more people visiting the area could more than offset the
loss and also provide jobs. However, this obviously is not the purpose
in establishing the sanctuary. The term "sanctuary" is not intended to
mean isolation from the public; indeed sport fishing and limited recre-
ation are accepted as compatible uses in the FEIS. See General Response A,

Mr. and Mrs. Alexander Weygers
(Carmel Valley, Ca., 6/19//9)

Comment

The magnificent area of Elkhorn Slough should be secured as an Estuarine
Sanctuary. This area is considered most important and valuable as an
irreplaceable spawning ground for a variety of marine life. Over 150
bird species in the area should be protected.

Response

Comment accepted.

Donald J. Whitemar,

(Moss Landing, Ca., 6/26/79)

Comment

Unless proof is given explaining why the proposed Elkhorn Slough
Estuarine Sanctuary benefits the people of the area, the proposal is in
a bad situation. No one in the vicinity of the proposed sanctuary favors
it. The slough needs protection from bureaus that have put restrictions
on the area and have made it useless to everyone. More regulation is
unnecessary.

Response

See General Response A. This DEIS documents the benefits to people in the
area and this "comment" section includes those who favor the proposal,
including property owners within the proposed boundaries.

Greg Winter

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

A map inside the cover showing the area implies that controls for the
sanctuary will go clear to the Sierra Mountains. The proposed government
bureaucracies will either close off the sanctuary or open up access so
wide that it will destroy the sanctuary. The slough as it is now
represents the appropriate middle ground--we don't need more government.

Response

Your concerns will be considered by the Assistant Administrator for
Coastal Zone Management. See General Response C.

Vern Yadon

(Public Hearing Statement, 6/20/79)

Comment

Expresses views of a noted ornithologist, Laidlow Williams, that Moss
Landing is one of the most significant natural areas in the region.
Suggests that those wanting unrestrained development visit Cleveland
to see the likely results. Recalled a county study committee for a
deep draft harbor to be dredged in Moss Landing and states that PG&E
representatives at the time were in favor of the harbor. Feels that
if the sanctuary proposal is not approved, massive industrial develop-
ment will probably be proposed.

Response

Regardless of an estuarine sanctuary, planning for the Moss Landing
area is the major responsibility of Monterey County.

Summary of Comments from Public Meeting, Castroville, California, 7/11/79

(Note that where comments included issues addressed in the "General
Response," they are not repeated here for each speaker.)

George Wells Abbott

Comment

i

Opposes sanctuary designation. Local governments are adequately protecting
Elkhorn Slough land and the slough does not need outside governmental bodies
trying to manage what is being adequately managed now.

Response

See General Response E.

Comment

The species of organisms in the slough are not unique enough to require
protection.

Response

"Uniqueness" is not a major factor in the selection of an estuarine
sanctuary. Its usage as a research/educational site is paramount.

Comment

The 1st District Supervisor, not the county chairman, should serve on
the management board because of greater knowledge of local needs and
problems.

Response

The research and education work performed can provide benefits to all of
Monterey County, hence the county chairman is proposed. It is noted that
the chairman may designate the 1st District Supervisor if he wishes.

Louis Calcagno (property owner within the proposed boudaries)
Comment

Establishment of a sanctuary would result 1n takeover of private land.
What will happen to the pond on his property 1f the State buys 1t?

Response

See General Response A. The WCB will make all attempts to conclude a
mutually acceptable acquisition (fee, or less than fee) for Mr. Calcagno's
land with the pond.

California Coastal Council

(Joseph Mastroianni, Executive Director)

Comment

Inadequate notice of meeting was given. Establishment of the Sanctuary
will bring too much government control into the lives of the affected
property owners and hurt property values. OCZM is trying to ramrod this
proposal through, which may cut off the water supply to Kaiser as well as
affecting Pacific Gas and Electric and decreasing revenue to local
fishermen.

Response

See General Responses A, B, and D. We cannot forsee any economic losses to
local fisherman through proposed estuarine sanctuary, or Kaiser's water
supply.

Comment

A representative committee of all concerned should be formed to make
decisions and forward them to the proper government agencies.

Response

The California Coastal Commission has basically done this by having its
staff examine all sites and present them to the full Commission. The
California Coastal Commission unanimously recommended designation of
Elkhorn Slough as an estuarine sanctuary.

Susan Carpenter
Comment

The sanctuary should be designated. There is too much government, partic-
ularly the kind that allows sprawl and piecemeal development on the coast.
Slough acquisition should prevent this.

Response

Comment accepted. Piecemeal development along the coast is the responsibility
of the coastal commission and the counties. The estuarine sanctuary will
not prevent such development.

Jeanette Cruysen

Comment

Personally tried (and failed) to save the life of a Great Blue Heron.
If natural resources agencies cannot act to save a Heron, they cannot
protect an entire slough.

Response

The story of the Great Blue Heron was very interesting. However, the California
Department of Fish and Game will only have responsibility for management
of the 1,500 acres proposed for acquisition.

Mr. David Crile

Comment

Concerned that sanctuary proposal is a "land grab". Favors protection of
the slough, but feels that buffer zone restrictions may deny people many
of their property rights.

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

The government allows pollution to occur in an area, such as the slough,
and then points to it as a reason for taking land to preserve the area.

Response

See General Response A. Pollution and the acquisition of land as an
estuarine sanctuary are not related.

Mr. James T. Dew

Comment

The slough needs no additional protection. Opposes sanctuary designation,
which would bring too much government control.

Response

See General Responses A and E.

Don Dunsforth
Comment

P.L. 91-646 biases a land appraisal by requiring agency approval of the
appraisal before the transaction.

Response

The approval process is a safeguard to avoid bias in the appraisal. The
appraisal will be done by an independent appraiser who will only be
influenced by market data.

Comment

The sanctuary is one more proposal with which the California Coastal
Commission is misleading property owners.

Response

We feel that the FEIS accurately reflects the estuarine sanctuary
proposal.

Bertha Estrada

Comment

The sanctuary will inhibit private pesticide use and bring unemployment to
the area.

Response

See General Response A. We feel that employment will increase as a result
of Sanctuary establishment.

Carol Fa! ion
Comment

Will fish be protected so that fishermen will have enough to catch?
People should not be railroaded on this proposal.

Response

It is expected that the proposed estuarine sanctuary will have a positive
impact on fishing, especially the research that could be performed that
will be beneficial to the fishing industry.

Emmett Garman

Comment

Opposes condemnation of land, and feels that the sanctuary proposal would
bring this about.

Response

See General Response D.

Mr. Charlie Hagen

Comment

Opposes sanctuary proposal as it now stands. Private property rights
are threatened by it. The slough should be protected, but without so
much government control .

Response

See General Response A. The only governmental control that is proposed
is the acquisition and management of approximately 1500 acres.

Mr. Jesus Hernandez

Comment

Favors the sanctuary as an excellent educational opportunity for the
children. The area will help to give them this opportunity.

Response

Comment accepted.

Jim Josoff

Comment

The effect of the sanctuary's establishment will come in the form of
a buffer zone, which will be a "secondary land grab" of private
property.

Response

See General Response A.

Comment

Josoff read an article in which it is stated that estuaries are not
vital to the organisms that inhabit them.

Response

This article has been questioned by many scientists.

King City Chamber of Commerce
(Bill Burke)

Comment

Opposes sanctuary designation. Designation might prevent necessary use
of pesticides on nearby private lands.

Response

See General Response A.

Monterey Bay Salt Company
(David Miller, President)

Comment

Elkhorn Slough should be developed for recreation.

Response

There will be limited recreation within the proposed sanctuary, but not
intensive recreation such as at State parks or private campgrounds.

Monterey Taxpayers' Association
(Don Southard)

Comment

Opposes sanctuary designation as more government interference and "social
engineering" with local interests.

Response

Comments will be considered by the Assistant Administrator for Coastal
Zone Management during the decisionmaking process.

Moss Landing Chamber of Commerce
(Lista York)

Comment

Opposes the sanctuary and feels that designation is against the will of
the majority of the people.

Response

This position will be considered by OCZM/NOAA.

Moss Landing Harbor Commission

(J. Ward McClellan, and Public Meeting Statement, 6/22/79)

Comment

The Moss Landing Harbor Commission opposes the sanctuary proposal for
Elkhorn Slough.

Response

The Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management will take into
account all comments and opposition to proposed sanctuary designation
prior to making the final decision.

Comment

The Commission drafted a resolution based on a letter from Sam Bleicher.
Mr. McClellon did not receive the DEIS until June 20.

Response

The FEIS responds to many of the concerns raised in the resolution.
The DEIS was mailed to the Moss Landing Harbor District in May. We
apologize for the inconvenience.

Pacific Gas and Electric Company
(Ray Hames)

Comment

This project should take into account the potential for transmission of
energy in Northern California and the future expansion of facilities to
meet the growing energy needs of the region.

Response

See other response to this PG&E concern.

Grace Page

Comment

The slough is alreacty adequately accessible to research and education
interests, and there is no need to buy land and establish a Sanctuary.

Response

See General Response E.

Mr. Mick Pasqual

Comment

Favors environmental protection, but opposes the taking of private land
for the slough.

Response

Comment accepted. Also see General Responses A and D.

Salinas Chamber of Commerce
(Richard Abramson)

Comment

Estuarine sanctuary designation for Elkhorn Slough is not necessary. The
DEIS is inadequate; it overemphasizes natural characteristics of the slough
which are not unique; and it does not address socioeconomic impacts of the
sanctuary.

Response

See General Responses A and E. We feel that the FEIS addresses environ-
mental impacts, including socioeconomic.

Eric Seastrano

Comment

Will the sanctuary bring a Federal "grab bag" and take away private
property?

Response

See General Response D.

Sierra Club
(Janie Fagen)

Comment

Most people don't care about the slough. The sanctuary proposal is a
good one. It should provide for protection of property owner's rights.

Response

Comment accepted. Letters that we received supporting the slough indicate
that many people do care.

Bob Speer
Comment

Opposes the Sanctuary. State coastal funds should be deleted from the
appropriate budgets.

Response

The Assistant Administrator for Coastal Zone Management will take into
account all comments and opposition to proposed sanctuary designation
prior to making the final decision.

Ken Thayer

Comment

The sanctuary is wrong. It will only bring on more government regulation,

Response

See General Response A.

Schroeder Walters

Comment

The sanctuary is not needed. Local agencies have done well in their
management of the area, and Elkhorn Slough would not be a good
sanctuary candidate because there is much too much human activity.

Response

See General Response E. Human activity does not preclude an estuarine
sanctuary, and the California Coastal Commission requested that Elkhorn
be considered for funding by OCZM.

Watsonville Chamber of Commerce
(Delbert Heischbech)

Comment

Doesn't oppose the sanctuary, per se, but feels that the DEIS is
inadequate in that it does not expTifin how the Moss Harbor Commission
contributed to the loss of steel head and salmon and because socio-
economic impacts are not addressed. More time should be taken to
do an adequate EIS and meanwhile the slough should be maintained as
it is.

Response

We are somewhat confused about the loss of steel head and salmon in
relation to the Moss Landing Harbor District, but do not feel that
there is a relationship to the proposed sanctuary. The FEIS has
several changes in response to comments received on the DEIS.

Watsonville Chamber of Commerce
(Sherrill Watson, Manager)

Comment

The Chamber opposes sanctuary designation and feels that it will threaten
private property rights. Watson presented a statement of opposition to the
proposed sanctuary.

Response

The Chamber's concern and the statement will be considered by the Assistant
Administrator for Coastal Zone Management in the decisionmaking proccess.

Clare Carey Willard

Comment

Opposes sanctuary. Its creation will threaten property owners and result
in unemployed fishermen. The sanctuary proposal is bureaucratuc har-
assment.

Response

See General Response A. We cannot envision any impact of the sanctuary
that will result in unemployed fishermen.

Bill Wimmer

Comment

Opposes establishment of the Estuarine Sanctuary. It would result in a
complete government takeover of private land.

Response

See General Response A.

Allan Wyatt

Comment

Property owners, in their oppostion to the sanctuary, have blown things
out of proportion. Water from underground goes to the slough and we
depend on this water. It must be protected.

Response

All comments will be considered.

PENN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

ADDDD7D

MD2MM