Proposed estuarine sanctuary grant award to the State of California for a Tijuana River National Estuarine Sanctuary final environmental impact statement

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

Final Environmental
Impact Statement

TIJUANA RIVER

......... .
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for a
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary in the State of California

-'JO

1000
0

FEET

M5
GC
1021
M2 tment of Commerce State of California
P7 eanic and Atmospheric Administration California Coastal Commission
1981 '
oastal Zone Management

U . S . DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON , SC 29405-2413

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

PROPOSED

ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD

TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR A

TIJUAM RIVER NATIONAL ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

AUGUST 1981

Prepared by:

U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

and

State of California
California Coastal Commission
631 Howard Street
San Francisco, California 94105

AX 0.1., -
@,f At
fit,

'Joe-

Ck3@per R%,ad Great JRrvt

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

Summary ............................................................. i

PART 1: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION ............................ 1

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION) .................. 5

A. Preferred Alternatives ............................. 5

1. Proposed Boundaries ............................ 5

2. Management Program ............................. 7

a. Management Authority ....................... 9

b. Sanctuary Advisory Committee .............. 11

c. Research Policy and Program ............... 14

d. Education Program ......................... 18

B. Alternatives Considered ........................... 21

1. Funding ....................................... 21

2. Site Selection ................................ 21

3. Boundaries .................................... 23

4. Management Structure .......................... 23

5. No Action ..................................... 24

PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................... 25

A. Location .......................................... 25

B. Sanctuary Description ............................. 25

C. Climate ........................................... 28

D. Cultural and Historic Resources ................... 28

E. Geology ........................................... 29

F. Soils ............................................. 33

G. Hydrology of the Tijuana River ...........0 ........ 33

SECTION PAGE

H. Biological Characteristics ...... .... o...o.39

1. Community Structure in Tijuana_Estuary ..... 39

a. Vascular Plants ... @.*.* .... o .... o.#oo.oo39

b. Algal Communities....... ...... o .... so ... 40

2o Estuarine Productivity... ..... o..o.oo .... oo41

3o Marine Invertebrates........ ..... o.o.o ..... 41

4. Benthic and Pelagic Fish., ..... oo.o ... o....43

a. Larval Fish Use of Tijuana River
Estuary... .... o..oo.ooo.o.o ...... o..o...44

5. Birds .... i..... ooo.o ....... *so .... o.oo.o.oo44

a. Shorebird Use of Tijuana Estuary., ...... 45

6. Mammals... .... oo.o.o..o ... o .... o....... o..o47

7. Amphibians and Reptiles ... oo.o .... o..oo ... o47

Is Existing and Planned Land Use....... .... o.o.o.o.o47

J. International Consideration... ... o.oo.o..ooooo...48

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCESooo ...... o .... o..o.o ... o ...... 51

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action ....51

1. Local Impacts. ..............

a. General Impacts., ... o..o.o .... oo.o .... ooo5l

b. Impacts of Geology, Soils, and
Hydrology....... ... o ... oo..oo..ooo ... o.oo52

co Impacts on Community Structure,
Vegetation, and Wildlife.... .... o..oo.o..52

do Impacts on Land

2. State and Federal Impacts ...... ooo ...o ..... o.53

SECTION PAGE

B. Relationship Between Estuarine Sanctuary
Designation and Other Resource Management
Programs ............................................ 53

1. Adopted Local Coastal Programs
and General Pla;s ........................ eseeo.953

a. City of Imperial Beach LCP ................... 53

b. Tia Juana Valley Segment,
City of San Diego LCP ........................ 55

c. Border Highlands Segment, City of
San Diego LCP ................................ 56

2. Imperial Beach Naval Air Station ................. 56

3. Tijuana Estuary National Wildlife Refuge -
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................... 57

4. Border Field State Park ................. e..*.****58

5. Planning for Wastewater Treatment Facilities.....59
6. Planning for Future Electrical
Generating Capacity .............................. 61

C. Relationship Between Local Short-Term Uses
F the Environment and Maintenance and
Enhancement of Long-Term Pr5-ductivity .............. 63

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable
Zommitments of Resources ............................ 64

PART V: LIST OF PREPARERS .......................................... 65

PART VI: LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONS,
AND PERSONS RECEIVING COPIES ..................... e. ... **69

PART.VII: RESPONSES TO WRITTEN AND VERBAL COMMENTS RECEIVED
ON THE DEIS ........................... **.71

PART VIII: APPENDICES ..............

PART IX: BIBLIOGRAPHY .................... o.o ... oo.o.*201

DESIGNATION: Final Environmental Impact Statement

TITLE: Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of
California for a Tijuana River National Estuarine Sanctuary

ABSTRACT: The State of California has submitted an application for a
grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration/Office of Coastal Zone
Management (NOAA/OCZM) to establish an estuarine sanctuary
in the Tijuana River, adjacent to the California-Mexican
border. The proposed sanctuary when complete, will represent
a major subcategory within the southern part of the Californian
biogeographic region. The site is a tidally-flushed area
with a network of channels, mudflats, mudbanks and salt
marshes that reflect the physical system and biota for
system-wide research and educational purposes. The total
estuarine sanctuary area is approximately 2,531 acres,
including existing public lands (State Park & U. S. Fish &
Wildlife Service , U. S. Navy, and the City of San Diego)
and private lands that will be acquired.

Approval of this grant application would permit the
establishment of an estuarine sanctuary representing the
Californian biogeographic region. The proposed sanctuary
would be used primarily for research and educational purposes,
especially to provide information useful for coastal zone
management decisionmaking. Multiple use would be encouraged
to the extent that they are compatible with the proposed
sanctuary's research and educational programs.

Research and monitoring in and near the proposed sanctuary
would provide baseline information against which the impacts
of human activities elsewhere on the California coast and
can be assessed.

APPLICANT: California Coastal Commission

LEAD AGENCY: U.S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management

CONTACT: Mr. James-W. MacFarland
Estuarine Sanctuary Program Manager
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.w.
Washington, D. C. 20235 (202) 653-7301

SUMMARY

BACKGROUND

In response to the intense pressures upon and conflicts within the
coastal zone of the United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone
Managaement Act (CZMA) of 1972 (PL 92-583), with amendments enacted by the
U.S. Congress in 1976 and 1980. 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 States to develop
and implement comprehensive management programs for the resources of the
coastal zone. The CZMA affirms a national interest in the coastal zone's
effective management, beneficial use, and development, and it permits the
awarding of grants for the purpose of meeting these ends.

Section 315 of the CZMA 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 multiple-use benefits, will provide
information essential to coastal management decisionmaking. Examples of
estuarine sanctuary purposes are:

0 To gain a more thorough understanding of ecological relation-
ships within the estuarine environment,

0 To make baseline ecological measurements;

� To serve as a natural control in order to monitor changes and
to assess the impacts of h6man stresses on the ecosystem;

� To provide a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine ecosystems, their values and
benefits to humans and nature, and the problems confronting them; and

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

In order to ensure that the Estuarine Sanctuary Program adequately
represents regional and ecological differences, the programmatic guidelines
establish a biogeographical classification scheme that reflects geographic,
hydrographic, and biological characteristics. Sub-categories of this
basic system are developed and utilized as appropriate to distinguish
different subclasses of each category.

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program guidelines, first published in 1974,
and amended in 1977, authorize three kinds of 50 percent matching grants:
(1) an optional, initial planning grant for the purpose of developing
a land acquisition grant application which includes cost for surveying,
appraising, and assessing the lands to be acquired, developing a management

i i

plan and research, and education programs etc.; (2) grants for acquisition
of the real property within the sanctuary boundaries and construction of
facilities; and (3) operational grants for managing and operating the
established sanctuary and to implement research and educational programs.

The California Coastal Commission (CCC), on behalf of the State
of California, submitted a grant application to the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Coastal Zone Management (NOAA/OCZM)
for funding assistance to gather information directed toward preparing a
formal land acquisition grant application and establishing an estuarine
sanctuary in the Tijuana River Estuary.

NOAA awarded a pre-acquisition grant of $50,000 to CCC, matched by an
equivalent amount from the State, on April 15, 1981. This grant
enabled CCC to proceed with development of information for a formal grant
application which, if approved, would provide 50 percent matching funds
for the acquisition of lands and for constructing interpretive/education
facilities for the sanctuary. Should the proposed sanctuary be established,
California will also be eligible for annual grants of up to $50,000 for
sanctuary management and operations for a period of 5 years.

PROPOSED ACTION

The proposed sanctuary is located on the coast of California approx-
imately 12 miles south of San Diego adjacent to the California-Mexican
international border.

The State of California, through the California Coastal Commission,
proposes to request a $1.03 million grant from NOAA/OCZM to be matched by
$1.03 million in'State funds provided by the California Coastal Conservancy
for the fee simple and less than fee acquisition of approximately 885 acres
of private real property in the Tijuana River Estuary in Southern California.
The proposed 2,531-acre National Estuarine Sanctuary will also contain
1,646 acres of public real property presently held by Federal, State,
and local government agencies.

The composition of real property within the proposed sanctuary will be
as follows:

Property Size in Acres

Existing public 1,426

Portion of Imperial Beach 220
Naval Air Station

Private 885

Total acres 2,531

i i i

In establishing this sanctuary site, the California Coastal Conservancy
has determined that as a matter of policy it will not exercise its power
of eminent domain (condemnation) to acquire any of the land, but will
rely only on negotiated sales with willing sellers. The State would
consider acquiring either fee simple title or less than fee interests
such as conservation easements., or life estates in privately owned lands,
etc. Less than fee simple acquisitions are preferred if they are cost
effective and provide appropriate protection of the sanctuary resource.
The California Coastal Conservancy will be the State agency responsible
for land acquisition.

Multiple use of the sanctuary (i.e., the simultaneous utilization
of an area or resource for a variety of compatibl 'e purposes or to provide
more than one benefit) will be encouraged as long as such use is compatible
with National Estuarine Sanctuary Program objectives. These uses may
include low intensity recreation, fishing, and wildlife observation.

MANAGEMENT

The proposed sanctuary will be managed by the California Department
of Parks and Recreation as the lead agency with a three tier management
structure, which will include a Sanctuary Management Authority, a Sanctuary
Advisory Committee, and 3 sanctuary subcommittees; Agriculture, Water
Quality, and Research and Education. Membership composition of the
management committee will include representation from the private sector,
governmental agencies of the U.S. and Mexico, real property owners and
interested and qualified citizens. The management program will be
consistent with subsection (e)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act,
16 USC 1456.

Since existing State and Federal statutes and regulations appear fully
adequate to address any potential problems resulting from uses within the
sanctuary and in adjacent waters and lands, establishment of the sanctuary
will not result in the need for new or additional environmental regulations,
creation of a new State agency, or a new division within existing state
agencies.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The most direct environmental consequence of the proposed action
will be the long-tern preservation of the area and its resources in their
natural state for scientific and educational uses. The sanctuary will
enable increased research and education to take place which will enhance
the knowledge and understanding of estuarine systems in California and,
therefore, will provide information for improved coastal zone resource
deci sionmaki ng.

Positive environmental impacts will include:

0 preservation of essential wetland habitats that have national
significance and are in limited supply;

i v

0 fish and wildlife habitat preservation, including the maintenance
and enhancement of fish breeding species that are important
economically to commercial fishing;

0 improved air quality from the limiting of urbanization within
the sanctuary boundaries;

0 water quality improvement from the limiting of urbanization;

0 increased public usage through the conversion of private land,
including additional controlled access points; and,

additional scientific, research, and educational opportunities
for students, educators, and scientists, which will also bring
economic benefits to the region.

PART I: PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR-ACTION

In response to intense pressures on the coastal resources of the
United States, Congress enacted the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
which was signed into law on October 27, 1972, and amended in 1976 and
1980. 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) in the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

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

� developing coastal zone management programs (�305);

� implementing and administering coastal management programs that
receive Federal approval (�306);

� avoiding or minimizing adverse environmental, social, and eocnomic
impacts resulting from coastal energy activities (�308);

0 coordinating, studying, planning, and implementing interstate
coastal management activities and programs (�309);

0 conducting research, study, and training programs to provide
scientific and technical support to State coastal zone management
programs (�310); and

0 acquiring land for estuarine sanctuaries and island preservation
(�315).

Section 315 of the Act established the Estuarine Sanctuary Program
to provide matching grants to States to acquire, develop, and operate
natural estuarine areas as sanctuaries, so that scientists and students
may be provided the opportunity to examine the ecological relationships
within the areas over time. Section 315 provides a maximum of $3 million
in Federal funds, to be matched by an equivalent amount from the State,
to acquire and manage lands for each sanctuary. Regulations for
implementation of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program were published on June
4, 1.974 [15 CFR Part 921. Federal Register 39 (108): 19922-19927], and
amended on September 9, 1977 [15CFR Part 921, Federal Register 42 (175):
45522-455231 (see Appendix A). Regulations are presently being prepared
for the Island Preservation Program that is also included within Section
315 of the CZMA.

Estuarine sanctuaries have the dual purpose of (1) preserving
relatively undisturbed areas so that a representative series of natural
estuarine systems will always remain available for ecological research
and education and (2) ensuring the availability of natural areas for use
as a control ;gainst which impacts of human activities in other areas can
be assessed. These sanctuaries are to be used primarily for long-term
scientific and educational purposes, especially to provide information
useful to coastal zone management decisionmaking.

Research purposes may include:

0 gaining a more complete understanding of the natural ecological
relationships within the various estuarine environments of the
United States;

0 making baseline ecological measurements;

� serving at a natural control against which changes in other
estuaries can be measured, and aiding in evaluation of the impacts
of human activities on estuarine ecosystems;

� providing a vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness
of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their benefits to people
and nature, and the problems confronting these ecosystems.

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, and wildlife observation.

The CZMA and the estuarine sanctuary guidelines express the intent
that ultimately the Estuarine Sanctuary Program will fully represent
the variety of regional and ecological differences among the estuaries
of the United States. The regulations state that "the purpose of the
estuarine sanctuary 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" [15CFR 921.3 (a)].
As administered by OCZM, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program defined 11
different biogeographic regions based on geographic, hydrographic, and
biological characteristics. Subcategories of this basic system are
established as appropriate to distinguish different subclasses of each
biogeographic region.

Since 1974, NOAA has awarded grants to establish nine estuarine
sanctuaries (described in Appendix A). These include:

Sanctuary Biogeographic Classification

South Slough Columbian
Coos Bay, Oregon

Sapelo Island Carolinian
McIntosh County, Georgia

Waimanu Valley Insular
Island of Hawaii, Hawaii

Rookery Bay West Indian
Collier County, Florida

Old Woman Creek Great Lakes
Erie County, Ohio

Apalachicola River/Bay Louisianian
Franklin County, Florida

Elkhorn Slough Californian
Monterey County, California

Padilla Bay Columbian
Skagit County, Washington

Narragansett Bay Virginian
Newport County, Rhode Island

The proposed action under consideration by NOAA is a land acquisition
grant Application from the State of California to establish a National
Estuarine Sanctuary in the Tijuana River.

The Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary, if established, will be
representative of a major estuarine sanctuary subcategory within the
southern half of the Californian biogeographic region, and the second
estuarine sanctuary within this region. This addition further completes
the National Estuarine Sanctuary System as provided for in Section 315
of the CZMA.

PART II: ALTERNATIVES (INCLUDING PROPOSED ACTION)

A. Preferred Alternatives

1. Proposed Boundaries_

Introduction

The proposed boundaries for Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary include
the existing public lands (Federal, State and local) and important private
lands which are in, or buffer, the core wetland and cri.tical floodplain of
the Tijuana River Estuary.

The boundaries proposed below are the product of an analysis of
natural resources in the area, numerous site inspections, and a statement
of consensus by virtually all of the affected government and private groups
with an interest in the wetland and lowland areas of the Tijuana Estuary.

The following principles guided development of the proposed boundaries:

1. Encompass the critical habitats and resource features of Tijuana
River Estuary.

2. Provide an "umbrella" for existing public ownership.

3. Delineate Sanctuary boundaries in an area large enough to preclude
direct threats of encroachment into critical habitat areas.

4. Encompass enough of the drainage area to make possible
reasonable and consistent management of the immediate floodplain
and side drainage area.

5. Design sanctuary boundaries to allow land uses compatible with
the resource protection goals of the sanctuary to continue.

6. Facilitate reasonable public access and use of the site for
research, education, and other compatible activities.

The proposed boundaries for the Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary
are identified in Figure 1. The upper portion of the Sanctuary would be
bounded on the west by First Street in Imperial Beach, proceed east
along Coronado Avenue, south along the western border of the Imperial
Beach Naval Air Station, southeast along the boundary between several
private parcels and the Naval Air Station to the intersection of Sunset
Avenue and 19th Street. The sanctuary boundary then proceeds about 2,700
feet west, and south past Monument Avenue to the United States-Mexico
border. The border forms the southern boundary of the sanctuary. Between
the international border and a point north of the mouth of the estuary,
the mean high tide line forms the western boundary of the sanctuary.

6
Proposed Boundaries

TIJUANA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY

I CORONADO AVE

1st

...........

............
.............
.............

............

..........

X y CD

19th ST
0 A

......... ..

X. :-V-1-1-1,"............
C
C
E E

MM DD
LL

MONUMENTIAVE
...........
.................

d WW
Aquisition an
Lease-back
_XX
-rATES
S
Ut4n EO
. .....% MEXICO
ZZ AAA

The letters on the map' correspond 0 1000 2000 5000
to the ownership list in Appendix D. @N -
Note : Proposed boundaries do not encompais FEET
H

develooed land seaward of 1st St.
Estuarine Sanctuary Preaquisition Study SOURCE: San Diego County
California Coastal Commission Assessor's Records,
U.S. Navy

FIGURE I

The boundaries encompass all of the 505 acre'U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Refuge, the 263 acres above the mouth of the estuary leased by the
Department of Parks and Recreation from the U.S. Navy, and all of the 418.4
acre Border Field State Park. Thus the total land area held by Federal and
State resource management agencies amounts to 1,186 acres. In addition,
a 120-acre parcel below Sunset Avenue managed by the Navy, and a portion
of Imperial Beach Naval Air Station estimated at 220 acres are proposed
for inclusion, along with about 120 acres held by the City of San Diego.
This brings the total public land proposed for inclusion within the
sanctuary boundaries to 1,646:4 acres, more or less.

Private Land to Be Acquired

A total of 31 parcels of private land, comprising about 885 acres of
private land are proposed for acquisition west of 19th Street and below
the Imperial Beach Naval Air Station. Major landowners include San Diego
Gas and Electric Company and its land management subsidiary, Japatul
Corporation, Coronado Realty, Leonard and Ursula Horwin, the Conde Investment
Corporation, General Telephone, Ross Spooner, H. G. Chaffe Company, and
the H.G. Fenton Material Company.

Of the 31 parcels proposed for acquisition, seven parcels above the
river and thirteen parcels below the river would be "leased back" to sellers
for agricultural use and other activities compatible with the maintenance
of the sanctuary. See Appendix D for description of land ownership.

2. Management.Program

Introduction

As shown in Figure 2, a three-tier management structure is proposed,
consisting of a Sanctuary Management Authority, a Sanctuary Advisory Committee,
and 3 management sub-committees; Agriculture, Water Quality, and Research and
Education.

The management structure proposed below is the product of an analysis
of important institutions in Tijuana Valley, a review of management programs
for other Estuarine Sanctuaries, and a statement of consensus by the same
government and private groups/individuals participating in developing the
proposed boundary.

Several principles guided the development of the management structure:

1. Create a management authority large enough to reflect important
interests and small enough to operate efficiently.

2. Organize a management structure that is capable of addressing the
concerns of the local communities/constituency.

PROPOSED MANAGEMENT STRUCTURE: Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary

Administrative Lead Management Authority

Floatijig
Dept. of U.S. Fish Dept. of City of U. S. City of Hember
Parks and an(] Wildlife Parks and Imperiat Navy San Diego Elected by
Recreation Service Recrt@ation Beach Advisory
Coninittee
r140A A
Sanctuary Advisory Committee
NMFS

Represen t at i ve Represeii r at ive Ex-Ollicio DepL. or 00
RepreseiitaiJve Call forilla Representat i Ve of Research Fish
CmanLy of of Farini.ng and Coastal of WaLer 0oality
San Diclo Ranchilig o I klexico and/or Alencies and E'diicatioii Came
Baia, California interests

L Dorder
Pat'rol

Agriculture Subcommittee Water Quality Subcommille Research and Education Subcommilleee

Representative of Mexico and/or Baja. California 0ite representative each from:
Representative of State of San Diego Stak- University
Oiie repretneittative each from: California Execistive Sea
(:1 alit
Cultivated Alricultote Branch 00%cr littivorsities
Livestock Interests Envirownental Protection Agency Endangered Specivs i@ecovery 'reauk
E(piestrian Interests International Boundary aml (:onllnullity (:oileges
Soil Coiiservation Service Water Commission - I
Inivi-pretive Associations
Additional members as ncedetl Regloiial Water Qxiallty Controt Secolidary School Districts
Board 1-I'lententary Schoot Districts
Additloiial members as needed
140AA
F'o' 'g
14e-1
f U
X Ele,
;n,p i@. S it YD e Xf,
pt. of
rk. by
I'a a7d t Nz Xy d_
@@L@ (Re I t I - X-B A )ry
]tee
OC7
7NM

FIGURE 2

3. Organize the management structure to include representatives of
groups with vested interests in the proposed Sanctuary, especially
affected landowners.

4. Create a mechanism which will involve educational and research
interests in sanctuary management.

5. Organize a management authority capable of integrating its
sanctuary administrative activities with other environmental
planning initiatives in the.region, which will include, but
not be limited to, waste water treatment and protection of
agricultural land.

6. Create a forum for reaching consensus on management issues.

a. Management Authority

As one of the major landowners in the Tijuana Valley, the Department of
Parks and Recreation is the logical administrative lead in the development
and management of the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary. Principal responsi-
bilities as the administrative lead will include receiving funds from the
Office of Coastal Zone Management, hiring and providing general guidance for
the Sanctuary manager, and organizing meetings and correspondence for
the Management Authority. k-
A six-member Management Authority, representing important vested
interests in Tijuana Estuary, is proposed for the Estuarine Sanctuary.
Membership will include representatives of the Department of Parks and
Recreation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Navy, the City
of Imperial Beach, the City of San Diego, and a floating position elected
for one year from the Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

Method of Selection

All members of the Management Authority shall have fo mal training
or practical experience in resource management, and preferably both.
Representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U. S. Navy,
and the Department of Parks and Recreation shall be appointed by the
appropriate manager responsible for resource planning in the Tijuana
River Area. The representatives from Imperial Beach and San Diego shall
be appointed by their respective City Council at a formal public meeting.
The floating member shall be elected for a one-year te rm by the six
members of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

Responsibilities of the Management Authority

Sanctuary status will confer no new regulations on the Tijuana River
nor affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the International
Boundary and Water Commission, United States, and Mexico as provided under
subsection (e)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC 1456.
Rather, the sanctuary will be a focus for policy making, coordinating
existing planning efforts, and formulating recommendat ions which may.
be implemented through existing regulatory mechanisms, such as local
coastal programs and State park plans, etc. Principal responsibilities
include, but are not limited to the following:

1. Receive and consider the findings and recommendations of the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee and the sub-committees.

2. Formulate an overall management program for the sanctuary.

a. Articulate management policies.

b. Determine permitted uses 'for land acquired for the sanctuary.

c. Recommend, with the participation of landowning agencies,
permitted uses on public lands within the sanctuary.

d. Recommend specific actions to implement the management policies.

e. Carry out an ongoing evaluation of sanctuary management
policies and recommend changes where appropriate.

3. Review and comment on plans and proposals for the lower Ti'juana
Valley and Tijuana River watershed that would impinge on the
sanctuary. Make specific recommendations that will help to
integrate the sanctuary and other land use and resource management
planning underway in the region, including revisions in land
use plans. Monitor potential impacts from sand and gravel extraction
in the Border Highlands, specifically sedimentation, water table,
haul roads, and protection of endangered plant species and communities.

4. Communicate the objectives of the sanctuary to other agencies,
the local community, news media, and other interested parties.
Maintain ongoing communication with management authorities for
other estuarine sanctuaries. Make a concerted- effort to establish
a positive relationship between the Sanctuary Management Authority,
and local community and private landowners in the surrounding area.

5. Receive and consider findings and recommendations of scientific
researchers conducting work at Tijuana Estuary.

6. Identify research needs and priorities for the estuary and where
possible, lend written or funding support.

7. Recommend changes or additions in the number and general
responsibilities of subcommittees.

8. Propose and evaluate changes in the sanctuary boundary, with the
ad.vice of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

9. Provide policy guidance for the Sanctuary manager in the conduct
of his or her duties including review and approval of the manager's
position description.

10. Prepare a statement of progress on an annual basis.

11. Appoint members of subcommittees as described in a following section.

12. Support meetings and dissemination of information by all Estuarine
and Marine Sanctuary Managers.

13. Pursue additional funds for land acquisition and management,
including research and education.

14. Consider the establishment of a land trust to complement the goals
of the estuarine sanctuary.

b. Sanctuary Advisory Committee

In order to provide adequate technical advice to the Management
Authority, and to ensure that agency and private sector interests are
represented in carrying out the purpose of the estuarine sanctuary, a
Sanctuary Advisory Committee will be established.

A six-member Advisory Committee is proposed. Membership would be
invited from the County of San Diego, the California Coastal Commission,
a representative *of agricultural,interests, a representative of the
governments of Mexico and/or Baia, California, a representative of the
water quality agencies, and a representative of research and education
interests. The California Department of Fish and Game, the Border Patrol,
and NOAA will be ex-officio members on the Advisory Committee. NOAA
will be represented by the National Marine Fisheries Service's Southwest
Regional Office.

The Sanctuary Advisory Committee will have direct links to both the
Sanctuary Management Authority and its subcommittees. One member of the
Advisory Committee, elected for a year term by a majority of its members,
will serve on the Management Authority. The person with expertise in
ranching and agriculture will serve on, and represent, an Agriculture Sub-
committee. Both the representative of Mexico and/or Baja, California, and
the representative of the water quality agencies will be invited to
serve on the Water Quality Subcommittee. Similarly, the spokesperson
for research and education interests on the Advisory Committee will also
be a member of the Research and Education Subcommittee.

Method of Selection

All members of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee should have
familiarity with the resources and planning issues of the Tijuana Valley,
and be qualified to speak on technical and political aspects of management
proposals. The representative of the County of San Diego should be
appointed by its governing body, upon the recommendation of their
planning department. The Executive Director of the California Coastal
Commission should designate an appropriate representative. The
representative of Mexico should be chosen with the advice of the U.S.
Consulate in Tijuana and existing international bodies, including the
Commission of the Californias, and the International Boundary and Water
Commission. The State Water Resources Control Board is the logical
appointing authority for the water quality representative. A self-selection
process is most appropriate for the representatives of ranching and
farming interests, and research and education interests. This may take
the form of an election, or more likely, a statement of consensus by the
groups invited to participate in each subcommittee.

Responsibilities of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee

1. Provide technical advice in the development of the overall
management program for the sanctuary.

2. Represent the viewpoints of agencies and interests
of the Advisory Committee membership.

3. Summarize with assistance from the appropriate subcommittee the
important issues in agriculture, water quality management and
research and education for consideration by the Management Authority.

4. Meet on a regular basis to identify important management issues
and provide recommendations that shall be considered for action
by the Management Authority.

5. Carry out an ongoing evaluation of Sanctuary management policies
and recommend changes to the management authority where appropriate.

Management Authority Subcommittees

Three subcommittees are recommended to serve important interests
that will be affected by or benefit from sanctuary designation: agriculture
in Tijuana Valley, water quality management, and research and education
interests. Creation of these subcommittees will strengthen the sanctuary
as a focus for resource management in Tijuana Valley. In addition, delegation
of technical issues to the subcommittees for consideration and recommendations
will enable the Management Authority and the Sanctuary Advisory Committee
to function more efficiently.

Agriculture Subcommittee

The proposed subcommittee will draw from the three important uses in
Tijuana Valley: cultivated agriculture, livestock interests, and equestrian
interests. Nominees will be solicited from the community and the Management
Authority will make the final selection. A representative of the Soil
Conservation Service will also be invited to serve on the committee.
Initial responsibilities include: 1) representing the interests of
agriculture and ranching to the Sanctuary Advisory Committee, 2) communi-
cating sanctuary objectives to landowners both within and outside of the
sanctuary boundaries, and 3) erosion control and protection of wildlife
habitats adjacent to cultivated areas.

Water Quality Subcommittee

The water quality subcommittee responsibilities include: 1) to help
improve the coordination of planning already underway for the Tijuana
Valley, 2) to ensure that sanctuary goals are considered in planning
for flood control, groundwater management, and planning for sanitary
measures, and 3) coordinate planning for wastewater treatment facilities
with responsible local, State, and Federal agencies. Membership will be
invited from the governments of Mexico and Baja, California, and the
executive branch of the State of California. With this membership, the
subcommittee would have the unique opportunity to foster international
progress towards the dual goals of resource protection and water quality
management. The participation of the U. S. Consulate in Tijuana, the
Commission of the Californias, and the International Boundary and Water
Commission will be useful in inviting the appropriate representatives of
Mexico and Baja, California. The same individual will be invited to
serve on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee. Agency representatives will
be invited from the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water
Resources Control Board, the International Boundary and Water Commission
and Metro II.

Research and Education Subcommittee

Membership of this working group will draw from researchers at San
Diego State University, other universities, Sea Grant and the Endangered
Species Recovery Team. Representation will also be invited from universities
in Baja, California. Those members with a stronger emphasis on education
will include community colleges, interpretive groups such as the Southwest
Wetlands Interpretative Association, and local and secondary school
districts. Nominations will be solicited from each of these groups and the
Management Authority will make the final selection.

An objective of the Estuarine Sa'nctuary Program is to secure estuarine
areas suitable as outdoor laboratories for teaching and research. Creation
of a special subcommittee for research and education is the most effective
way to ensure that these primary users of the estuary are included in
management decisions. -Such a subcommittee will also provide a forum for
discussing research needs, developing proposals, and collaborating in

the development of education curricula. One of the most important tasks
of this subcommittee will be to work towards implementation of the programs
for research and education. The subcommittee will also be asked to
direct important management issues to the attention of the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee.

c. Research Policy and Program

Introduction

The ability to protect, utilize and manage complex coastal systems,
and the ability to convey the importance of these systems to the general
public as well as professionals, depends largely on the quality of scientific
research and research results which are the basis for these efforts.

A coherent program of research related to understanding the structure
and functions of undisturbed estuary systems and techniques for habitat
protection, enhancement and possible restoration of degraded areas should
be a high priority. Tijuana Estuary should play a central role in building
this level of understanding. According to Joy Zedler of San Diego State
University, an ecologist with a special interest in the Tijuana River
estuary:

"Our studies have demonstrated that the Tijuana River
Estuary is significantly different from eastern systems
because of its usual hypersaline conditions (being subject
to low rainfall, low runoff, continuous tidal input, and high
evaporation), and that it differs greaty from more disturbed
wetlands in southern California. Hence it would be a good
sanctuary, both from the national perspective (because it
represents an arid region wetland) and from a local perspective
(because it is closer to its natural condition than other southern
California systems)."

History of Research Use

The research record for Tijuana Estuary spans many of the issues of
contemporary interest in understanding estuarine structure and function.
Since 1974, ecologists have been working to describe nutrient exchange,
primary productivity, and the structure of algal and salt marsh communities
in the estuary. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
through its Sea Grant Program, has been an essential funding source for
this research. Students-at San Diego State University have completed
theses on several topics in invertebrate ecology, including the ghost
shrimp, the littleneck clam, and other groups of mollusks.

Special attention has been devoted to the use of the Tijuana Estuary
by the Federal ly-endange red Light Footed Clapper Rail. Both the U.S.
Navy and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have underwritten ecological
research on techniques to maintain and restore the Spartina marsh crucial
to the existence of this species.

Additional Sea Grant-sponsored investigations have examined the
response of wetlands to disturbance, in order to provide a sound technical
basis for habitat restoration. More recently, student studies have
documented the role of Tijuana Estuary as a nursery for commercially
and recreationally important fish, and as a wintering area for migratory
shorebirds. Studies to evaluate the recovery of commercially harvestable
clams and shrimp after flooding in the estuary are continuing through
the sponsorship of the Department of Fish and Game. The record of publications
for these research projects began in 1977 and continues to the present.
See Appendix B, Table 10.

During the course of these studies, a variety of habitat types within
the marsh have served as a natural field laboratory. Many of the studies
have been concentrated near the mouth of the river and around the northern
arm of the estuary (Figure 3) on land owned by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and the U.S. Navy.

Proposed Framework for a Research Program at Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary

1. Create a mechanism to enable research findings to be used by the
Sanctuary Management Authority agencies responsible for managing resources
in the lower Tijuana Valley and watershed, government agencies, and the
private sector.

2. Convene workshops with scientists, members of the management
authority, agency staff, and representatives of public and private
foundations to present research findings and draw up agendas for future
research.

3. Prepare guidelines for ensuring that research efforts will be
compatible with long-term resource protection in the Tijuana Estuary.
New research proposals should be subject to review consistent with the
guidelines.

4. Develop interpretive facilities for the Tijuana Estuary, that
include a space for storing experimental equipment, carrying out small
experiments, and briefing visitors.

5. Assess the feasibility of creating a single information
clearinghouse for Tijuana Estuary, to serve as a depository of all
published and unpublished reports about the system.

6. Foster the development of a newsletter to communicate research
findings and important management questions to other groups charged with
managing estuaries and similar resource areas throughout the United States,
California and Mexico.

7. Assess the feasibility of forming a non-profit foundation, with
authority to apply for, accept, and disburse funds for research in Tijuana
Sanctuary.

16
Habitat Types and Selected Research Sites

TIJUANA ESTUARY

CORONADO AVE

...... . . . . . .

0
1 77

19th ST

MARSH

MUD

SAND

SHORE MONUMENT ROAD

SELECTED RESEARCH SITES
IN TIJUANA ESTUARY Utqn-Eo STATES nual
A Clapper Rail Habitat MEXICO
(Zed.ler, Nordbyq Williams 1979) 0 1000 2000 5000
* Spartina Transects
(Zedlert Nordby, Williams 1979) FEET
* Spartina Reestablishment
(Nordby, Zedler, Williams,Boland, 1980)
a Larval Fish Utilzation
(Nordby, 1980) Proposed Boundary Line
----Bird Habitat Utilization
(Boland, 1981) FIGURE 3

Research Objectives

Tijuana Estuary is both a representative of other California estuarine
systems and a unique subject of research in its own right. For this
reason, a research agenda drawn from both State and National needs abd
from interests of scientists familiar with-Tijuana Estuary is appropriate.

State and National Research Objectives

1. Develop sound management schemes for modified estuaries to achieve
the best possible ecological balance over the long term. (Source: Felix
Smith, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal communication,
July 28, 1977.)

2. Characterize desirable physical conditions for wetlands, including
the extent of tidal prism, nutrient flux, and water quality.

3. Develop and test methodologies for wetland restoration. (Source:
E. C. Fullerton, Department of Fish and Game, personal communication,
July 17, 1981.)

4. Determine expected sedimentation rates under various strategies
for managing the watershed and correlate these rates with disturbance in
the watershed.

5. Evaluate the'compatibility of aquaculture with long-term estuarine
protection and utilization.

6. Assess the tolerance of wetland wildlife to humans and domestic
animals.

7. Evaluate the habitat requirements of wetland wildlife species.
(Source: Bruce Browning, Department of Fish and Game, personal communication,
July 28, 1977.)

Research Needs Identified Specifically for'Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary

A fundamental premise in developing a research agenda is that both
long-term study of the salt marsh and examination of the entire wetland
system are essential in understanding estuarine structure and function.
A second concern is that special emphasis should be placed on research
that will explain the relationships between land use management in the
watershed and the components of the estuary. In support of the goals of
the sanctuary program, studies that test the effectiveness of sanctuary
status as a tool for resource management and open space preservation
should also have high priority. The outline below presents specific
research issues that should be addressed at Tijuana Estuary:

1. Community Structure and Primary Productivity

2. Habitat Management and Enhancement

3. Management to Maintain and Enhance Populations of Endangered Species

4. Estuary - Watershed Relationships

5. Role of Tijuana Estuary in a Larger Ecological Setting

6. Nutrient Cycling

7. Agricultural Practices that Ensure Estuarine Productivity.

8. Evaluate Alternative Strategies to Protect the Riparian Habitat
East of 19th Street.

9. Evaluate Combining a Pure Ecological Research Program with an
Applied Research Program.

d. Education Program

Introduction

Apart from their extraordinary value in providing habitat, contributing
to fish and shellfish productivity, and creating open space buffers beyond
the fringes of urban development, the educational importance of wetlands
and estuaries have been widely recognized in the past decade. Beginning
with its Coastal Plan, the Commission has long supported education as a
principal use: "Na al habitat areas that are fragile shall be used only
for those activities that are directly dependent on those natural
resources-such as nature study or education." (Policy 27) The Coastal
Act calls for uses of the marine environment to be carried out in a way
that sustains biological productivity and held by populations of all
species adequate for long term scientific and educational purposes (�30230).

Beyond the involvement of State and Federal agencies, the study of
wetland ecosystems has become a popular activity. Sunset Magazine invited
a California readership of almost 3.5 million to tour two South coast sites
in a 1980 article: "Wetlands In Southern California: Here Is What To
Explore, What To Look For." The President of the California Coastal
Wetlands Coalition has estimated that during the past eight years, over
50,000 students have learned about the value and ecology of wetlands at
Upper Newport Bay.

John Clark, executive secretary of the National Wetlands Technical
Council characterized.the wetlands protection movement: "It has been
propelled by the hunches and instincts of some scientists and overwhelming
public support. There are intangible values perceived by the public--a
wetlands ethic." (Conservation Foundation Letter, October 1978)

Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary as an Educational Resource

The broad expression of support for creation of an estuarine
sanctuary at Tijuana River is both solid evidence of an emerging "wetlands
ethic" for the South Coast, and a reflection of the high level of educational
use already underway. Resources available for study include salt marsh,
mudflat, mudbank, and sandy shore communities. Elementary schools,

secondary schools, universities and private groups all find Tijuana Estuary
an ideal place to carry out their educational objectives. Moreover,
local educators have used the estuary since the late 1950. A survey of
classroom and field trip use puts current levels well over 3,000 visits
per year, with the potential for much greater participation (See Appendix
B, Table 11.

College level education programs have been in operation since 1966
when biology students of Southwestern College were brought to the estuary,
followed by the initiation of Grossmont College's program in 1969.
Scripps Institute, the University of San Diego and especially San Diego
State University have exposed large numbers of students to aspects of
invertebrate biology, estuarine ecology and watershed processes since
the early 1970's. Adult education and docent training programs have
been offered by some educators through the Scripps Aquarium. Public school
use of Tijuana Estuary has also grown over the past twenty-five years.

A special interpretive program has been operated at Border Field by
the State Department of Parks and Recreation for several years. During
the past few years, several thousand people have taken advantage of the tours.
A series of bilingual signs on the mesa overlooking the marsh helps to orient
visitors to the habitats and wildlife.

One of the newest groups of users is the Southwest Wetlands
Interpretive Association (SWIA), organized especially to take advantage
of the rich teaching resources at Tijuana Estuary. The SWIA has already
carried out cooperative programs with the Department of Parks and Recreation.
Other private environmental groups whose programs depend in part on
Tijuana Estuary are the California Native Plant Society, the Audubon
Society, San Diego Orthological Club, and the San Diego Chapter of the
Sierra Club.

Local educators, school administrators, and leaders of environmental
organizations have been invited to submit their suggestions for developing
an education program for Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary. The following
education framework is a synthesis of the ideas contributed.

Framework for an Education Program at Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary

1. Create an Education subcommittee dram from local school districts,
community colleges, universities, and environmental groups. Develop a
mechanism such as a newsletter to communicate with non-local education.

2. Encourage educational organizations with similar interests to
participate in combined field or interpretive activities. This may take
the form of joint field trips for biology classes in different school
districts, sharing of educational materials, or cooperative development
of curriculum.

3. Design and develop a site plan for an interpretive center.
Prepare a site plan for an upland area adjacent to the wetlands considered
able to tolerate limited development.

4. Encourage the participation of the communities of Imperial Beach
and San Diego, including the local news media, in all aspects of the
education program.

5. Limit the nature and extent of field exercises that require
collection of samples of vegetation or wildlife to selected advanced
classes.

6. Design a trail system to protect sensitive habitats and species
while allowing observation of representative portions of the estuarine
environment. Borrowing on the experience of other public access programs
for wetlands, consider a network of wood boardwalks to confine access and
minimize trampling of vegetation.

7. Prepare illustrated field guides and other written materials,
and print the text and captions in both English and Spanish.

8. Restrict activities incompatible with education, especially
within portions of the estuarine system best suited to class learning and
field trips.

Educational Objectives

Specific educational objectives have been articulated for various
levels of students which will include, but not be limited to, the following:

Elementary Level

1. Study how certain groups of plants and animals live together in
a common environment.

2. Study effects of the ocean and its tidal action on the salt
marsh.

3. Study the history and culture of Native Americans who used the
Tijuana River.

4. Familiarize students with common plants and animals of the salt
marsh.

Secondary Level

1. Study the importance of Tijuana Estuary as a breeding area for
birds, fish, and shellfish.

2. Study the distribution of plants and wildlife in relation to
physical conditions in the estuary.

General Public

1. Explain floodplain management.

2. Provide an understanding of the subtle gradation of plant
communities and their importance in maintaining ecological stability in
marshlands.

3. Explain the effect of urbanization on watersheds adjacent to
marshlands and the marshlands themselves.

4. Explain how natural evolutionary processes effect marshlands.

5. Emphasize the relationship between marshland resources and
oceanographic resources.

Although extensive use of specific areas of the proposed sanctuary
by elementary and secondary school systems has existed in the past, this
is not assurance that this valuable research area will be available in
future years. Therefore, the only fail-safe mechanism to assure permanent
utilization and protection for public research and educational efforts is
through direct public ownership and management.

B. Alternatives Considered

1. Funding

Given its unique design as a Federal-State partnership for protecting
estuarine systems, while promoting resource management research and
education, genuine alternatives to the Estuarine Sanctuary Program are
probably nonexistent.

Among the State programs with objectives related to the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program, the Coastal Conservancy administers a revolving fund
for wetlands restoration. However, the Estuarine Sanctuary Program is
not designed to restore degraded habitat areas. Monies intended for
restoration also include funds from the Pittman-Robertson Fund and the
Dingell Johnson Act. Similarly the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and
the Land and Water Conservation Fund are intended for different purposes.

Expansion of Border Field State Park, through allocation of the
State Park Bond monies, would accomplish some of the goals of land
acquisition, but would not provide the emphasis on research or education
or the important coordinating mechanism offered by the sanctuary. Park
Bond monies are, however, the logical source of State matching funds for
the sanctuary.

Expansion of the Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge would be difficult
to justify based on the Endangered Species Act alone, and would not provide
the strong emphasis on research, education, and cooperative management of
resources.

2. Site Selection

The proposal for designation of a second estuarine sanctuary in
California was developed by over 100 interested individuals and organizations
including marine scientists, educators, representatives of environmental
groups, the six Regional Commissions of the CCC, and other State agencies.

Six sites were nominated and a seventh was added by one of the State
Coastal Commissioners. The seven candidates included: (1) Ten Mile
River, Mendocino County; (2) Esteros Americano and de San Antonio,
Marin/Sonoma Counties; (3) Tomales Bay, Marin County; (4) Petaluma River
Marsh, Marin/Sonoma Counties; (5) Los Penasquitos Lagoon, San Diego
County; (6) Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County; and (7) Tijuana River
Estuary. The Petaluma River site falls within the jurisdiction of the
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, while the
remaining six sites are within the jurisdiction of the CCC.

Staff of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program at OCZM/NOAA and the CCC
conducted a cooperative evaluation of the candidates. Some 14 factors
were considered for each site, reflecting the criteria set forth in the
Federal procedural guidelines for estuarine sanctuaries. Important
considerations included diversity of habitats and species, the present
and potential research and educational use, the degree to which the
estuaries are representative of other systems in the regions, the natural
character of the areas, and the presence of compatible land uses in the
estuarine ecosystem and adjacent watershed.

Before making a recommendation, the CCC convened a six-member
Sanctuary Selection Committee, with membership drawn from the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and ' Development
Commission, State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Department
of Fish and Game, and the Assembly Office of Research.

As a result of the site evaluation process, three candidates were
eliminated: (1) Ten Mile River which has limited utility as a site for
research and education, and is seasonally blocked; (2) the Esteros which
are generally blocked from tidal flushing and are prone to hypersaline
conditions; and (3) Batiquitos Lagoon because it is significantly degraded.

Of the remaining four sites, Tijuana River was ranked first by the
Commission staff, Tomales Bay second, Petaluma River Marsh third, and Los
Penasquitos Lagoon fourth. Major considerations in ranking Tijuana River
first were its value as a representative of arid region wetland and estuarine
systems, its natural character, and its exemplary record of research and
educational use. Tomales Bay was identified as an exceptionally strong
candidate with outstanding habitat and species diversity and a major
background of oceanographic and wetlands research. However, given the
size of the immediate drainage area and the complexity of management
programs which already exist, the Commission concluded that a certain
degree of protection is afforded Tomales Bay at this time. In addition,

the need for land acquisition is questionable, and needs to be resolved
before a positive action to establish Tomales Bay as a National Estuarine
Sanctuary can be considered. Similarly, a sanctuary at Petaluma River
Marsh would have generated stronger support if a non-acquisition approach
was pursued.

Before making a formal nomination, the CCC invited written comments,
and held two publ'ic hearings, one in Long Beach and one in Monterey. Over
25 individuals and organizations supported creation of a sanctuary at
Tijuana River, including San Diego State University, local community
colleges, the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association, the California
Wetlands Coalition, three local school districts, the Mayor of Imperial
Beach, and some of the major landowners with ho,ldings adjacent to the
estuary. In contrast, limited support was expressed for a sanctuary at
Tomales Bay that would involve land acquisition. Public reaction to the
Petaluma River Marsh proposal was mixed with the major objection to the
proposed project being from area land owners.

3. Boundaries

Four significant boundary alternatives were considered. The first
alternative, a non-acquisition approach, would have been limited to
lands held by the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Navy. This option was rejected
because it would exclude important wetland, riparian, and floodplain
areas.

A second alternative, also rejected because it would not provide
adequate protection of vital resources, would encompass public land,
portions of the wetland, and portions of the immediate river area.
However, important portions of the lower Tijuana Valley and adjacent
uplands, identified by the Advisory Committee as essential and which would
make up a complete estuarine sanctuary area, and to control damaging
erosion and sedimentation would be excluded.

The third alternative would embrace virtually the entire Tijuana
Valley west of 19th Street, to gain a strong measure of protection for
the wetlands, river course, floodplains, and highlands, but would not
lease back important agricultural lands, or sand and gravel mining areas
for uses dependent on these resources. This option would preclude
economically important uses compatible with the sanctuary and the cost
could probably exceed the level of funding available.

The fourth alternative considered would add the purchase of non-contiguous
parcels that contain poo-l and riparian habitats along the Tijuana River.
This is perhaps the ideal sanctuary boundary which would ensure that- all
related components of the ecosystem are represented. However, without
the participation of an agency such as the California Wildlife Conservation
Board, or a private entity such as The Nature Conservancy, such a proposal
is not likely to come to fruition within the current funding limitations
of the Estuarine Sanctuary Program.

4. Management Structure

Three significant alternatives to the proposed management program
were considered. One alternative would involve designating a single
agency as the management authority, with other interests serving on a
subordinate advisory committee. This alternative was rejected for two
reasons: (1) no single agency has the resources to manage effectively
the entire sanctuary, and (2) a cooperative management authority was deemed
preferable by CCC staff and its Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

A second alternative, involving only the major landowning agencies
in the management authority, was rejected because it would preclude the
direct involvement of municipal, research and education, and agricultural
interests in sanctuary management.

The third alternative considered, a much expanded management authority,
was rejected as too unwieldy to operate efficiently.

The membership and duties of the Advisory Committee and the subcom-
mittees reflect both the need to provide access to sanctuary decisionmaking
by several important agencies and interests, and the need to delegate
consideration of detailed issues to small working groups. Establishment
of specific subcommittees for agriculture, water quality, and research
and education would add to the potential. of the sanctuary as a focus for
progressive systems resource management. In addition, the multi-agency
management structure would offer a more useful and reasonable alternative
to the existing, fragmented, and impractical individual management structure
(vis a vis, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service management responsibility
located in the Imperial Valley, Department of Parks and Recreation, Navy,
City of San Diego, etc.)

5. No Action

A course of "no action" on this sanctuary proposal would sacrifice
an opportunity to secure the entire wetland ecosystem and adjacent lowlands
of the lower Tijuana River Valley in a unified program of management and
compatible use. Part of the core wetland area river corridor and vital
uplands would remain outside public sewardship, and the maintenance of
compatible agricultural uses in perpetuity will not be a certainty. A
forum for working towards further cooperation with Mexico for water
quality and resources would also be lost.

In addition, the Cities of Imperial Beach and San Diego will lose
both national recognition and an opportunity to capitalize economically
on the sanctuary through the development of visitor serving facilities.

p-m@

PART III: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A. Location

Tijuana River Estuary., California is the southernmost estuarine system
on the West Coast of the United States. A number of seasonal lagoons
occur along the coast of North San Diego County, and the tidally-flushed
Tijuana River is situated below San Diego Bay, just 1.5 miles above the
United States-Mexico international border (see Figure 4). The mouth of
the river and the network of channels', mudflats, mudbanks, and salt
marsh together occupy about 1,100 acres. They are bounded on the north
by Coronada Avenue in the City of Imperial Beach, the Imperial Beach
Naval Air Station, and further inland by the community of Nestor. To
the east are the agricultural lowlands of the Tijuana Valley, bisected
by 19th Street, Hollister Road, and the Dairy Mart Road. Interstate 5
traverses the basin about 3.5 miles from the river mouth. Below the
estuarine system are Border Field State Park (formerly a Naval Reser-
vation), and a series of mesas and swales known as the Border Highlands
(see Figure 5).

B. Sanctuary Description

The proposed estuarine sanctuary is in the Pacific Flyway, between
the City of Imperial Beach, San Diego County, California, and the border
of Mexico. Approximately one-half of the estuary is now in public ownership.
Tijuana Estuary is the southern most coastal wetlands in California with
an ocean opening only 1 .5 miles north of the Mexican border. The marsh
system is at the end of the Tijuana River, an ephermeral stream draining
about 1,731 square miles of watershed area within Mexico and the United
States. The estuary is flanked on the north by the City of Imperial
Beach and on the south by Border Field State Park and the Mexican Border.
The estuary, portions of which extend about 1.5 miles inland and 3 miles
along the' ocean shore, is almost completely separated from the ocean by a
broad sandy beach and a narrow zone of low sand dunes. Unlike other
lagoons in San Diego County, the mouth of the Tijuana Estuary remains
open almost continually.

Tijuana Estuary can be divided into north and south sections based
on the contrasting physical makeup of each area. The northern section,
referred to as Oneonta Slough, is a relatively productive marsh containing
95 percent of the estuary's growth of cord grass. The main channel
leading into this section branches into many small channels which are
surrounded by areas of low marsh heavily vegetated with cord grass. Also
in the northern section, a channel extends easterly to the remains of a
sewage oxidation pond complex. During low tides, sizable areas of mud
flats are exposed throughout these ponds and adjacent channels.

Approximately 885 acres of the estuary, marsh and mud flats, and
adjacent uplands are in private ownership, and are proposed for fee
or less-than-fee simple acquisition.

26
OREGQI*
16EL NOTE Location Map Of
The

---4;HUM13OLDT
TIJUANA ESTUARY

--@-MENDOCINO

ONOMA

ARIN
'@N FRANCISCO

AN MATEO

SANTA CRUZ

7- MONTEREY

.L
-:IC-SAN LUIS OSISPIO

ANTA aARBARA

VENTURA

OS ANGELES
411461 TiZ. 10
>,4QFIANGE

sab D I p. i
---@,SiN DIEGO
vo P Mrsqwd PA
m In, 0
.,A U- 4,j@"J@

'S N QIEGO'
S@N QiEGO-

%Chula vi
)N
S., E.-
@TijuanMl'
v
Valley 0 80 160

MILES

FIGURE 4

TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY

1z.
Ni, ?i_
+

29
2 8'@._
16

F P I A 1, B F A C

A A L 1 2 A T 10 N 34
z

I in

P11HATE
"'Hill AT@__"_'

Tel

5 3
,11.4

8
DEld FIFLD
()R
N AfAl.

0 1000 2000 Soo

FEET

Source: USGS 7.5' topographic q

The California Department of Parks and Recreation owns a 377-acre
parcel at the southern end of the estuary. This was formerly U.S. Navy
property called Border Field. The State Parks and Recreation Department
also leases 283 acres from the Navy at Ream Field. A large portion of
the leased area (approximately 100 acres) is estuarine habitat. An
additional acreage of the estuary is contained within the Ream Field, but
is not included in the lease. A Naval facility, used primarily to trai-n
helicopter pilots, is located just south of the City of Imperial Beach.
The facility comprises approximately 634 acres. The Navy is now in the
process of or has acquired a buffer area consisting of an additional 570
acres along the southern and western boundaries of Ream Field. San Diego
Gas and Electric Company owns 200 acres on the east side of the Tijuana
Estuary.

In total, the estuary and closely associated upland contains
approximately 1,180 acres. The tide influenced area consists of 546
acres, 147 acres of which are tidal channels and 368 acres of mudflats and
marshlands. Salt-tolerant and freshwater vegetation, sand dunes and
beach area comprise the remaining 634 acres.

C. Climate

A subtropical climate with hot summers and mild winters characterizes
the lower Tijuana River. Mean monthly temperatures range from 52'F in
January to 680F in July (International Boundary and Water Commission,
1974). Occassional daytime temperatures near 120*F have been reported in
summer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980). Prevailing winds are from
the northwest in winter and from the southwest in summer. Afternoon
velocities range from 5 to 15 miles per hour.

Winter rainfall, particularly in January and February, account for
-most of the precipitation. Some 88 percent of the rain is received from
November through April; rainfall from June through September averages
only 0.28 inches. Near the coast, rainfall in a "norTnal" year would be
9-10 inches, and mountainous parts of the watershed would receive 25-28
inches. Over the past thirty five years of record, precipitation has
exceeded the average in less than one fourth of the rainy seasons (Inter-
national Boundary and Water Commission, 1974). However, weather patterns
,do vary dramatically from year to year. In 1977 close to 2 inches of
rainfall drenched the valley in August, while in 1978 there were heavy
rains in January-March, accompanied by severe flooding (Zedler, 1979).

D. Cultural and Historic Resources

While no cultural site's have been reported immediately adjacent to
the slough system, the neighboring border highlands have a significant
number and variety of cultural sites. Record searches performed by
the City of San Diego (Polan, 1981) have revealed a total of 16 documented
sites, including 14 reported by the San Diego Museum of Man and 5 reported
by the Cultural Resource Management Center at San Diego State University.

Ten additional prehistoric sites and isolated artifacts were identified
in a recent field reconnaissance of Spooners Mesa (Polan, 1981). Scrapers,
cores, hammers, manos, metates (grinding surfaces) and flakes--the
remains of early quarries and workshops--were revealed in these studies.
The majority of sites are associated with the San Dieguitos, believed to
be the first inhabitants of the border highlands as this desert group
adapted to a coastal existence. Most of the sites have sustained some
disturbance through road construction, mining activities, and random
looting, but some are relatively pristine. See Appendix B, Table 12
for a complete listing of the attributes of natural sites in the Border
Highlands.

At least two or three additional sites exist near the boundary marker in
Border State Park, representing the Digueno, San Dieguito and La Jolla
cultures (International Boundary and Water Commission, 1974).

Father Junipero Serra is believed to have camped in Smugglers Gulch
in the 1700's. The marble boundary marker delineates the western end of
the United States-Mexico land border (International Boundary and Water
Commission, 1974).

E. Geology

Geology of the Tijuana River Valley

Tijuana River Valley is structurally controlled by faults of Quaternary
age. (Kennedy and Tan, 1975) The east side of the area is bounded by
the San Ysidro fault, juxtaposing tertiary and quaternary-aged rock along
the southwest side toward the valley floor, while the south side of the
valley is bounded by a complex, discontinuous group of faults. About
twenty five well-exposed or inferred faults traverse the Border Highlands.
Three prominent faults on Spooners Mesa together constitute the northern
part of the Los Buenos Fault, which extends south into Mexico. Significant
separation on the order of 35m, juxtaposes rocks of the San Diego (early
Pleistocene) and Lindavista (late Pleistocene) formations.

In the offshore bight, a branch of the Silver Strand fault--part
of the Rose Canyon fault zone, extends from an area opposite southern San
Diego Bay to the northern arm of Tijuana Estuary at about 1 .7 km from
the coastline. Beyond the mouth of the estuary and south to the border
the Silver Strand is less persistent, comprised of several splays offsei
in a parallel configuration (Kennedy and Welday, 1980).

The faulting within the Tijuana Floodplain and offshore bight
includes early Pleistocene formations, but it is not clear if late
Pleistocene and Holocene formations are faulted. Hol ocene al 1 uvi um and
slopewash overlap faults between San Ysidro fault and the border highlands,

so the projection of faults beneath the valley is speculative. About ten
concealed lineaments are thought to be present. These include a trace
parallel to Monument Road between Hollister Road and Dairy Mart Road, a
trace intersecting 19th Street, and a third extensive trace intersecting
both 19th Street and 27th Street. (Kennedy and Tan, 1977). Other traces
are thought to be present beneath unfaulted sediments of Smugglers Gulch
and Goat Canyon (Kennedy and Tan, 1975). Kennedy and Tan (1977) have
completed the best available geologic map of the area as shown in Figures 6
and 7, undifferentiated alluvium and slopewash is the geologic unit
underlying the Wildlife Refuge, the southern part of Imperial Beach Naval
Air Station, Border Field State Park, and most of the proposed acquisitions.
Poorly consolidated stream deposits of silt, sand, and cobble-sized particles,
derived from adjacent bedrock, comprise the alluvium. Slopewash is deposited
on lower valley flanks through the interaction of seasonal rainfall and
gravity. Recent beach deposits are present along the shoreward length
of the estuarine system, and bound the estuary near its mouth.

Two similar sedimentary units, the Bay Point Formation and the
Unnamed, nearshore marine sandstone underlie the areas above the northern
arm of the estuary, and east of 19th Street. The fossil-bearing Bay
Point Formation is composed of poorly consolidated sandstone derived from
marine, lagoonal , and non-marine sources, was laid down on a marine-cut
terrace in the late Pleistocene. The marine sandstone is a fine grained
mixture of well-sorted and poorly-sorted deposits.

The westernmost part of the Border Highlands is mostly composed of
the Bay Point Formation. Two outcrops of the San Diego Formation are
prominent on Spooners Mesa and the eastern part of the Highlands. The
conglomerate part of the formation occur at higher elevations where steep
natural exposures occur, and the sandstone part occur in areas east and
below the conglomerate faces. The pebble and cobble conglomerate is
bound in a sandstone matrix which is extremely resistant to weathering,
while the locally-cemented sandstone is weak and susceptible to rapid
erosion.

The Lindavista Formation, created by the deposition of nearshore marine
and non-marine sandstone sediments on a wave-cut platform, occupies the
upper slopes of the border highlands. Iron-based cement (hematite) makes
this material resistant to erosion.

Landslides, the product of oversteepened slopes, groundwater
saturation, and surface water erosion, have occurred in several locations
along the valley walls in the Border Highlands where the San Diego
formation crops out. Another large landslide deposit is located just
east of Interstate 5 near Larsen Field, and eleven distinct slides have
occurred along the slopes of Spring Canyon and Moody Canyon, both tributary
watersheds to the Tijuana River.

Along the upper reaches of these canyons, the Lindavista Formation
grades into the sandstone portion of the San Diego formation and the
tertiary Otay Formation. This geologically older formation is composed
of well sorted, poorly compressed sandstone and claystone. Further east,
the San Ysidro Mountains are underlain by the jurassic-age Jasper Volcanic
Formation.

Surficial Geology Tijuana River Valley

.381111A 1 11
k

01
Coronado Ave
;6@
WOW
"Z* p -
0
R AP
% Nzz
0@
y
0 1-0 0q. ,olo
@X
IR
;0 V, .0 R
0.0 0. - 4@
i6r. 0,00
imperial vaacn@- .0
-f,NavalAh
P
0 10
te(%t P V. i [@'P:
:(J 07.0
@5ri
0 t,
7@_

I Iluana R-
0
ver
A )b
"W, 6'
) V. . .. I? ;I
411, ._U0.
-tJU(J 01..
? ita
v QD
23
.,v
4. V.-.-
(3
Smugglers Gul
,7ff Ll

d Fl 3
Goal
Can---- '00
Park 0*
Ali
- 0
@: ..

It
257
0 1000 2000

'258
M FEET
BASE MAP: USGS imperial Beach 7.5' quadrangle SOURCE: California Division of Mines
Map Sheet 29, 1977

Surficial GeOlOgy- Tijuana River Valley

Z Beach deposits (42b): The beach deposits are composed of unconsolidated
W
sand and silt. I hey mantle those parts of the present-day 5C9 C0251 where
0 erosion is slow. The materiel in the deposits is derived from many
J sources as a result of longshme drift and alluvial discharge train major
0
stream courses.
Z5 Alluvium and slopewash (Qaf + Qsw): Alluvium and s
differentiated on the map. The alluvium consisis most
Landslide delrosits (Qfs): A large part of the mapped area Is underlain by Solidated stream deposits of silt. sand, and cobble-sized
incompetent sedimentary rocks that have been broadly dissected by from bedrock sources that lie in or near the area of thqe
sorcam channels. Most of the landslides shown are rotational slumps and intertongue with Holocene slopewash that coinmonly n
have occurred along valley walls in which racks of the San Diego and valley slopes throughout much of coastal San Die
Olay Formations crop out. The landslides are gravity slides resulting slopewash deposits are poorly consolidated stitficial n
from basal erosion of ovefsteepened slopes, ground-waoer salutation. chiefly from acarby Sources Of 900 and decompose
cc and sufface-water erosion where poorly consolidated rock is present. "'"wash is deposited along the flonks of the lower we
Most slides have a multiple slip surface, and expansible clay is usually interaction of gravity and water.
present. The slides have consistently maintained Internal homogeneity,
M W end rotation or the slide mass Is normally less than ten degrees.
W Z
W P 7_771 Ilay "I Formation (Qbqs): The Ilay Point Formation
< Q well expod in much of the area adjacent to San Dicg
0 Em lion is composed Of Marine, lagoonal. and nonmaTin
0 Day Point Formation and unnamed, nearshore marine sandstone und(treren Aattd, fine- and medium-gisintil, palt-birown. fossil
riated (Qbp + Onl. Much of the Day Point Formation that underlies the The Day Point Formation was laid down on a marine
lowland Me surrounding Son Diego Bay has not been differentiated
J Terrace) during the late Pleistocene, Sangamon Int
from the unnamed, nearshore marine sandstone deposits and together stand. Marine fossil occur between 0 and 30 m (m
0 they are Isticled bp +On.
0 high tide and include mollusks, Foraminifers. ostra
N Llndavbta Formation (Ql): The Lindavista Formation consists Uranium Series (121CS Of the Corals indicate an age of
0 years (Ku and Kern, 1974). The marine part of the Be
Z shore marine and nonmerine sediments that were depted on 1111CFfingers with unfossiliferous, fine-grained, pale-
W wave-cul plelfoinn (Lindsvists Terrace) 10 km (kilomettes) wide fullow-
qQ Ing the deposition of the middle or late Pliocene age Sets Diego Forms- gray, noronsrine sandstone that ties gencf ally mote I
lion and preceding the deposition of the fossillferous, late Pleistocene ban 60 tit above sea level.
Day Point Formation. A meager molluscan fauna and its superpositionat
relationship suggest an early Pleistocene or late Pliocene age for the Lin-
davista Formation. These deposits are composed of moderate reddish-
brown intefbedded sandstone and conglomerate. Ferruginous cement.
n mainly hematite, gives the Lindavists Formation ill Characteristic red-
dish.brown color and resistant "store.
W So" triclo Formatiori (Tsdcg, corrIllomrrair par#): The qc
Z of theqpan Diego Formation is pebble. cobble, and hou
D Us in 3 COUtSCIlFained sandstone matrix. These rocks
>_ Q Sari Diego Formation (Tsdss. saudstcire part): The sandstone par I (if the thickness of 75 at and me typically Poorly sorted. well
4 cc 0 San Diego Formation is roefine and fine to medium grained and lies memcd with ferruginous cement. I he composition qt
< qM
J generally cost and below its closely related conglomeratic facies. The twernely varied. Siliccous, meravolcanic off so abum
sandilone is typically yellowish brown, poorly indurated. and locally cc. Poway Group (Kennedy and Moore. 1971) locally con
W 0memed with limy cement. Locally rich fossiliferous scoments contain fifthe unit. Clasts of granitic and low-grade mclaorp
mollusks, Foraminifers, end nuirine mummals which. when considered local Mesozoic basement rocks are visa shundmo in
together. suggest a middle vad laic Pliocene age (liefolein and Grant, The far nistion is typically matter ately reddish brown
1944; Milow and Ennis, 1961). These strata are characteristically weak ing by the conlained Iron cement. These rocks are ext
and susceptible to rapid erosion. The terrain underlain by the sandstone weathering and crop out in sicep natural exposures. A
part or the San Diego Formalion is ususally subdued. Is assigned its this unit based on its supetpositional
relationship with the well-dated sandstone part tit the

fl,.g dash mir IWfixt Is ppe"
U 4,80 fnd. doord SYMBOLS: CONTACT FAULT Whorrsm Wdr. arrow md ant.-W.4

F . Soils

Tidal flats, alluvial. sandy loams, and sands account for the majority
of soils in the lower Tijuana Valley. Nearest the influence of tidal
action, the fertil.ity of the basin is lowest. Non-arable tidal flats extend
beyond the upper limit of the slough system and provide the substrate for
mudflat and marshland habitat. The saline series of Chino sandy loam
occurs east of the tidal flats and upslope from river-deposited sand.
Surveys by the Soil Conservation Service (1975) have determined that much
of the lowlands are suitable for agriculture. However, most of this area
has a tendency to erode rapidly and therefore requires effective management
to sustain land uses consistent with long term protection of the estuary.

Two erodable soils in the lowlands have been placed in the highest
capability unit for cultivation: Chino sandy loam and Visalia sandy
loam. Both are considered good terrain for citrus, truck crops, and
flowers. As illustrated in Figures 8 and 9, other soils with some
utility for agriculture are also highly erodable as a result of their
low clay content and the nature of their surface texture.

To the south, steep terrace escarpments and fine sandy loam--the
.object of mining activity dominate Spooner's Mesa. Cobbl y loam is most
prevalent in the eastern highlands and non-arable riverwash separates the
two bluffs. Each of these surficial types is also subject to erosion,
contributing to downstream sedimentation. See Appendix B, Table 12
for a complete listing of attributes for the Tijuana River Valley.

G. Hydrology of the Tijuana River

Measured from its most distant source, the Tijuana River system is
about 85 miles long, and drains a basin of approximately 1,731 square
miles. The named Tijuana River is defined as starting 11 miles from the
ocean at the confluence of two main tributaries: the Rio de las Palmas
in Mexico and Cottonwood Creek (Arroyo del Alamar) in the United States.
Only the last 5.8 miles of the Tijuana River flow through the United
States; 27 percent of the basin (467 square miles) lies north of the
border.

Pryde (1976) has divided the basin into four portions, bounded by
topographic and urban features. The estuarine area, including the network
of channels and salt marshes, comprises the first subunit; the second
unit is the undeveloped floodplain extending five miles from the estuary
to the international border. An urbanized area in Mexico extending from
the border through the City of Tijuana to the Rodriquez Dam comprises the
third subunit. Average rainfall of these three areas falls in the range
of 9-10 inches annually. Everything ab.ove Rodriquez Dam, together with the
entire Cottonwood Creek drainage, makes up the balance of the basin.
Extrapolation of limited records indicates an average rainfall of 25-28
inches in the fourth subunit.

Soil Erodability and Suitability for Agriculture
Coronado Ave. Tijuana River Valley

SU-1- ... .......
............

t
..................

...........-
.7
77

.... .......

0 1001) 2001)

SU-1 FEE T
SU-1
SU-1

Nola:
03 SAMPLE OEStGNATON:
Recent flooding may h ave
chang&d $oil configuration. Erodability Crop SuitabWiy
Factor ResponsiDle for Etodabigly

SOIL EHDDABILITY AND SUITABILITY FOR AGRICULTURE
Tijuana River Valley

LEGEND

ERODABILITY: MAP SYMBOL SOIL TYPE
Moderate :SU-4 Chino silt loam, saline (0-2% slope)

Severe :Su-1 Marina loamy coarse sand (2-9%)
Coastal Beaches
FACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR Su-4 Tidal Flats
ERDDABILITY: River Wash
Su- Surface layer texture Huerhuero loam (5-9%)
D- Depth to hard rock Su-2 TiJunga sand (0-5%)
Ln
G- Grade of structure Carlsbad gravelly loamy sand (2-9%)
in surface layer D-2 Huerhuero loam (2-9%)
Sl- Slope Chesterton fine sandy loam (2-5%)
D-4 Hnerhuero loam (9-15%)
CROP SUITABILITY (for specified Visalia gravelly loam (2-5%)
c s: avocados, citrus, truck crops, G-1 Visalia sandy loam (0-2%)
tomatoes, flowers): Chino fine sandy loam (0-2%)
I- Good for 3-5 specific crops and G-2 Ramona sandy loam (2-5%)
Fair for 0-2 to to G-3 Oliventrain cobbly loam.(9-30%-)
2- Good for 1-2 specific crops and
I$ Su./G-3 Oliventrain cobbly loam (2-9%)
-n Fair for 0-3
SI-4 Oliventrain cobbly loam (30-50%)
3- Good for 0 specific crops and
to
M Fair for 1-5 Terrace Escarpments
ko 4- Noi suitable for specified crops 4 Huerhuero -Urban land complex
or not arable

SOURCE: U.S.D.A.,Soil Conservation Service and Forest Service- Soil Survey, San Diego Area, California , 1973

Three dams in the Tijuana River watershed are the product of an
early resource management program that emphasized the capture of runoff
for municipal and irrigation water supplies. Morena and Barrett reservoir
were built in 1912 and 1922 respectively on Cottonwood Creek; Rodriquez
Dam on Rio de las Palmas was built in 1935. Together they control about
71 percent of the watershed and have a combined storage capacity of
206,850 acre feet (Pryde, 1976). A series of wet years filled the dams
to near capacity and produced an anomalous year-round flow during the
early 1940s. Since that time, none of the dams approached capacity
until the intense winter storms of 1978, 1979, and 1980.

Prior to the collection of quantitative records, severe floods were
reported in 1825 and 1862. Medium to large floods occurred in the drainage
area in ten subsequent years, with the largest estimated at 75,000 cfs in
1916. The largest measured historical discharge rate was 17,700 cfs in
1937. Estimates have placed the probabilistic 100 year flood slightly
higher at 80,000 cfs--enough to inundate about 4,400 acres in the
floodplain and lowlands.

Freshwater Inflow

Readings from the USGS gauging station at Nestor indicates that
freshwater inflow to Tijuana Estuary fluctuates significantly from year
to year as a function of seasonal rainfall and release of water from
upstream dams. Mean annual discharge for 44 years of record is 29.1 cfs,
or 21,080 acre feet per year. However, even during wet years this
contribution to the estuary tends to be concentrated in the months of
January to April, while summer and late fall runoff is often negligible.
The total amount of freshwater entering the slough system has been below
average for 37 of the 44 years of record. Prior to the rainy years of
1978-1980, general drought conditions prevailed and peak runoff has
typically been less than 500 cfs. The relatively wet year of 1978-79
produced freshwater input over 100 cfs on 36 consecutive days, and rates
above 1 cfs were measured through most of the year. The largest discharge
on record, 53,282 cfs, was gauged during.th-e winter of 1979-80. See
Figures 10 and 11 for a detailed summary of freshwater inflow to the lower
Tijuana River. (Pryde after U.S. Boundary and Water Commission, 1976;
U.S. Geological Survey, 1976-1980; U.S. Geological Survey, personal
communication, 1981).

Groundwater

The groundwater capacity of the lower Tijuana Valley is thought to be
about 20,000 acre feet (International Boundary and Water Commission,
1976). Studies completed by the International Boundary and Water Commission
(1974), based on earlier reports of the State Department of Water Resources,
indicates that a groundwater deficit existed for many years in the lower
Tijuana Valley. In the upper part of the basin, water could be found
just 8 feet below the surface prior to the 1940s. After 1945, pumping
and export of groundwater, combined with dam storage and low rainfall,
resulted in insufficient recharge. Water levels rose in many wells after
1965 as pumping was cut back and wetter weather patterns returned.

Figure 10 - Recent Freshwater Inflow to Lower Tijuana River (Data from Nestor Gauge)

Period
Maximum Mean Days Flow Exceeds Days Flow Exceeds Total with
Water Year Discharge Discharge 1 cfs 100 cfs Discharge the-flow

October 1979
to Sept. 1980 34,200 cfs

October 1978
to Sept. 1979 1,610 cfs 56.42 cfs 289 49 40,712 a.f. 47 days
(36 consecutive
days March-April
October 1977
to Sept. 1978 6,370 cfs 97.70 cfs 92 32
(28 consec. days) 71,243 a.f. 8.5 months

October 1976
to September 1977 26 cfs .13 cfs 6 None 48.24 a.f.

October 1975
to September 1976 168 cfs .96 cfs 9 None 663.82 a.f. 11.5 months

Sources: U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Data in California 1975 - 1980;

USGS Laguna Niguel Data Retrieval Office, personal communication.

cfs = cubic feet per second

af = acre feet

Figure 11 - Historical Freshwater Inflow to the Lower Tijuana River

Calendar Years Average Peak Discharge Average Total Annual Discharge Comments

1916 53,282 cfs Estimate

1937 - 1940 9,053 cfs 36,655 a.f. 3 years Nestor gauge

1946 - 1950 2,599 cfs 99,222 a.f. 3 years peak data

1951 - 1955 1,574 cfs 4,312 a.f. 2 years peak data;
different gauges

1956 - 1960 194.2 cfs 4,907 a.f. 2 years peak data;
different gauges

1961 - 1965 706.2 cfs 688 a.f. Boundary gauge

1966 - 1970 22.95 cfs 2,170 a.f. Boundary gauge
CO
1971 - 1975 18.36 cfs 704 a.f. (1973-75 Nestor gauge
4 years record for
peak data
Sources: Adapted from Pryde (1976) after International Boundary and
Water Commission (1976)

H. Biological Characteristics

1. Community Structure in Tijuana Estuary

a. Vascular Plants

Zeller (1977) has described the community structure in significant
detail. Species composition and community structure in Tijuana Estuary
varies as a function of elevation over a relatively small (one meter)
gradient. Elevation is in turn a good indicator of soil salinity, inundation,
soil organic matter, and soil clay content. Like most southern California
salt marshes, vegetation in Tijuana Estuary cannot be separated into
meaningful zones or associations.

A more notable feature is the presence of Spartina foliosa (cordgrass) ,
a species absent in more disturbed sites in soutre-Rcal'iTo-rnia and at
Elkhorn Slough, California's first National Estuarine Sanctuary. Spartina
dominates at the lowest elevations, declining abruptly in frequency and
abundance as elevation increases. A fairly discrete boundary occurs at
6-7 decimeters (dm) mean sea level (MSL), above Aich almost no Spartina
occurs. Shallow channels (MSL or higher) usually have some Spar-t"ina;
elevations up to 3-4 dm MSL contain at least some dense stands of Spartina,
sometimes sharing dominance with Salicornia virginica (pickleweed).

A changing vegetation profile is visually evident as tall coarse
saltgrass (60 centimeters (cm)) drops out, to be replaced by low growing
succulents, characteristically less than 40 cm in height. Dominance in
the 5-8 dm range shifts to Batis maritima (Salt wort), a perennial trailing
succulent, and Salicornia b-ig-U-60-1,an upright annual succulent. Similar
patterns of distribution suggest that the two species are not ecological
competitors. Their distinct morphology and reproductive habits are thought
responsible for co-occurrence; however, sampling does not indicate a consistent
Batis-Salicornia association.

These dominant. forms grade into Jaumea dominated areas, followed by
Suaeda, Frankenia (alkalai heath), Monanthochloe, and Salicornia
subterminalis (glasswort). In Tijuana EsutaFy-there i-s-c-Te-arly an overlap
in distriFu-f-ion between morphologically similar species--the succulents
Batis, Jaumea, Salicornia, and Suaeda--and genetically-similar species:
Sa icoFn@iaand Suaeda are Cheno-po-dTa-cea; Monanthocloe and Distichlis are
Graminae.

Salicornia virginica occurs in two different growth forms, with a
bimodal-peak in distribution. At low elevations a tall, branching form
accounts for 24-50% of the cover, while at higher elevations a lower form
occurs. Little pickleweed occurs at the higher elevations. S. virginica
generally tolerates a wide range of environmental conditions, as evidenced
by pure stands at two disturbed sites: Los Penasquitos Lagoon and the
San Diego River Flood Control Channel. Competition may limit the abundance
of S. virginica where S. bigelovii is present, causing the bimodal
dis-Fribution. Batis may also be an ecological competitor.

b. Algal Communities

A thick mat made up of diatoms,,filamentous bluegreen algae, and
green algae are responsible for much of the primary productivity in
Tijuana Estuary. Zedler (1979) identified 83 species, including 38
common forms: 32 species of diatoms, 4 bluegreen algae, and 2 green
algae. Compared to the overstory of larger vascular plants, the composition
of the algal communities is more similar in space but more dynamic through
time. Factors that influence vascular plants,. such as dessication and
inundation also influence algal species abundance * Succulents, grasses,
and other vascular plants also affect their associated algal communities
by providing the patterns of light and shading that are so important to
both composition and productivity.

Using a statistical measure of similarity, Zedler found the highest
degree of similarity among algae communities growing between the larger
Monanthochloe (Salt cedar) and Batis (Salt wort). However, all algae
communities Fad a similarity inU-exexce'eding 50%--far higher than the
vascular plant communities.

Larger algae, especially the bluegreen forms with filamentous growth,
are able to "average out" differences in environmental conditions, but
tiny diatoms are more sensitive to minute changes in moisture or nutrient
levels. The bluegreen algae* are more frequent in warm seasons, giving
way to a greater abundance of diatoms and green algae during cooler
periods. An abundance of species is found year-round, indicating that
even with fluctuations in freshwater inflow and tidal inundation, there
is no "best" season. for growing the plants that serve at the base for the
food chain. Dramatic changes in community structure are seldom evident,
due to the presence of a large number of species and a broad spectrum of
sensitivity to environmental change. Subtle changes detected between March
and April and between May and June coincide with low algal productivity
and the stress of desication as freshwater input declines. See Appendix B,
Table 3 for a list of common algal species.

B. Estuarine Productivity

Primary productivity, the production of plant material from sunlight,
gasses, and nutrients, is the result of contributions of larger vascular
green plants, and microscopic algae. Productivity, like the composition
of plant communities, varies with elevation. Creeks and channel banks
in the estuary support dozens of tiny diatoms which color the sediment
gold or brown. While individually abundant, these diatoms together with
the phytoplankton drifting in the open water produce only one sixth the
plant matter generated by the low marsh (Zedler, 1978). Spartina dominated
marsh, growing at the lowest elevation, generates the most plant matter
per unit area. Compared to east coast marshes, Tijuana River's most
prolific vascular plants are less productive. However, when the contribution
of algae is added, the total Spartina community generates as much living
plant matter in a given year To-ver1,500 grams dry weight per square
meter, compared to 1,000-3,000 grams in the east). At the middle and
higher elevations, the dominant succulents and salt cedar contribute
somewhat less plant matter in a similar area, but the contribution of
algae is higher--up to 50% of the total community. Because the area of
high marsh is much greater than low marsh, it produces the most plant
material when the whole estuarine system is considered.

Measuring primary productivity helps provide an understanding of the
foundation of the food chain in the estuary. Marsh grasses growing at
low and high elevations have little food value while still growing, but
do nourish a variety of bacteria and fungi as they decompose, in turn
providing food for larger detritus-feeding animals. The most food may be
available at middle elevations, where succulents and algae are grazed
while growing and after they begin to decay. Fish and shellfish feed on
succulents as they undergo rapid decomposition. Algal mats dominated by
bluegreen algae may be directly used by smaller invertebrates such as
nematodes, protozoa, amphipods, and snails--the food for valuable fish
and shellfish.

3. Marine Invertebrates

The 54 invertebrate species in Tijuana Estuary reflect adaptations
to a variety of substrate, salinity, and tidal conditions. Quantitative
studies by Peterson (1969), McIlwee (1970) and Ocean Science and Engineering
(1971) demonstrate that clams and other bivalve mollusks are numerically
dominant among the invertebrate animals living in the sediment of tidal
channels and lower intertidal mud-sand flats. Some of these filter
feeding animals are found throughout the estuary, while others are limited
by their requirement for a particular sand or mud content in the substrate.
As shown in Figure 12, three varieties of clams were among the most
abundant animals in both the 1969 and 1971 surveys: the purple clam,
Sanguinolaria nuttali, the common littleneck, Protothaca staminea, and tne
California jackknife, Tagelus californica. The jackknife-c-l-amappears to favor
habitats with a high mud content, while the purple clam and the bentnose
clam--another common bottom-dweller--prefer environments with lower
amounts of mud.

42 Figure 12

COMMON BENTHIC INVERTEBRATES OF TIJUANA RIVER ESTUARY

Peterson OSE* Ranked
Species Taxonomic Group Ranked Abundance Abundance

Sanguinolaria nutallii Bivalve 1 5
(Purple clam)
Protothaca staminea Bivalve 2 1
(Common littleneck clam)
Dendraster excentricus Echinoderyn 3 10
(Sand dollar)
Tagelus californicus Bivalve 4 3
(California jjacnife clam)
Macoma nasuta Bivalve 5 11
(Bent-nU's-eclam)
Macoma seca Bivalve 6 4
(White d clam)
Laevicordium substriatum Bivalve 7 14
(Egg cockle)
Callianassa californiensis Crustacean 8 7
(Ghost shrimp)
Tell_ina carpenterii Bivalve 9 -

Apolymetic biangulata Bivalve 11

Tresus nutalli Bivalve 11 -
TG-aper clam)
Crytomya californica Bivalve 13 12
(False mya T-
Olivella biplicata Gastropod 13 -
(Purple 575-e7la)
Nassarius tegula Gastropod 14 6
kMud nassa)
Chione undatella Bivalve 15 9

Cooperella subdiaphana Bivalve 18 -

Donax californicus Biv.alve 18
(Wedge cla-m-T-
Olivella bactica Gastropod 18 15
(Beatic -o-Fivella)
Soleroplax granulate Crustacean 19 -

Hemigrapsis oregonensis Crustacean 20 13
(Mudflat crab)
Bulla gouldiana Gastropod

Cerithidea california Gastropod 1
CC-alifornia horn shell) 8
Owenia fusiformis Polychaete wo rm
(Sand tuS-eworm)

Sources: Peterson, 1969. Ranking of abundance by individuals/sample, based
o@'-10sampling efforts with 19-74 samples at several sites. *Ocean Science
Engineering, 1971. Ranking of mean density/sample over 5 sites with 2-8
point/site.

Polychaete worms, ecologically important as consumers of detritus
and a food source for carnivores, are also numerically important. Larger
and more common species are the sand tubeworm, Owenia fusiformis and
Ophelia limonica.

Among the single-shelled gastropod mollusks, the predatory mud
Nassarius tegula and the purple and beatic olivella are important in
T@idalchan_n7e-and sand flat associations. The ghost shrimp, Callianassa
californiensis, valued for bait, is the most abundant crustacean in
Tijuana Estuary, particularly in tide-flushed mud and sand flats. In beds
on the deeper, sandy bottoms of tidal channels, where high current
velocities prevail, the common sanddollar, Dendraster excentricus, is fairly
c ommo n .

Before the 1978-79 floods, one numerically significant snail, the
California horn shell, Certithidea californica, is found only in marsh
associations where it feeds on plant detritus. Two other inhabitants of
the marsh environment are the gastropod, Melamphris olivacius, and the
burrowing fiddler crab, Uca crenulata.

4. Benthic and Pelagic Fish

The waters and bottom communities of Tijuana Estuary provide habitat
for 29 fish species in 19 families, including an abundance of small gobie
sand sculpins as well as important recreational species of base and flatfish.
Studies conducted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (1980) and Ocean
Science and Engineering (1971) have identified the topsmelt, Atherinops affinis,
and the California killifish, Fundulus parvipinnis, as particularly
abundant species. Topsmelt and- the benthic staghorn sculpin, Leptocottus
armatus, occur mainly over sandy bottoms and mud-sand transition zones,
while killifish use habitats with muddy substrates. Small burrowing
gobies, especially the arrowbody, Clevelandia ios, and cheekspot, Ilypnus
gilberti, are abundant in fine sand and mud bottoms.

Among recreationally important fish, the striped mullet, Mugil cephalus,
was abundant in both surveys. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service found
significant numbers of California halibut, Paralichthys californicus,
and diamond turbot, Hypsopsetta guttulata, estimating-thieir popul ns at
30,000 and 17,000 respectively. Three bass species utilize the estuary:
the kelp bass, Paralabrax clathratus, the spotted sand bass, P.
.masculatofasciatus, and the sand bass, P. nebulifer. Spotted-turbot,
Pleuronichthys ritteri, California corbTini-,Menticirrhus undulatus, white
croaker Genyonemus Ti-neatus and the opaleye, Girella nigricans make up
the balance of valuable sportfish. Juveniles of each species were
documented by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

About half of the species using Tijuana Estuary are year-round
residents. The barred sand bass, kelp bass, and shovelnose guitar fish
are seasonal or sporadic residents.

a. Larval Fish Use of the Tijuana Estuary

Unpublished studies (Nordby, 1981) revealed densities of larval
fish in the estuary as high as 250 times greater than offshore habitats
during the peak breeding months of December- Ja nua ry, demonstrating the
importance of the area as a nursery. In the main channels, halibut and
turbot account for less than 5 percent of the larval fish, anchovy species
make up 10-20 percent, and topsmelt account for a similar proportion.
The bulk of individuals, 60-70 percent, are goby species. Nearby offshore
habitats, while having fewer larval, fish, also have high densities of
eggs, with flatfish, together with croakers,, accounting for less than 5
percent. Other larval fish have a different composition: 30-40 percent
goby species, 25-35 percent queenfish (Seriphus politus), 15-25 percent
anchovy species, and 10-15 percent topsmelt.

5. Birds

Reports of the U.S. Fisn and Wildlife Service (1980), San Diego Field
Ornithology Club (n.d.) and Boland (1981) indicate that'at least 246
species of birds occur at the estuary and river valley. The Fish and
Wildlife Service reports that about 69 species rely principally on the
estuarine habitat, andanother 85 species are found in both estuarine and
riparian/upland habitats. Boland's unpublished data has documented that
shorebird species are abundant at the estuary, 11 are common, and 35 are
rarely encountered. Water-associated birds include grebes, herons,
egrets, cormorants, dabbling and diving ducks, shorebirds, gulls and
terns, rails and coots, perching birds, and raptors. (See Appendix B,
Table 6 for a list of species.)

The proposed sanctuary is the United States southernmost stop in
the Pacific Flyway, the channels, mudflats, and sandy beaches of Tijuana
Estuary are used by a variety of migrating species. Shorebirds account
for the largest portion of the migration. Migratory waterfowl are common
in winter months, notably the Pintail, Cinnamon Teal, American Widgeon,
Surf Sooter, and Ruddy Duck. Sandbars attract flocks of terns, including
Forester's, Elegant, Caspian, and California Least, where these birds
rest before diving for fish at higher tide levels (San Diego Field
Ornithology Club). The importance of the estuary as a stop on the flyway
is underscored by a year long census (San Diego Field Ornitholgy Club,
1974), which found that only 16 of the 89 species identified use the
area more than nine months of the year.

Protected Species

The presence of seven bird species, classified as endangered or
protected by State or Federal law, is a compelling indication of the
relatively undisturbed character of Tijuana Estuary in a region characterized
by degraded wetland and estuarine systems. The cordgrass and pickleweed
marsh is critical to the survival of the endangered Light Footed Clapper
Rail, a subspecies whose population is estimated at just 250 individuals

statewide. An early Fish and Wildlife Study (1974) identified 25 rails
in a single day; later estimates placed the Tijuana Estuary population at
75-85 individuals, or one third of the California total. To ensure that
the fragile rail population could continue to use the tall cordgrass and
low Salicornia marsh for feeding, resting, and escape cover, the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service purchased 503 acres of wetland and adjacent upland
in late 1980, thereby establishing the Tijuana Estuary Wildlife Refuge.

Sand dune and river mouth areas provide nesting sites for the
California Least Tern. As many as 100 pairs of nesting Terns were observed
prior to 1973, but colonies have numbered only a few pair since then.
Brown Pelicans rest at the estuary between foraging trips to offshore
feeding grounds. An endangered raptor, the American Peregrine Falcon,
forages for prey throughout the estuary and river valley. The most common
perching bird using the marsh environment is the Beldings Savannah Sparrow,
a species classified as rare by the State. The Black Rail, another
marsh inhabitant, has been placed in the State's rare category.

The other birds of prey ranging over the estuary and river valley,
the White-Tailed Kite and Golden Eagle, are protected by the State Fish and
Game Code. Locally endangered species (San Diego Field Ornithology Club)
include the Nesting Snowy Plover, the seasonally-present Elegant Tern,
and Bell's Vireo. (See Appendix B, Table 1, for the classification of
each State and Federally-protected species.)

a. Shorebird Use of Tijuana Estuary

About 20 species of shorebirds use the tidal ly-infl uenced portions
of Tijuana Estuary on-a fairly regular basis (Boland, 1981). As shown
in Figure 13, four species--the Willet, Dowitcher, Western Sandpiper,
and Marbled Godwit--account for over three fourths of the individuals
counted. These four species were also among the most abundant in the year
long census (San Diego'Ornithology Club, 1974). Seven other species,
including the American Avocet, Dunlin, Least Sandpiper, and Sanderling each
accounted for over one percent of the total individuals, in the recent survey,
and nine other specie.s make up the balance. Among the less common birds
reported are the Snowy Plover, Greater Yellowlegs, and the Northern and
Western Phalaropes.

Boland's data reflect a fluctuation of numerical abundance with the
season, as well as clear habitat preferences. The four most common
species are abundant in each of three sampling seasons, December-January,
July-August and October. Others, notably the American Avocet and
Dunlin, are numerically significant in winter, but virtually absent in
summer. Peak numbers of individual shorebirds occur in winter, but more
species are represented during the summer period. Seven of the species
show a peak abundance in winter, five are most abundant in summer, five
are most abundant in fall, and three species are equally abundant in the
summer and fall sampling periods.

46 Figure 13

SHOREBIRDS OF TIJUANA ESTUARY: ABUNDANCE, SEASONAL USE, AND HABITAT PREFERENCE
Proportion of Cumulative Season of Preferred.Habitat
Species Total Individuals Total Greatest Abundance lst 2nd

Willet 23.4% Dec-Jan Sand Mud

Dowitcher 22.1% 45.5% Dec-Jan Sand Mud

Western Sandpiper 21.0% 66.5% Dec-Jan Sand Mud

Marbled Godwit 9.3% 75.8% Oct Sand Mud

American Avocet 5.5% 81.8% Dec-Jan Sand Mud

Dunlin 4.0% 65.8% Dec-Jan Sand Mud

Least Sandpiper 3.9% 89.2% Oct Sand Mud

Black BP 3.6% 92.8% Dec-Jan Sand Mud

Red Knot 2.0% 94.4% Dec-Jan Sand Mud

Sanderling 1.5% 96.4% July-Aug Shore Shore

L. Bill Curlew 1.0% 97.4% July-Aug/Oct Mudbottom Sand

Snowy Plover .8% 98.2% July-Aug Sand Shore

Whimbrel .5% 98*.7% July-Aug Sand Mud

Greater Yellow Legs .5% 99.2% Oct Sand Mud

Ruddy Turnstone .4% 99.6% July-Aug Shore Sand

Killdeer .3% 99.9% Oct Mud Sand

Semipalamated plover Jul-Aug Sand Mud.

Black NS July-Aug/Oct Mud/Sand N.S.

Western Phalarope July-Aug Sand N.S.
Northern Phalarope 100.0% 2 July-Aug/Oct Mud/Mudbottom N.S.

Source: Boland. Seasonal abundances, habitat utilization, feeding strategies
and interspecific competition within a wintering shorebird community and
their possible relationships with the latitudinal distribution of
shorebird species. San Diego State University M.S. Thesis, 1981.
1 Birds are ranked approximately .1% of total in order of abundance
aggregated over three sampling seasons.
2 Adjusted to correct rounding error.

Tijuana Estuary is comprised of five distinct types of shorebird
habitats: shore, sand, mud, mudbanks, and marsh. Sandflats are the
preferred habitat for fourteen of the twenty species, and most individuals
were observed there. Mudflats are second most significant in terms of
numerical abundance of individuals. Only the Killdeer is most abundant
in mudflats. Mudflats are the second preferred habitat for twelve
species. The Long Billed Curlew is most abundant in mudbanks, a habitat
used by 8 other species. Two species, the Sanderling and Ruddy Turnstone,
are most common in the shore habitat; seven other shorebirds were also
observed. The marsh, principal habitat for the endangered Light Footed
Clapper Rail , is used by only four species of shorebirds: the Dowitcher,
Willet, Marbled Godwit, and Long Billed Curlew.

6. Mammals

The lower Tijuana Valley provides habitat for twenty species of
mammals, including mice, and rabbits. Small herbivores include
brush and desert cottontail rabbits, the California ground squirrel, and
several species of mice, notably the San Diego pocket mouse. Large
carnivores found in the lowlands include the grey fox, coyote, and an
occasional bobcat. Several predators depend upon ecotones or edges
between habitat types where larger concentrations of prey are found.
Riparian areas in the river valley are particularly important in providing
water and shelter.

7. Amphibian and Reptiles

One amphibian, the Pacific treefrog, has been reported in the riparian
and pool areas of the Tijuana River Valley. Eight reptiles are present
in the scrub-dominated areas including the Southern alligator lizard,
four species of lizards, the gopher snake, and two species of rattlesnakes.

I. Existing and Proposed Land Use

Principal land uses existing and proposed for the area within the
proposed sanctuary are resource conservation and agriculture. A majority
of the area proposed for inclusion is already devoted to preservation and
public use on Border Field State Park, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Refuge, and Imperial Beach Naval Air Station. Both the State Park and
the Refuge are slated for open space use in perpetuity, with light
recreational use encouraged at the State Park. Moderate expansion is
possible on Navy land north of Sunset Avenue, subject to constraints
imposed by floodplain hazards and endangered species management.

Flooding during the winters of 1979 and 1980 has removed much of the
lowlands'once used for agriculture from productive use. Alfalfa, vegetables,
and other truck crops have previously been grown in the area. Some of
the owners of these properties are attempting to restore the producti.vity
of these lands while others have not been improved significantly. The
Local Coastal Program for the Tijuana Valley contemplates continued
resource management/agriculture for the area.

Portions of the uplands near the sou theastern boundary of the proposed
boundary have been targeted to sand and gravel excavaton, subject to
environmental controls imposed by the County of San Diego and regulatory
agencies. These areas are not presently subject to any certified Local
Coastal Program.

Around the periphery of the proposed sanctuary, residential and
visitor serving facilities are proposed for the coastal areas west of
First Street and above Coronado Avenue in Imperial Beach. The Imperial
Beach Naval Air StatJon houses a helicopter training facility including
runways, storage and maintenance- buildings, and administration buildings.
Land uses east of 19th Street are devoted to agriculture, ranching,
equestrian activities, and low density residential use.

J. International Consideration

The Governments 'of the United States and Mexico, pursuant to provisions
in the Treaty of February 3, 1944, for the Utilization of the Waters of
the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat. 1237)
have jointly undertaken measures and works in the Tijuana River area at
the boundary for control of river floods for emergency deliveries of water
and for resolving border sanitation problems.

Under the 1944 Treaty, the two Governments through their joint
International Boundary and Water Commission undertook works in their
respective territories for a coordinated plan for control of floods from
the Tijuana River. Under the plan, Mexico, between 1972 and 1979,
constructed a concrete-lined channel for 2.5 miles to meet a similarly
designed channel at the boundary, constructed by the United States as a
dissipator structure between 1978 and 1979 so as to reduce the velocity
of floods from Mexico and spreading these for their natural flow into the
Tijuana Estuary.

Also, the Governments through the International Boundary and Water
Commission in 1972 (TIAS 8412) entered into an agreement for use of the
Southern California aqueducts to deliver a portion of the waters of the
Colorado River allotted to Mexico for use on an emergency basis in the
City of Tijuana. That agreement remains in' force on a standby basis.

With respect to sanitation problems, the two Governments through the
International Boundary and Water Commission in 1965 entered 'into an
agreement for emergency use by a rapidly growing City of Tijuana, Mexico
of the sewage disposal system of the City of San Diego and jointly
constructed an emergency connection line to effect the agreement. The

connection is designed to prevent overflows on the surface of sewage
from Tijuana into the United States during periods of breakdowns to the
Tijuana disposal system that relies heavily on pumping.

In more recent years, the two Governments through the International
Boundary and Water Commission in September 1979 reached agreement for the
solution of border sanitatfon problems wbich specifically confers to this
Joint Commission the responsibility and jurisdiction to effect the
provision in the 1944 Water Treaty that the two Governments shall give
preferential attention to the solution of border sanitation problems.
Following instructions of the Presidents of the United States and Mexico,
in September 1979 the International Boundary and Water Commission is at
work seeking supplementary agreements for specific solutions to existing
border sanitation problems, including one at San Diego - Tijuana, where
breakdowns to the sewage disposal system at Tijuana and the resulting
excessive use of an emergency sewage connection to the City of San Diego
present a threat to the health and well-being of inhabitants on both
sides of the border and to the beneficial use of the waters of the Tijuana
River and of the surf waters near the boundary.

At this time, this Commission is engaged in negotiating an agreement
for solution of the sanitation problem in the Tijuana area, with a view to
completing an agreement this year. One of the possibilities for permanent
solution of the problem is a joint waste treatment plant located in the
lower Tijuana River Valley, to handle wastes from both San Diego and
Tijuana.

PART IV: ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSED ACTION

A. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

1. Local Impacts

a. General Impacts

Awarding a land acquisition grant by NOAA/OCZM would enable the State
of California to purchase additional wetlands, lowlands, and uplands,
which, combined with other.protected lands already owned by the State,
Federal, and local agencies, would establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary
representative of arid region estuaries of the Californian Biogeographic
Classification.

Designation of this estuarine sanctuary is expected to have several
positive impacts. As a base for research and education, the sanctuary
should enrich the understanding of estuarine ecosystems and resources.
These research efforts will provide the foundation for a more effective
program to preserve, protect, utilize and manage the Tijuana River Estuary
and other wetland and estuarine ecosystems.

Educational programs to be carried out through the sanctuary will
expose residents of Imperial Beach, the City of San Diego, and the greater
San Diego metropolitan area to aspects of estuarine ecology and physiography,
and the natural history of familiar plants and animals. Guided walks,
studies, and interpretive programs will be developed and programmed to
all educational levels from elementary school through secondary levels
of education. Growing public knowledge and awareness of the complex
nature of estuarine ecosystems will generate support effective land
use planning and resource management. Through its open processes of
site selection, establishment, and management, Tijuana River Estuarine
Sanctuary can be the cornerstone of a popular initiative to protect
Southern California wetlands and estuaries.

Conceived as a program for cooperative resource management, the
estuarine sanctuary will link together existing State, Federal, and
international efforts already underway. The sanctuary will provide a
single "umbrella" for public lands in the Tijuana Estuary now held and
managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Parks
and Recreation, the U.S. Navy, and the City of San Diego. Tijuana River
will be the first estuarine sanctuary in the Nation to couple estuarine
conservation and preservation of viable agricultural land through a
lease back arrangement.

The Advisory Committee and Subcommittees on Agriculture, Water
Quality, and Research and Education, will provide a forum to provide
technical advice to the appropriate agencies in the solution of
environmental problems in the larger region. Special emphasis will be
directed toward joint initiatives for research and estuary management
between the United States and Mexico as may be appropriate with the
understanding in subsection (e)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972, 16 USC 1456.

b. Impacts on Geology, Soils, and Hydrology

While specific regulations are not envisioned now, the estuarine
sanctuary should have a positive impact on preserving adequate flows of
freshwater into the estuary and maintaining soils suitable for agriculture.
A particular goal of the program of acquisition and lease back will be
to control erosion of land in the floodplain and uplands, and the
accelerated rates of sediment deposition that result. Acquisition of
land will also preclude the development of commercial and industrial
uses in areas subject to flooding and seismic liquefaction. The Water
Quality Subcommittee will invite membership of those agencies charged
with monitoring and regulation of water quality and supply. The involve-
ment of these government bodies should improve the coordination of resource
protection and planning.

c. Impacts on Community Structure, Vegetation, and Wildlife

The Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary will embrace over 1,100 acres
of tidal channels, salt marsh, mudflats, and mudbanks as well as adjacent
riparian, cultivated, agriculture, and coastal upland communities totalling
over 2,400 acres.

A permanent refuge will be provided for over 250 species of birds,
54 species of invertebrates, 29 species of fish, 20 species of mammals,
and 9 reptile and amphibian species.

The habitat of at least eight endangered or rare species will be
preserved, including the Light Footed Clapper Rail, Least Tern, and Beldings
Savannah Sparrow.

The Management Program carried out under the auspices of the estuarine
sanctuary will be directed to habitat maintenance, limited restoration,
preservation of natural diversity, and compatible uses.

Han-nful changes in the natural physiography of the Tijuana River and
Estuary will be prevented, and natural fluctuations in the biotic community
structure will follow their own course. Limited short-term manipulative
research, that will be closely monitored by NOAA/OCZM and the State, is
envisioned, but the net effect of these studies is expected to be positive.
Research will be encouraged that provides an understanding of community
structure and function and provides insights for habitat enhancement and
restoration. Additionally, the research and resource management undertaken
at Tijuana River should foster companion projects that will protect
community resource values at other Southern California estuaries.

d. Impacts on Land Use

An immediate consequence of the sanctuary will be to stabilize the
entire mosaic of wetland and salt marsh in open space/resource conservation,
and to preserve the open character of the lower Tijuana Valley east of
19th Street.

A small portion of the land once used for agriculture, recently
damaged by flooding, will be acquired as an open space buffer. Agricultural
uses will be permitted and encouraged throughout most of the Tijuana
Valley provided that the best available techniques are rigorously employed
to control erosion.

Sand and gravel mining already underway in the Border Highlands
will continue. Portions of the Border Highlands are proposed for
acquisition and lease back. This strategy is intended to permit reasonable
use of the resource and to ensure after extraction is complete, that the
best available land restoration and replanting techniques are employed
to preserve valuable upland habitat and to control erosion and accelerated
sedimentation of the wetland habitats of Tijuana Estuary.

2. State and Federal_Impacts

-Introduction

Sanctuary designation is a logical mechanism to unify the many
resource planning initiatives already underway in the lower Tijuana
Valley and Estuary. It is singularly well suited to bridging the gap
between stewardship of public land, regulation of private land, and
protection and management of natural resources that are not confined to
particular property boundaries. While the orientation of the program is
definitely one of preservation, protection & utilization, the intent of
sanctuary designation is to foster uses of the estuary and Tijuana Valley
that are compatible with the longterm maintenance of a diverse and
productive estuarine ecosystem. Since the designation itself does not
confer any new regulations, it is vital that the Tijuana River Estuarine
Sanctuary be brought to fruition with the cooperation and support of the
many government agencies with jurisdiction or interest in the area. A
generally positive relationship between the estuarine sanctuary and
public and private interests is anticipated.

B. Relationships Between Estuarine Sanctuary Designation and Other
kesource Management Programs

1. Adopted Local Coastal_Programs and General Plans

a. City of Imperial Beach LCP

The City planning staff is now revising early drafts of the land use
portion of the City's local coastal program (LCP), and is expected to
pass the document to the City Council for consideration in late 1981.
Following City action, the first phase of the LCP will be submitted to
the State Coastal Commission sometime in September 1981. A review by
the State Coastal Commission to certify that plan policies conform to
the Coastal Act is the final step in approval of the City's land use
plan. The second phase of the LCP, consisting of zoning ordinances to
implement the land use plan, must follow the same procedures for review
and certification.

The Coastal Commission expects to give close attention to several
issues before the LCP can be certified. Establishment of the,Tijuana River
Estuarine Sanctuary will directly support certification of a land use
plan and implementing ordinances consistent with the Coastal Act. The
Federal and State action will also support polices for protection of the
northern portion of the estuary, thereby carrying out the following
Coastal Act policy:

The biological productivity and the quality of coastal waters,
streams, wetlands, (and) estuaries...appropriate to maintain
optimum populations of marine organisms shall be maintained,
and, wfiere feasible, restored through controlling runoff,
preventing depletion of groundwater supplies and substantial
interference with surface water fl ow ... maintaining natural
vegetation buffer areas to protect riparian habitats and
minimizing alteration of natural streams. (�30233)

Similarly, the designation and management of the sanctuary supports
preparation of an LCP that conforms to Coastal Act policies for protection
of sensitive habitat areas:

Environmentally sensitive habitat areas shall be protected
against any significant disruption of habitat values, and
only uses dependent on such resources shall be allowed within
such areas.

Development in areas adjacent to environmentally sensitive
habitat areas and parks and recreation areas shall be sited
and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly
degrade such areas, and shall be compatible with the continuance
of such habitat areas. (�30240)

Since the Tijuana River Estuary is a proven attraction for educational
users and other visitors, conferring sanctuary status on the area will
provide additional research, education and general use by the public,
thereby reinforcing the need for visitor-serving facilities adjacent to the
estuary, as outlined in the Coastal Act:

The use of private lands suitable for visitor-serving
commercial recreation facilities designed to enhance public
opportunities for coastal recreation shall have priority
over private residential, general industrial, or general
commercial development, but not over agriculture or
coastal-dependent industry.

The sanctuary will also support the use of coastal areas in Border
Field State Park for recreation consistent with �30220 and �30222 of the
Coastal Act.

b. Tia Juana Valley Segment, City of San Diego LCP

The estuarine sanctuary proposed for Tijuana River and vicinity is
consistent with the land use plan adopted as part of the LCP for the
Tia Juana Valley Segment of the City of San Diego. The LCP represents a
revision of the 1976 Land Use Plan, modified to reflect conditions added
by the Coastal Commission to strengthen protection of natural resources,
maintenance of agricultural land uses and provi,sion of facilities to
serve visitors. Land acquisition proposed for the sanctuary is entirely
consistent with the LCP designation of the portion of the river valley
west of 19th street as Resource Management: Limited Agriculture/Recreation.

Sanctuary boundaries complement the LCP stipulation that only uses
dependent on the resources are allowed in the following environmentally
sensitive areas: channels and ponds, mudflats and saltflats, freshwater
and saltwater marshes, riparian habitat areas, nursery and breeding areas
for fish and wildlife, and salt pans. Furthermore, land acquisition and
management for research, education, and other compatible uses will
specifically implement the requirements that buffer strips at least 100
feet wide be maintained around the periphery of important habitats, and
that access to the buffer areas be limited.

Sanctuary designation is also consistent with the following resource
protection provisions of the LCP:

0 Agricultural activities are to employ soil conservation practices
to minimize soil erosion and sediment loading in the estuary.

0 The application of fertilizers and pesticides is to be strictly
regulated.

0 Diversion of stream flow and disturbance of riparian vegetation can
only be accomplished after a finding that the estuary will not be
h a rmed .

Through its recommendation for acquisition and lease back of agricultural
land, the sanctuary will help implement LCP policies restricting the
subdivision of agricultural land. Sanctuary boundaries are drawn so as
not to interfere with development of areas along Interstate 5 identified
as appropriate for residential use. The sanctuary proposal directly
supports LCP policies calling for view protection from major roads, and
for restoration of visual quality. Acquisition and leaseback of agricultural
lands in the floodplain fringe will ensure that the visual quality of
these areas remain high.

c. Border Highlands Segment, City of San Diego LCP

An initial review of the LCP by the San Diego Regional Coastal
Commission at a public hearing on June 12, 1981, resulted in denial of
the LCP as originally submitted. At its July 1981 public hearing, the
State Coastal Commission approved the LCP with the following conditions:

1) A runoff control plan with performance standards shall be
established to minimize erosion, control runoff on site, and ensure that
runoff is discharged at non-erosive velocities.

2. A licensed engineer qualified in hydrology and hydrolics shall
prepare a runoff and sediment control plan. Runoff control shall be
accomplished through on-site catchment basins, detention basins, and
siltation traps. These measures will ensure that discharge will not
exceed natural levels given the most intensive rainfall by a
hypothetical ten-year storm.

3. The City of San Diego will work with the International Boundary
and Water Commission and the State of Baja, California to resolve problems
related to erosion control and sewage effluents.

The LCP also cal Is for:

1. Maintaining the hillsides that face Monument Road in their
natural state.

2. Replanting debilitated areas wi th natural vegetation.

3. Limiting excavation areas at one time to 3-7 acre units.

4. Maintaining large contiguous areas with natural vegetative cover.

The estuarine sanctuary proposal is consistent with the LCP. Purchase-
leaseback arrangements will be designed to ensure full implementation of
the LCP.

2. Imperial Beach Naval Air Station Program

Two significant areas in U.S. Navy ownership are proposed for
inclusion within the Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary. A 263 acre area
already leased to Border Field State Park, and an additional area,
estimated at 340 acres, in the southern portion of the Imperial Beach
Naval Air Station. If the estuarine sanctuary is established, the U.S.
Navy will consider leasing all their lands within the proposed sanctuary
boundaries to the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, except those that
historically have been encumbered by leases.

Several activities generally incompatible with sanctuary goals are
carried out on the northern portion of the Naval Air Station--an area not
proposed for inclusion in the sanctuary. A Master Plan is underway for
the entire southern portion of the Naval Air Station. This process must

respond to expansion 'needs dictated by nationwide security considerations,
and must comply with Federal flood guidelines, the National Environmental
Policy Act, and the Endangered Species Act.

In response to these Federal requirements, the Natural Resources
Management Branch.of the NAS North Island's Staff, Civil Engineering
Department now operates a program of resource conservation at OLF Imperial
Beach.

Since the proposed sanctuary management program is not intended to
exert any "veto power" over the Navy's internal master planning process,
and will not impose any new regulations, the sanctuary should be entirely
compatible with U.S. military objectives. As one of the members of the
Sanctuary Management Authority, the Navy will be in a position to ensure
that its own goals are integrated with planning for adjacent areas.

Given the sensitive habitats within the Navy property, the need to
maintain a buffer between Navy uses and other activities, and the
existence of a 100-year floodplain within the area, no expansion into the
undeveloped portion of their lands within the proposed sanctuary boundaries
is planned.

3. Tijuana Estuary National Wildlife Refuge--U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Tervice

The U.S. Department of the Interior, through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, has obtained title to 505 acres of land in the lower Tijuana
Valley from Helix Properties. (See Appendix D, "Ownership - Lower Tijuana
Valley".) This land acquisition created a National Wildlife Refuge for
the purpose of conserving the habitat of the endangered California Light
Footed Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), consistent with the
Endangered Species AcT of 1973. Land purchase was accomplished in December
1980 and an on site manager for the area has been designated. The area will
be administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and will be subject
to the regulations and policies governing access and use of lands within
the National Wildlife Refuge.

In the Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Land Acquisition,
the Fish and Wildlife Service noted:

The feasibility of the service leasing and managing the
U.S. Navy property within the estuary will be explored.
It is essential that the service seek a cooperative
agreement with the California State Parks Department
to allow service input on that portion of Border Field
State Park considered essential Clapper Rail Habitat.

The proposed boundaries of the estuarine sanctuary will embrace the
Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge, Border Field State Park, and portions
of the U.S. Navy ownership. All three land owning agencies will be
principals in the Sanctuary Management Authority. The management authority

will work towards unified goals for the public lands within the sanctuary,
as well as additional private lands acquired for the sanctuary. Sanctuary
policies, however, will not override specific management techniques
prescribed for the refuge.

In advocating the incorporation of the Tijuana Estuary Wildlife
Refuge within the estuarine sanctuary, this proposal draws on the precedent
set for Florida's Apalachicola River/Bay Estuarine Sanctuary. There, the
sanctuary boundaries were drawn to include all of the 12,490 acre
St. Vincent's Island National Wildlife Refuge.

Establishment of the Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary is, therefore,
consistent with past actions as well as the administrative goals of the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, the proposed programs for
land acquisition, management, research, and education will implement the
following objectives of the refuge:

0 Develop a land use management plan, adapted to the capabilities
and limitations of the natural resources and surrounding environment.

0 Acquire privately owned marshlands for natural resource preservation
and enhancement.

0 Maintain the Tijuana River Valley as a green belt zone downstream
of the proposed flood dissipation system.

0 Encourage compatible educational and scientific uses of the
estuary and surrounding river valley.

As one of the members of the Sanctuary Management Authority, the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service vWl be in a position to accomplish
these goals, as well as more site specific goals for habitat restoration.
Furthermore, the management structure proposed for the sanctuary will
better integrate the refuge with other resource planning in Tijuana River
Valley through the advisory committees and special subcommittees.

4. Border Field State Park

The proposed estuarine sanctuary will embrace all of the Border
Field State Park, as well as U.S. Navy land leased to the Department of
Parks and Recreation.- The management plan prepared for the sanctuary will
provide general guidelines for development and preservation within its
confines, and should address the specific needs of the State Park.

A 1974 document, Resources Management and General Development Plan
for Border Field State Park, sets forth general guidelines for the area.
The overriding theme is recognition of the natural value of the estuarine
system and the proposal that the estuarine system be preserved in as
natural a condition as possible. Development of a small day use facility
on Monument Mesa, as proposed by the Plan, has been accomplished.
Flooding has complicated other planned developments, which included 40
camp units, 280 parking spaces, and 2 miles of trails.

Establishment of Tijuana River as an estuarine sanctuary is compatible
with development already accomplished on Monument Mesa. In addition,
sanctuary designation is complimentary to the Declarations of Unit Purpose
and the Management Policy for Border Field State Park. The sanctuary
will help to implement several specific objectives.

Protect, restore, and perpetuate the scenic features and
ecological integrity of the large and extensive lagoon system
at the mouth of Tijuana River, together with its relation to
ocean and marshlands.

0 Protect and perpetuate the integrity of the coastal strand.

� Identify, protect, and perpetuate all areas of botanical
significance including any and all rare and endangered species,
together with the ecological integrity of such areas.

� Identify rare and endangered animal species, which find their
habitat within the park, and provide for their perpetuation in a
natural state.

� Enhance public knowledge and understanding of estuarine ecosystems.

� Enhance public knowledge and understanding of endangered species
and their habitats.
A's a member of the Sanctuary Management Authority, the Department of
Parks and Recreation will have an opportunity to ensure that State Park
planning is integrated with planning for adjacent areas. The current
education program in Border Field State Park will be complemented by the
sanctuary education program and the work of the Research and Education
Subcommittee.

5. Planning for Wastewater Treatment Facilities

As the first of three steps in the development of wastewater treatment
development (planning, design, and construction), The Metropolitan
Facilities Plan was prepared for the City of San Ci-ego in 1977. The
the need for additional sewage treatment capacity in
pTan establis e
the City, and described 38 alternative sites, of which 6 were identified
as most valuable. Each of the preferred sites included a new 190 million
gallons per day (mgd) ocean outfall and substantial treatment facilities
in the Tijuana Valley. A proposal not included in the plan was submitted
by the City which identified a site near the intersection of Monument
Road and Hollister Road for facilities development. In reviewing this
plan, the CCC dete mined that locating a treatment facility at the
Monument Road site would not be consistent with the Coastal Act. This
finding reaffi med Commission actions on 2 permits, 284-77 and 285-77,
which bought appeals to the State Commission seeking construction of
single-family homes. In both appeals, the Commission found that the
need -to protect agricultural land, and the need to reserve a suitable
site for a sewage treatment facility in the Tijuana Valley took precedence
over new residential construction.

The Tia Juana Valley LCP (City of San Diego, 1979) reserves a 200-acre
site near Sunset and 27t-F-Street for a regional sewage treatment facility
pursuant to the Coastal Act which states:

The Commission shall provide for required reservations
of sites for the construction of sewage treatment works and
points of discharge within the coastal zone adequate for the
protection of coastal resources ... (�30524)

This site reservation lapsed on March 13, 1981 and was renewed for a
period of three months and expired on June 13, 1981. An amendment to the
LCP will be required before any alternative sites can be reserved for
a sewage treatment facility. As of August 1981, the Sunset and 27th Street
site remains undeveloped and available as a site.

The planning by the City of San Diego for additional wastewater
treatment facilities in the Tijuana Valley assists the International
Boundary and Water Commission in developing alternatives for a long-terTn
solution to the border sanitation problem at San Diego - Tijuana:
One of the possibilities for permanent solution of the problem is a
joint waste treatment plant located in the lower Tijuana River Valley,
to handle wastes for both San Diego and Tijuana.

Recent correspondence from EPA to the Coastal Commission (April 10,
1981), and from the City of San Diego to the Coastal Commission (April 9,
1981) expresses interest in construction of a facility to serve both the
United States and Mexico, perhaps at a site other than the reserved site
at Sunset and 27th. Concern has been raised about possible contamination
of the Tijuana River and South San Diego County beaches as more sewage
is pumped through Mexican connector lines, which are operating to capacity,
to a surf discharge several miles below the border. Also, recent
correspondence from the United States Section, International Boundary and
Water Commission (May 8, 1981) advises that at this time that Commission
is engaged in negotiating an agreement for solution of the sanitation
problem in the Tijuana area, with-a view to completing an agreement this
year; further, it advises that in 'view of the hazard posed by the Tijuana
sanitation problem to the health of citizens on both sides of the boundary
including those using the ocean beaches, and the estuary itself, and of
the status of negotiations with Mexico toward a solution of the problem,
this agency must oppose the designation of the Tijuana River estuary as
a National Estuarine Sanctuary, if such designation would preclude the
construction of a joint waste treatment plant in the lower Tijuana River
Val I ey.

Any change in the Sunset and 27th Street reservation will require
an amendment to the Local Coastal Program, and must be found consistent
with Coastal Act policies on preservation of agricultural land, view
protection, and maintenance of wetlands, water quality, and sensitive
habitats.

The management structure of the Estuarine Sanctuary can respond
to water quality issues in the Tijuana Valley through recognizing the
prerogatives reserved to the International Boundary and Water Commission
by subsection (e)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. A
representative of the water quality agencies, and a representative of
the government of Mexico and/or Baja, California will be invited to
serve on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee. A water quality subcommittee
will be established with membership invited from the EPA, the United
States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the
Regional Water Quality Control Board, a representative of the government
of Mexico, a member from Baja, California, and a representative of those
agencies in the Executive Branch of the State of California.

6. Planning for Future Electrical Generating Capacity

The California Coastal Commission is authorized to prepare and
periodically update a statewide study designating areas where the location
of a thermal power plant (50 MW or greater) would,prevent achievement of
coastal resource protection goals. In other words, the designations
identify areas where power plants should not be sited. The core wetland
area of Tijuana Estuary was designated, but several adjacent areas are
presently undesignated (Figure 14). As part of its long range planning
efforts, the Energy Commission, California's power plant siting authority,
has prepared a study that continues the Coastal Commission's work. The
draft study (March 1981) examines opportunities for locating coastal
power plants. Some 200 individual undesignated sites were initially
examined for power plant opportunities, using 27 environmental and technical
screening factors. Most areas were deleted because of air quality problems
or insufficient land area, but Tijuana Valley emerged as one of nine
areas where opportunities may exist for future power plant siting.

As shown in Figure 14, the study identifies an undesignated area
(UA) near the Tijuana River as an "opportunity". Opportunity site UA 5
is located on the mesa, east of Smugglers Gulch and south of the w6-tland.
The initial analysis identified two other sites near Tijuana River: one
at the Navy Radio Station and the second at the southern portion of the
Imperial Beach Naval Air Station, just north of one arm of the slough
system. Both were dropped in response to concerns about unacceptable
impacts to natural resources and interference with Navy operations. The
Energy Commission has identified a number of moderate to severe constraints
building a power plant near Tijuana River, notably liquification hazards,
risks to rare and endangered species, and conflicts with the wetland,
estuarine, and natural area values. A particular concern is the set of
impacts associated with building the cooling water pipeline to serve the
potential sites.

The number of factors to be considered in.California's power plant
siting process will make development of the remaining Tijuana River site
unlikely in the foreseeable future. The current Supply and Demand Forecast
through the year 2000, adopted in the Energy Commission's 1981 Biennial
Report, has not shown the need to develop any of the nine "opportunities"

Possible 'Opportunity" Sites for Future Thermal Power Plants

. . . .......
Z

Saw%

LIZ,
4t

........... L
J
A.
...............
ur@j
......................

.. ........
..... . 40
. ....... :M ........ .. Zt

........... ......

7=*

.77

...........
A.
-4 9 alL Al ...........

.0
............
. . ................. .
43.

.. ..............
.............

Source: Opportunities for New Coastal Power Plants in California' CFinal Oratt Staff Report):
California Energy Commission March 1981
'Coastal Power Plant Oesignation Areas'.
California Coastal Commission 1979

FIGURE 14

(areas) during the period 1980-1992. Recent analyses completed by the Energy
Commission reflect a much slower rate of increase in new electricity
demand--the result of growing public awareness, more accurate forecasting,
and more effective use of conservation measures and alternative sources.

Both Energy Commission recommendations and Coastal Act policies call
for expansion of existing coastal facilities as a first response to new
electricity needs. Energy Commission staff have shown that there are
7,600 to 10,000 MW of capacity at the 20 coastal power plants. More
modest opportunities (3,700 to 4,800 MW) exist at the nine coastal opportunity
sites. Second priority would go to new sites next to existing facilities,
and other new coastal sites would be developed last. The study suggests
that the analysis of sites should be used by the responsible agencies in
a collaborative effort to set priorities for the use of coastal sites.
Finally, the Energy Commission intends to evaluate inland areas as well
as coastal sites in planning to meet new electricity demands. Actual
development of any of the sites will require Energy Commission certification
after detailed study and compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act.

The Energy Commission has recommended that the Coastal Commission
adopt a partial designation of Tijuana River to allow development of
underground ancillary facilities, such as pipelines, while prohibiting
power plants themselves. The Coastal Commission staff believes this
would be premature since there is little demand for new sites before 1992
or 2000, and some 7,600 to 10,000 MW of expansion opportunities exist at
other sites. Under Section 25526 of the Public Resources Code, the
Coastal Commission can allow ancillary facilities through a designated
area if analysis of-a specific proposal determines that such facilities
would be consistent with primary use of the land and would not cause
substantial adverse environmental impacts. The Commission can require
specific mitigation measures during this process to assure that the
development is consistent with Coastal Act policies.

C. Relationship Between Local Short Term Uses of the Environment
and the Maintenance of Long-Term Productivity

Establishment of an estuarine sanctuary at Tijuana River is the
logical next step in a series of actions undertaken in the Tijuana Valley
to preserve the long-term productivity of the environment. These actions
have included the designation of Border Field State Park in 1974, the
certification of a Local Coastal Program in 1979, and the purchase of the
majority of the wetland by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in December
1980.

Without designation of the sanctuary, it is possible that intense
short-term uses, such as residential or commercial development, might
eventually be carried out in a more relaxed regulatory climate. While
the proposed purchase and lease back of portions of the floodplain and
uplands east of 19th Street will have an effect on agricultural use and
sand and gravel excavation, it will not prevent these economic activities.
Rather, all significant uses in the Tijuana Valley will be managed to
ensure long-term productivity.

D. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources

Within the proposed sanctuary, there are no resources that will be
irreversibly or irretrievably lost, and there appears to be no major,
unavoidable, adverse environmental effects from its establishment.
Agriculture will be precluded on a portion of the land to be acquired.
After a reasonable period of productive sand and gravel mining, managed
to be compatible with the sanctuary, the portions of Border Highlands
west of 19th Street will no longer be subject to mining, thus stabilizing
erosion and contribution of sediment from this area.

Should the 200-acre parcel be purchased from the San Diego Gas and
Electric Company, a future energy production site would be irretrievably
lost.

PAR T V: LIST OF PREPARERS

Mr. Scott McCreary - California Coastal Commission

Mr. McCreary has B.A. degrees in Biology and Environmental Planning
and a Master's degree in Environmental Planning. He has completed numerous
planning projects in coastal resource protection, land use regulation,
and development of alternative energy sources. As an Associate in the
Coastal Resources Program of the Conservation Foundation, he was lead
planner in developing a shoreline strategy for the Apalachicola River/Bay,
Estuarine Sanctuary in Florida. He has participated in coastal management
efforts for Honolua Bay, Hawaii ; Big Sur and Elkhorn Slough, California;
and Winyah Bay, South Carolina, and has authored several articles.

Currently an Analyst with the Technical Services Division of the
California Coastal Commission (CCC), Mr. McCreary is Project Manager for
this DEIS. Primary responsibilities included organizing the Coastal
Commission's work on the sanctuary, coordinating the Sanctuary Advisory
Committee, and preparing the discussions of Alternatives, Affected
Environment, and Environmental Consequences, as well as the Appendices.
Previously, he was employed by the Estuarine Sanctuary Program of the
U.S. Department of Commerce where he worked with the California Coastal
Commission to complete the site selection for the Tijuana River Estuarine
Sanctuary. He is the primary author of this FEIS.

Mr. James W. MacFarland - Office of Coastal Zone Management

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 an author and recognized
expert on natural resource protection.

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

Primary responsibility in the preparation of this FEIS included
organization of the report for publication, including assisting the State
in preparing responses to public comments.

Mr. Milton H. Martin - Washington State Department of Ecology

Mr. Martin is an environmental planner for the Washington State
Department of Ecology. From July 1980 through June 1981, he was.
on a one-year leave of absence from the State to work with the NOAA/OCZM
Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office. He was the Project Manager for the
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary proposal during the DEIS stage. He
was responsible for the overall direction, and organization of the DEIS
for publication.

Mr. Martin's background is in the field of Administration and
Management in public recreation and parks, where he has held the following
positions since 1959: Director, Parks and Recreation Department, Vancouver,
Washington; Superintendent, Parks and Recreation Department, Benton
County, Washington; Assistant Director, Washington State Parks and Recreation
Commission; and Assistant Administrator, Washington State Outdoor Recreation
Agency.

Mr. Martin is the 1980 recipient of the Washington State Environmentalist
of the Year Award for Washington State appointed officials.

Ms. Gloria D. Thompson - Office of Coastal Zone Management

Ms. Thompson is a Program Support Specialist for the Estuarine
Sanctuary Program Office. Her major responsibilities in the preparation
of this document for publication included overall coordination, incorporation
of revisions, editing the FEIS, and assisting in responding to comments.

Ms. Mary Sager - California Coastal Commission

Ms. Sager is a Coastal Analyst in the Technical Services Division of
the CCC. She has a B.S. in Environmental Sciences. Ms. Sager assisted
in the preparation of graphics for this FEIS.

Mr. Loren Loo - California Coastal Commission

Mr. Loo is a staff assistant in the Mapping Section of the Technical
Services Division of the CCC. He has an Associate degree in Science, and
is currently completing undergraduate requirements for a B.S. in Urban
Sciences. Mr. Loo prepared several maps and figures for this FEIS.

Mr. Jon Van Coops - California Coastal Commission

Mr. Van Coops is a Coastal Analyst in the Technical Services Division
of the CCC. He has a B.A. in Geography. Mr. Van Coops assisted in the
preparation of graphics for this FEIS.

Acknowledgments

The Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office wishes to acknowledge the
clerical assistance from Ms. Lois Mills in assisting in the preparation
of this FEIS.

Several individuals provided vital assistance in the preparation of
this FEIS. William Travis, Deputy Director, and L. Thomas Tobin, Chief of
the Technical Services Division provided overall supervision and policy
guidance for the CCC.

Mr. Brian Baird, Power Plants Coordinator for the CCC, provided
information and reviewed drafts during the preparation of the discussion
on Planning for Future Thermal Generating Capacity. Mr. Richard McCarthy,
Staff Geologist for the CCC, contributed to the development of the
discussion of Geology, Soils, and Hydrology. Mr. Jim McGrath and
Mr. Steve Horne, Land Use Division, CCC, provided information and reviewed
drafts during preparation of the discussion of the relationship between
Sanctuary Designation and Local Coastal Programs. Mr. Eric Metz, Wetlands
Coordinator, Mr. John Zentner, Resource Ecologist, and Ms. Debbie Benrubi,
Information Specialist, assisted in the development of resource discussions.

Ms. Jennie Engel and Ms. Noreen Clouse of CCC's Energy Ocean Resources
and Technical Services Division provided graphics, administrative, and
clerical assistance. Dr. Joy Zedler and her colleagues at San Diego
State University devoted many hours to review resource discussion, to
recommend additional sources, and to develop the recommended research
framework. Dr. Mike McCoy and Patricia McCoy of Imperial Beach assisted
in the preparation of the education framework.

Mr. James Neal, Area Manager for the Department of Parks and Recreation,
Larry Dean, Refuge Manager for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
Mr. Jan Larsen and Mr. Paul Jorgensen, Wildlife and Resource Management
Program, Staff*Civil Engineer, U.S. Navy provided information on resource
management programs already underway.

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

Federal Agencies

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Department of Agriculture
Department of Defense
Department of Health and Human Services
Department of Housing & Urban Development
Department of the Interior
Department of Transportation
U.S. Coast Guard
Environmental Protection Agency

Congressional

Honorable Alan CranstDn
Honorable S. I. Hayakawa
Honorable Duncan Hunter
Honorable Peter C. Chacon
Honorable Wadie P. Deddch
Honorable James Ellis
Honorable Lawrence Kapel off
Honorable Barry Keene
Honorable James Miller

State Assembly Committee on Natural Resources
State Senate Committee on Wildlife

State/City/County Agencies

California Department of Fish and Game
City of Imperial Beach - Mayor,
City of Tijuana - Mayor
,International Boundary and Water Commission
San Diego Gas and Electric Company
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

Interest Groups

Envirosphere Company
League of Women Voters of San Diego
Otay Mesa Homeowner's Association
Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association

Universities

San Diego State University

Individuals

Landowners - Lower Tijuana River Valley
Members of the Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee
Gray, Cary, Ames and Frye
Dr. Willard Edwards
H. G. Fenton Material Company
Laurel Granquist
Leonard Horwin Law Corporation
Sylvia Kaliss
E. A. Keen
Tim Lichty
Cassie Morton
Jean Strongyl os

PART VII: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE TIJUANA RIVER 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

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

All written comments received on this DEIS are published as a compendium
at the end of this section, and are mailed to all persons who commented, or
anyone else upon request.

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

GENERAL RESPONSE TO ISSUES

A. The Name of the Estuarine Sanctuary

At the present time, the name will remain "Tijuana River National
Estuarine Sanctuary." The Sanctuary Management Authority will be respon-
sible for considering any proposals to change the name, and making the
change if so desired.

B. The Issue of Availability of Funds

Because of current funding limitations by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management (change from an initial request of $3.0 million)
the State of California has made an application for funding in the
amount of $1.03 million to be matched equally by State funds. Matching
funds (or greater) are available from the Local Coastal Program
implementation program administered by the Coastal Conservancy. The
State may provide in excess of 50% matching funds required by OCZM,
if their funds are available and resource values are threatened. In
addition, local and private sources of funds are available and will be
pursued.

C. Wastewater Treatment Facilities

Both the State of California and the Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment recognize that water quality problems exist in the Tijuana River
and support efforts to construct a wastewater treatment plant in the most
suitable location. The California Coastal Act, and the Local Coastal
Program process it established, would remain the arbiter of wastewater
treatment facility siting in the Tijuana Valley. All negotiations would

specifically involve and consider this mandate of the California Legislature.
At present, the site at 27th and Sunset is considered the most suitable
site by the Coastal Commission. If, through the LCP process, a site
within the upper portion of the Sanctuary boundaries is chosen as the
most suitable location for a treatment facility or outfall line, the
Office of Coastal Zone Management will support this decision, provided
that the best possible mitigation measures, are used.

D. Water Quality Information

As stated in the response to the comment above, both the State of
California and the Office of Coastal Zone Management recognize that water
quality problems exist in the Tijuana River. This is precisely the
reasoning behind the establishment of a Water Quality Subcommittee, with
membership invited from EPA, other water quality agencies, and the Gov-
,ernments of Mexico and Baja, California. The Water Quality Subcommittee
will specifically consider issues raised by EPA, and will receive and
consider any data made available by that agency. The Subcommittee will be
empowered to make specific recommendations to the Management Authority
based on its findings.

E. The Problems of Parking and Access Along First Street

(Sunset Drive)

The Management Authority will work with the City of Imperial Beach
and the Coastal Commission to examine this problem and recommend possible
solutions. Alternative methods to fund improvements will be investigated,
including the access and urban waterfronts programs administered by the
Coastal Conservancy.

F. The Issue of Marina Development

The adoption of strong wetland protection laws by the California
Legislature as part of the 1976 Coastal Act set stringent requirements
for wetlands preservation, and provide that marina development can only
occur under very narrow circumstances. The purchase of the Helix Property
by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1980 transferred the potential
marina site to the Federal government for permanent management as a refuge
for endangered species. Taken together, these events effectively rule
out a marina development in the Tijuana Estuary. The designation of a
National Estuarine Sanctuary for research and education are consistent
with the earlier actions of the California Legislature and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service.

G. The Issue of Land Values

As required by Federal law, independent land appraisals will be
conducted for all parcels of land proposed for inclusion within the
boundaries of the Estuarine Sanctuary, and offers for purchase will be
made at 'fair market value. Other protective arrangements are available,
including acquisition of easements and acquisition and subsequent lease-back
of agricultural land.

The State of California has specifically clarified this process in a
letter from Michael Fischer, Executive Director-of the Coastal Commission
dated July 31, 1981 and sent to all landowners whose land is proposed for
inclusion in the sanctuary. The land values of $3,400 or $3,900 per acre in
no way represent an appraisal, estimate of value, or a preliminary negotiating
price.

FEDERAL AGENCIES

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Sheila M. Prindiville, Acting Regional Administrator,
San Francisco, CA, 7/29/81

Comment - Classified DEIS as LO-2, Lack of Objections, Insufficient Info ma-
tion. Requests information and further discussi.on of water quality in the
Tijuana River and Estuary.

.Response - See General Response D. The State has requested info mation
from EPT which has not been received to date. Upon receipt, this
information will be used by the Water Quality Subcommittee to address
water quality issues in detail.

2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Frank S. Lisella, Ph.D., Chief, Environmental Affairs Group,
Atlanta, Georgia, 7/29/81

Comment - Establishment of estuarine sanctuary should not preclude use of
any control measures for public health purposes. If vector-borne disease
problems occur or are anticipated, prevention and control measures, including
pesticides, may be necessary.

Response' - The primary purpose of the sanctuary is to preserve the estuary
in a natural condition suitable for research and education. Under no mal
circumstances no vector control work should be done. However, if because
of health concerns, the Sanctuary Management Authority may recommend that
control measures be taken. Any action taken should be designed to minimize
damage to the estuary while controlling any vector-borne disease problems.

Comment - Continued local development may increase vector control impacts.
It may be necessary to implement appropriate planning measures to control
incompatible management and development activities.

Response - General concern expressed by comment accepted. However, the
estuarine sanctuary does not have responsibility for developments outside
its boundaries. This function is primarily the responsibility of the
City of San Diego under their Local Coastal Program.

3. U. S. Department of the Navy, Naval Air Station, North Island
F.J. Hartman, CDR, CEC, USN, San Diego, CA, 7/31/81

Comment - Document is well written, but further discussion of the 5 year
operation grant is requested, especially in view of the current funding
climate.

Response - OCZM policy is to award $50,000 operations grants, which are 50%
matched by the State, for 5 years. As long as OCZM receives Congressional
funding this-policy will continue. To date the Administration and Congress
has supported the Estuarine Sanctuary Program, but, we cannot predict the
future. The same situation applies to the State of California, except at
the end of 5 years, management responsibility will be entirely theirs. Our
experience has indicated that the estuarine sanctuary program is an important
link in resource protection and funds for their management have been forth-
coming. It is interesting to note, that from the initial grant in 1974, all
states have provided the maximum $50,000 match for operations.

Comment - Not clear how the research and education programs are to be
implemented.

Response - The education programs can be partially funded from operations
grants. The educational component of the Research and Education Subcommittee
includes "educational users," and we are optimistic that if provided an
outdoor environmental educational facility, educational institutions will
develop plans for their usage.

Research is more difficult since operational funds cannot be used for
this purpose. Again, we are dependent upon estuarine sanctuaries being
managed to provide a logical location for estuarine research. Although this
program is relatively new, researchers and research funds are gravitating
towards estuarine sanctuaries. The use of Elkhorn Slough, California
by the Moss Landing Marine Institute is a good example.

Comment Included numerous individual comments and corrections for the text.

Response All accepted and changes made.

4. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Louis S. Wall, Chief, Western Division of Project Review, 7/31/81
Comment - Pursuant io Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of-1966 (16 U.S.C. Sec. 470f, as amended, 90 Stat. 1320) Federal agen-
cies must, prior to the approval of the expenditure of any Federal funds
or prior to the granting of any license, permit, or other approval for an
undertaking, afford the Council an oppo'rtunity to comment on the effect of
the undertaking upon properties included in or eligible for inclusion in
the National Register.

Until the requirements of Section 106 are met, the Council considers
the DEIS incomplete in its treatment of historic, archaeological, architec-
tural, and cultural properties. To remedy this deficiency, the Council
will provide, in accordance with its regulations, "Protection of Historic
and Cultural Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), substantive comments on the
effect of the undertaking on these properties.

Response - A call was made to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
on August 6, 1981. After explaining the nature of the action (i.e., no
construction activities would occur which would jeopardize historic, or
archaeological properties in the estuary), Council personnel stated that
there would be no need for further involvement of compliance at this time.
If any construction were to take place in the future for the interpretive
center, for instance, Section 106 consultation and requirements would be
complied with.

5. International Boundary and Water Commission, United States Section
J. F. Friedkin, Commissioner, 7/28/81

Comment - Page iii, Paragraph 2, add portion underlined to last sentence
so as to read: "These uses may include low intensity recreation, fishing,
and wildlife observation, and facilities consistent with the obligation
by the Government of the United States in the Treaty with Mexico _oT
February 3, 1944 for the Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and
Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat. 1219)."

Response - The local coastal plan (LCP) for San Diego, required under
Calitornia law provides for a potential sewage treatment plant located near
27th Street and Sunset, which is not within the sanctuary boundaries. At
this time under the LCP, a wastewater treatment plant could not be built
within the proposed estuarine sanctuary. Should the LCP be amended to
include a wastewater treatment plant within the estuarine sanctuary, the
sanctuary itself would not preclude such facilities since they are operated
and managed under State law and policy. In the event a wastewater treatment
plant is located within the estuarine sanctuary all mitigating measures
should be taken to protect the estuarine resource. Therefore, the suggested
language is not being added to the FEIS. Also see General Response C.

Comment - Page iii, first paragraph under MANAGEMENT, add portion underlined
to last sentence so as to read: Membership composition of the management
committee will include representation for the private sector, governmental
agencies of the United States and Mexico, real property owners and interested
and qualified citizens, it being und 'rstood that the management program will
be consistent with subsection (e)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act,
16-USC 1456.

Response - Change accepted.

Comment - Page 7, second paragraph under Private Land to be Acquired, add
@6-rtion underlined to read: Of the 31 par-ce-Fs-proposed for acquisition,
seven parcels above the river and thirteen parcels below the river would be
"leased back" to sellers for agricultural use and other activities, including
sanitary facilities, compatible with the maintenance of the sanctuary. See
Append x D tor description of land ownership.

Response Comment not accepted, basically for reasons outlined above.

Comment Page 10, first paragraph under Responsibilities of the Management
Authority, add underlined portion so as to read: "Sanctuary status will
confer no new regulations on the Tijuana River, nor affect the jurisdiction,
powers, or prerogatives of the International Boundary and Water Commission,
United States and Mexico as provided under subsection (e)(2) of the Coast5T
Zone Management Act, 16 USC 1456. Rather,..."

Response Change accepted.

Comment Page 11, under b. Sanctuary Advisory Committee delete "a repre-
sentative of the government of Mexico" replace with "A member from Baja
California, Mexico, would be invited". Some change requested for serving
on the water quality subcommittee.

Response - We are unsure of the rationale for this requested change so the
original language was changed to include the possibility of two representa.-
tives. However, language was added under "Method of Selection" that the
representative of Mexico and Baja, California would be chosen with the advice
of the International Boundary and Water Commission.

Comment - Page. 12 paragraph under Water Quality Subcommittee, revised, with
bracketed portion deleted and underlined portions adde *d so as to read: "The
water quality subcommittee responsibilities include 1) to help improve the
coordination of planning already underway for the Tijuana Valley in the United
States, and 2) to ensure that sanctuary goals are considered in planning-To-r
T7-ood control, groundwater management, and [planning for wastewater treatment]
sanitary measures. [with] Membership will be invited from Baja, California,
1-the governments of] Mexico and the executive branch of the State of California.
With membership from Baja California, Mexico, the subcommittee would [will]
have the [unique] opportunity to [foster iTternational progress towards]
obtain views from Baja, California on the Edual] goals Eof resource protection
and water quality management] of this subcommittee.

Response - Several of the above language changes were made. However, some
of the suggested changes seem to indicate a desire that the Water Quality
Subcommittee concern itself only with the U.S. side of the border. The
National Estuarine Sanctuary Program has developed into a National model for
estuarine ecosystem management, and as such must consider and understand the
dynamic process occurring in the estuary watershed. The Tijuana River is
unique since the majority of the watershed is in'Mexico. The scientific
expertise of members of all advisory committees and subcommittees should
prove invaluable to the International Boundary and Water Commission in its
role to negotiate a solution to the wastewater treatment problem that
presently exists.

Comment - Suggested change on p. 24, under 5. No Action of "cooperative
management" to "further cooperation".

Response - Change accepted.

Comment - Add a new section, J. International Considerations on page 48.

Response - Total text added.

Comment - Page 49, under a. General Impacts revise last paragraph, deletions,
in DraCKets and additions underlined, so as to read: The Advisory Committee
and Subcommittees on Agriculture, Water Quality, and Research and Education,
will provide a forum to [work toward] provide the technical advice to the
appropriate agencies in the solution of environmental problems in the larger
region. Special emphasis will be directed for research and estuary Ewater]
management between the United States and Mexico as may be appropriate with
the understandings in Sub Section (e)(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act
7f 1972, 16 USC 1456.

Response - Change accepted.

Comment - Page 57 under 5. Planning for Wastewater Treatment Facilities,
add a new paragraph 4 after "... to expire on June 13, 1981," and revise
last paragraph.

Response - Text changed. As earlier stated, t 'he Local Coastal Plan must
be amended prior to a wastewater treatment plant being located anywhere in
the Tijuana River Valley, other than at 27th and Sunset Streets.

Comment - Page 58, revise second paragraph, deletions in brackets and
additions underlined so as to read: "The management structure of the
Estuarine Sanctuary can [explicitly] respond Es] to [the] water quality
issues in the Tijuana Valley, though recognizing the prerogatives reserved
to the Interantional Boundary and Water Commission-E-Y Subsectio==
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. A representative of the water
quality agencies, and a representative Lot the government of Mexico] from
Baja, California, will be invited to serve on the Sanctuary Advisory
TRanagement KRTority] Committee. A water quality subcornmit-te--e-w-71T' be
established with membership invited from the EPA, the United States Section
of the International Boundary and Water Commission, the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, a member from Baja, California, [a representative of
the government of Mexico,J and a represental-l-ve-o-T-[Those agencies in] the
Executive Branch of the State of California. EGovernment that have discus-
sions underway with the government of Mexico.]

Response - Changes accepted, except there will be an option on the Advisory
Committee and the Water Quality Subcommittee of having a representative
from Mexico and/or Baja, California.

Comment - Page 5, revise item 4, deletions in brackets and additions under-
71-n-ecT-so as to read: "Encompass enough of the drainage area to make possible
reasonable and consistent management of the immediate floodplain and [drainage
basis] side drainage area".

Note: The proposed sanctuary area of 2,531 acres (4 square miles) is only
0.2 percent of the 1,731 square mile drainage basin.

Response - Change accepted.

Comment - Page 17, revise item 3, deletions in brackets and additions under-
lined s as to read: "3. Dete mine expected sedimentation rates [under
various strategies for managing the watershed and correlate these rates with
disturbance in the watershed] in relationship to flood flows to determine
sediment inflows to the estua@y, -beaches replenishment, and impacts on the
IELu a ry .
Response,- Change accepted, with minor modification.

Comment - Page 36 contains a description of the freshwater inflows into
the estuary. It would be desirable to include the silt and sediment inflows
and their impacts on aquatic organisms.

Response - We agree. This shall be a research priority for the Research
and Education Subcommittee.

STATE AGENCIES

6. California Department of Fish and-Game
Fr.-Charles Fullerton, Director, Sacramento, CA, 7/17/81

Comment Figure 1, page 6, confusing.

Response Comment accepted. If the sanctuary proposal is funded, new
maps will be prepared showing the boundaries and the interests in land to
be acquired.

Comment - Suggested language describing the problems with single agency
management at the Tijuana River.

Response Comment accepted, text changed.

Comment Serious concern over the fact that research in wetland restoration
techniques and methodology were not included in the research agenda.

Response Comment accepted, restoration added to the research agenda.

Comment Supports the Department as an ex-offico member of the Sanctuary
Adviso Committee and will assist in any way possible with sanctuary
establishment.

Response - Comment accepted. In addition, OCZM would like to congratulate
the Department of Fish and Game for its outstanding job of managing the
Elkhorn Slough Estuarine Sanctuary.

LOCAL INTEREST GROUPS

7. California Wetlands Coalition
Rimmon C. Fay, Ph.D., 7/27/81

Comment - The objectives of the California Wetlands Coalition include
protection, maintenance, enhancement and restoration of wetlands habitat.
The area is extensive and in a nearly natural state and is important to
wildlife habitat. We support this acquisition and designation of the area
of Tijuana Slough as an estuarine sanctuary for the people of California
and the Nation.

Response - Comments accepted.

8. Envirosphere Company
R. John Little, Ph.D., Newport Beach, CA, 7/30/81

Comment - Provided corrected spellings for plants in Table 2.

Response - Changes made.

Comment - Provided list of species to be included in final report.

Response - List has been added at the end of this section. This list shall
be used by the Sanctuary Manager when developing exhaustive flora and fauna
lists for the proposed sanctuary. We appreciate Dr. Little's information
concerning the plants in the Tijuana River area.

9. League of Women Voters of San Diego
Betty Challberg/Pat Richardson, undated

Comment - Supports the sanctuary status in keeping with the League support
of preserving wetlands in their natural state.

Response - Comment accepted.

UNIVERSITIES

10. San Diego State University, Department of Geography
Philli'p R. Pryde, 7/16/81

Comment - -Has found that the lower Tijuana River valley is one of the best
areas for field study of the interaction of natural and human environments,
as well as an outstanding example of an endangered and very productive
southern Californian landform and ecosystem. Believes this proposal will
help prevent this important natural area from becoming any more impacted by
adverse human intrusion. Endorses the sanctuary concept.

Response - Comment accepted.

INDIVIDUALS

11. H.G. Fenton Material Company
Tim M-nagen, San Diego, CA, 7/30/81

Comment - Fenton Material Company's 52 acres is not necessary for success of
the sanctuary and should be removed from the sanctuary boundaries. The
property is not for sale and the DEIS makes a weak case for its inclusion
within the sanctuary boundaries.

Response - The State of California and NOAA/OCZM feel that this particular
parcel should remain within the sanctuary boundaries to provide access oppor-
tunities for research and education related to the estuarine system. This
property also contains important chaparral habitat that is very scarce in
California that should also be protected as part of the estuarine system.

As mentioned elsewhere, any land sale is voluntary. Hopefully
an arrangement, that is satisfactory to the H.G. Fenton Material Company,
can be reached. Two years from the award of this grant, the State with the
advice of the Management Authority, shall examine all remaining ownerships
not acquired and determine if any should be eliminated from the sanctuary
boundaries for any reason (i.e., lack of funds, unwilling seller, marginally
cost-effective resource protection).

Comment Error'on page 4 of Appendix D.

Response Error corrected.

12. Gray, Cary, Ames and Frye
Theodore J. Cranston, San Diego, CA, 7/10/81

Comment - Represents Mrs. Harley Knox and Francis Harris, co-trustees under
the will of Harley Knox. The trust and Mrs. Knox are property owners.
Opposed because the project represents a potential waste of government money.

Response - The Tijuana River estuarine system's natural resource value to
the State of California is well documented in the DEIS and elsewhere. Coupled
with the fact that substantial use of less-than-fee land acquisition techniques
will be utilized, leads us to conclude that it is an excellent investment
for the State and NOAA.

Comment - Concerned about price of land based upon a per acre figure derived
from monies available and total acreage.

Response - See General Response B.

13. Cassie H. Morton, Imperial Beach, California, 8/4/81

Comment Enthusiastically supports the proposed Tijuana River Estuarine
Sanctuary.

Response Comment accepted.

Comment The problem of access will have to be dealt with.

Response See General Response E.

14. Galen and Louise Watts, Nestor, California, undated

Comment - Did not receive any information on the proposed estuarine sanctuary
or notice of the public hearing.

Response We attempted to find current addresses of all property owners
and send copies of the DEIS and notice of public hearing. We apologize for
the error if you did not receive the DEIS or Notice. By now you should have
received a letter from Mr. Michael Fisher concerning land acquisition and
suggesting a personal meeting with you.

Comment - Questions the statement in the DEIS that deer live within the
proposed sanctuary boundaries. Since 1937, he has never seen any deer there.

Response - Extremely competent scientists provided us with the lists of
animals, plants, and birds of the Tijuana River Valley. We assume they are
reasonably accurate. In the case of deer, we will ask the Research and
Education Subcommittee to document its existence or exclude it from any
lists.

Comment Not in favor of giving up their property.

Response See General Response G. You will not have to give up your
retirement property unless you wish to.

15. Otay Mesa Homeowners Association
Ruth J. Schneider, President, Nestor, California, 8/3/81

These comments (included in compendium at end of'this section) were received
after the deadline (August 4, 1981) and just as the HIS was going to the
printers. Most of the comments have already been made in the FEIS. OCZM
requests that the Management Authority consider and address the comments, if
the sanctuary is established.

16. Michael A. McCoy, D.V.M.
Imperial Beach, California, 8/l/91

These comments (included in compendium at end of this section) were also
received after the deadline. The great majority of.Dr. McCoy's suggestions
have been incorporated into the FEIS. OCZM requests the Management Authority
to address Dr. McCoy's comments and take appropriate action, if the sanctuary
is established.

RESPONSES TO STATEMENTS MADE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING
IMPERIAL BEACH CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
JULY 23, 1981 - 7:00 P.M.

Overview: The capacity of the building was not large enough to seat the
more than 90 persons attending the public hearing. Forty-six individuals
testified with the majority in favor of establishing the estuarine sanc-
tuary. A representative of the City of Imperial Beach stated the city
could not support the sanctuary as long as they were pursuing the approval
and construction of a marina in the area. Some land owners expressed their
reluctance to be willing sellers unless there was an assurance of receiving
a fair market value for their land,

1. Jean A. Strongylos
Resident - Imperial Beach

Comment: I would like this letter read at the public hearing because I am
unabTe--to attend in person.

Response: Letter was read by the Public Hearing Officer.

Comment: I am in complete agreement with Jackie Dewey's article in Sunday's
T-June 19, 1981) Star News (Article reproduced in compendium). Let us do all
we can to preserve our last open space in our area. I have lived facing that
area for almost 20years and still find it to be something worth looking at
regardless of the time of day or the season of the year.

Response: Comments accepted.

2. Laurel Granquist
Resident - Imperial Beach

Comment: The educational value of the sanctuary has already been demonstrated
ITY -the many elementary, high school , and University students and instructors
who have studied the flora and fauna of the ecosystem in this area as well
as several organizations. I am a teacher and strongly urge approval of the
sanctuary. (Letter read by Public Hearing Officer.)

Response: Comments accepted.

3. Dr. Willard Edwards
Resident - Imperial Beach (Statement read by Cris Liotta)

Comment: Fully understanding and interacting with the unique area which
contributes to the health, longevity, pleasure of living and the income of
the residents of Imperial Beach. I have spent my entire life in education
and have seen the value of a continuing education program emphasizing natures
beauty and marvels and have seen how local residents (young and old) have
profited from it. One of the reasons I moved to Imperial Beach was because
of the clean air and mild climate and opportunity to study plant and marine
life in the area. Based upon first-hand knowledge, I have seen the benefi-
cial impacts (social/economic) associated with the establishment of a nature
study center and would like to see the same occur in this area.

Response: Comments accepted.

4. Mike McCoy
Resident - Imperial Beach - Member Estuarine Sanctuary Committee

Comments: Points that he would like to see added in FEIS.

1. Success of the program will come through the establishment of a good
working relationship between the management authority and other agencies
and local interest groups. People are concerned over the effect sanctuary
status will have on their lives. Good planning and communications will
work to everyone's benefit.

Response: Comment accepted. This is the purpose of establishing an
Advisory Committee and a Management Committee which includes all the various
representatives to facilitate good planning and communication.

2. The sanctuary presents an opportunity to develop a model for good man-
agement. Concern over the potential impacts of sand and gravel extraction
sedimentation, endangered species, and the water table. The Sanctuary
Management Committee would be the authority to ensure proper management of
these activities and the restoration of the wetlands.

Response: Comment accepted. Wetland restoration added as a research
priority. The Advisory Committee and Subcommittee shall have as one of
their responsibilities the examination of mineral extraction, sedimentation,
endangered species, and the water table.

3. On page 53, under agricultural uses, would like to introduce concept of
compatible multiple-use research program. Must encourage new agricultural
practices which will not destroy wetlands and critical habitat and ensure
productivity through good estuarine sanctuary management. At the same time,
a research management program can act as a model approach for dealing with
urban impacts on wetlands.

Response: Comment accepted. Included as a research priority.

Comments: Assess feasibility of combining pure ecological research programs
dealing with compatible use, urban impact, and food production and formulate
this to an applied research program. The two programs should be combined.

Response: Comment accepted. Included as a research priority.

Comment: Favors the existing sewage treatment site reservation at Sunset and
27th Streets.

Response: Comment accepted. Also, we thank Dr. McCoy for his involvement
with the Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee.

Comment: Supports the concept of the sanctuary. He is on the Board of
Operation Wildlife (California affiliate of National Wildlife Federation)
and they support the sanctuary as well.

Response: Comment accepted.

5. Kristeen Roberts
Resident - San Diego

Comment: Supports sanctuary designation.

Response: Comments accepted.

6. Jim Bell
San Diego Center for Appropriate Technology

Comment: Spoke in support of the interpretive center. The center will not
only show how the estuary works, but also how our daily actions affect the
estuary and to offer alternative actions of daily activities which would
have less impacts on the estuary. This would apply also to agricultural
systems that are not dependent on pesticides, etc., and can enhance estuarine
productivity.

Response: Comment accepted. Interpretive Center to be established as soon
as possible.

7. Matt Marshall
Fa rmer-l and owner in Tijuana valley
President, Citizens of the U.S. Tijuana River Valley
Member, Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee

Comment: Tijuana River Valley right now is a mess. In favor of the
sanctuary.

Response: Comment accepted..

Comment: The management authority that would be established for the sanc-
tuary program can provide a mechanism to foster understanding between
educators, agricultural interests, etc. There are many problems which have
arisen since the flood of January 1980, including boundaries between agri-
cultural uses and riparian habitat, horse use and other uses, water quality
(biggest problem), flood control, vector control, etc. Concerned about
boundary between riparian habitat and agricultural land.

Response: We are very optimistic that the management authority will provide
an excellent communication process. The Management Authority will be addres-
sing the problems as stated, including boundaries between riparian habitat
and agricultural land.

Comment: Stressed the importance of cooperation between the various agencies
Tn-dMexico regarding sewage, a major problem from Mexico, and water releases
from Rodrigues Reservoir. Hopefully, the sanctuary will provide a mechanism
to address these issues.

Response: Again, we feel that the Management Authority, Advisory Committee,
and Subcommittees will provide an excellent forum to address the sewage
and water resource issues.

Comment: The sanctuary may serve to solidify the involvement of the City
of San Diego in the problems of the Valley.

Response: City of San Diego has been added to the Management Authority to
assist in this effort.

Comment: Pointed out that the Local Coastal Program for the area has been
approved. The sanctuary won't change the status of the LCP,.but will establish
a mechanism to deal with resource use problems.

Response: Comment accepted. Also, we appreciate Mr. Marshall's work with
the Advisory Committee.

8. John K. Kracha
Resident Chula Vista
Represents San Diego Sierra Club

Comment: Stated that the DEIS was a good comprehensive document. Sanctuary
status would be in the long term interest of the people in the State and the
Nation. The exposure it would provide to all ages is invaluable. The boundary
explored in the DEIS appears feasible. Sierra Club fully supports designation.
They oppose any acquisition attempt to remove lands from the sanctuary for
purposes of commercial or recreational purposes that would have an adverse
impact on the endangered species.

Response: Comment accepted.

9. Ann Steward Gertler
Resident, Ocean Beach, Graduate Student at San Diego State doing research on
the National EstTa-rineSanctuary Program.

Comment: Thinks Tijuana will contribute to all levels of government and
benefit. wetlands research. From 1947-67, 60 percent of California's estuarine
habitat has been lost (90 percent in southern California). The Tijuana is
the least disturbed site in southern California. Research on the importance
of estuaries should be encouraged. Supports approval of the sanctuary, but
hoped that this would not preclude additional designations in northern
Cal i fo rni a.

Response: Comments accepted.

10. James E. Neal
California State Department of Parks and Recreation

Comment: Expressed willingness of the Department of Parks and Recreation to
serve as lead administrative agency of the sanctuary. It has the support
of the entire Resources Agency.

Response: Comment accepted and highly appreciated by OCZM.

Comment: Sanctuary is composed of mainly public land with some private
acquisition (through willing sellers) proposed. Existing uses would be
continued. Resources of estuary are extremely important to people of the

state, especially because few acres of healthy or semi-healthy acres of
estuarine habitat remains (90 percent destroyed in Southern California
since 1900). In time, the area will increase in importance and will draw
more visitors and revenue to the area. A coordinated approach to manage-
ment will help elimin.ate duplication of effort and solve problems associated
with habitat protection, pest control, water quality,'etc. Public input
is a very important part of the management program and his department looks
forward to working with the many people of the area as well as Federal,
State and local government entities.

Response: Comment accepted.

11- Jeffrey M. Knor
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Concerned over the loss of wetlands in the area through in-fill
and use of recreational vehicles and hopes that these problems will be
addressed as quickly as possible.

Response: There are m anagement problems which would be addressed by the
Sanctuary Management Authority and Sanctuary Manager.

12. Alfred Hughes
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Formerly a supporter of the proposed marina but has changed his
mind because of a number of events which transpired including the, problems
with a lack of funding to conduct the dredging and the lack of Federal
support for developments in the floodplain, and the local government would
have to be financially responsible.

Response: Comments accepted.

Comment: Supports the Federal government (and state) in retaining juris-
Tfc@tion of the estuary because of the significant sewage disposal problems
and the need for the Federal Government to be involved along with Imperial
Beach in determining the importance and location of the sewage treatment
plant which is needed.

Response: Once the sanctuary is established, California State owns and has
the responsibility for managing the sanctuary. However, since it is a
National Estuarine Sanctuary, OCZM will participate as much as it can to
assist the State and Imperial Beach.

13. Jan Larson
Wildlife Biologist - Naval Air Station

Comment: Administer lands within the sanctuary boundary. Since 1977, the
Navy as made a commitment to the wildlife resources within this area.
Conducted many studies on endangered species (Clapper rail), coordinated
with county on mosquito control, and made compatible land use designations
for wildlife. Because almost 1/4 of their lands are within the sanctuary
boundary and their considerable interest in the wildlife resources, they

were members of the Sanctuary Advisory Committee and support the desig-
nation of the sanctuary. They believe that compatible land use (e.g.,
helicopter activities) can be achieved through interagency agreements.

Response: OCZM is grateful for the Navy's concern and willingness to parti-
cipate in the proposed action. We know that the wildlife studies conducted
by Mr. Larson and others will provide a valuable base of knowledge to the
overall purposes of the sanctuary.

14. Rueben Bingham
Chairman, Southwest Wetlands Interpretive Association,
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: The Association supports the approval of the sanctuary designation.

Response: Comment accepted.
Comment: The Association is working to further the preservation and appre-
ciati of the wetlands through educational activities, guided walks, and
the distribution of informational literature and seeks the construction
of a bio-museum within the sanctuary. The sanctuary would enhance the
possibility of reaching these goals.

Response: The goals are compatible.

Commment: Proper management would encourage multiple use, provide for long-
term preservation of the area, increase public education and controlled
access, and bring economic benefits to Imperial Beach and the surrounding
region. While the Association's main goal is educational, they realize the
value of low intensity multiple uses and views the sanctuary status as the
most important vehicle for increasing public knowledge and awareness of the
estuarine system.

Response: Comments accepted.

15. Alicia Hand Hass
Resident, San_Diego

Comment: Related the importance of sanctuary to her way of life. Owns
property close by the estuary and appreciates its beauty and values. She
was appalled to see trucks dumping trash in the wetlands and even risked
her life to stand in front of them to stop such actions. Asks that the
area be protected and that we work with Tijuana to solve management
problems. Protection of the estuary will also mean money for Imperial
Beach.

Response: Comments accepted and appreciated. We are glad the dump truck
did n6t--injure such a good speaker!

16. William Haas
Resident, San Diego - formerly Imperial Beach

Comment: Continues to keep interest in area because of friends and love
for tFFe area. There are some people dissatisfied because they want a

marina instead of a sanctuary. He of fe red several suggestions which might
make people happier.

1. Consider changing name to Imperial Beach Estuarine Sanctuary
(to put town.more in the public life).

2. Too much emphasis has been placed on saving the Least tern.
Should stress the importance of area as a "International motel
for migrants" (i.e., migrating birds use in large numbers).

3. Emphasize that the sanctuary would control dumping, unhampered
use of guns, offroad vehicles and control access generally.

Response: These are all good suggestions. Several names were proposed. A
name change is something the Sanctuary Management Authority can consider in
the future. On page 44 of the DEIS, the importance of the estuary as a stop-
over for migrating birds is discussed. We do believe that management of the
sanctuary will provide additional protection from abuses which have occured
in the past.

17. Timothy C. Flanagan
Property Engineer for H.G. Fenton Material Company

Comment: Company owns 52 acres of land in extreme southeast corner of sanc-
tuary boundary known as Border Highlands. They are in the sand and gravel
business. He made the following points:

1. They are not opposed to the creation of a sanctuary but they are
opposed to the inclusion of their pr6perty because it is in the
fringe of wildlife habitat and is an active gravel pit. The
approved Local Coastal Program recognizes the natural resource
value of aggregate materials. Additional controls of any kind
would be burdonsome and unacceptable. They take on good faith
the policy statement to deal only with willing sellers and since
they are on the fringe, the sanctuary will not be,hurt much by
its exclusion.

Response:' Inclusion of the H. G. Fenton property discussed under written
comments received #11. We appreciate their support for the sanctuary, which
will not add additional controls on their operation. It will be the policy
goal of the State and NOAA to work out a mutually satisfying, willing seller
agreement with the H. G. Fenton Material Company.

Comment: The grant request is very low given the value of land (approximately
$3,500/acre and less if San Diego land involved). Land is not free and the
scope of the project needs to be reduced or the budget needs to be increased.

Response: See General Responses B and G.

18. Michele Barber
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Grew up in slough - it is beautiful. Husband fishes (for halibut).
Suppor sanctuary and hopes children will also get to appreciate it.

Response: Comments accepted.

19. Cindy Barrett
Resident,_Imperial Beach

Comment: Stated her appreciation for teachers who showed her the values of
the es:Fuary. The sanctuary would be important to the residents and she hopes
that the problems with water quality can be worked out with Mexico. Supports
the sanctuary.

Response: Comments accepted.

20. Dick Lynas
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Stated that the DEIS was good, as was the management plan for the
area. The only shortcoming he saw was how the sanctuary would be funded
after the 5 year Federal funding runs out. Would like to see other insti-
tutions and agencies make commitment.

Response: See General Response B.

21. Tommie Schuette
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Stated her opposition to the sanctuary because the marina question
has nof been settled. The people voted for the marina in 1980.

Response: See General Response F.-

22. Earl Lauppe
State Department of Fish and Game

Comment: His agency supports the sanctuary. Complimented the quality of
the D S and wanted to see some expansion on two points.

1. The roles of his Department on the Advisory Committee.

2. The possibility of the restoration of the wetlands. Coordinated
efforts (and good communications) will get the job done.

Response: The role of the Department of Fish and Game on the Advisory Com-
mittee will primarily be a function of the level of time and effort it wishes
to devote. Obviously, we would support any expertise and advice that is
made available. Wetland restoration has been added as a research priority.

23. E. A. Keen
Resident, San Diego

Comment: Related his pleasure at what was going on with the estuary and his
experiences with the Naval Air Station to preserve the area as a natural
research area. He also commented on the quality of the DEIS and had two
suggested changes to make and questioned one point of fact. The first point
is that he feels the City of San Diego should be included as a member of
the Management Committee. Secondly, the U.S. - Mexican Boundary and Water
Commission be included in the management structure in an advisory capacity
since it is the most important water management agency.

Response: Comments accepted and have been included.

Comment: The last paragraph on page 25 states 385 acres are still in private
ownership "including the prime habitat adjacent to the estuary mouth." This
appears to contradict the ownership map in Appendix D.

Response: This statement was somewhat misleading and the text in the FEIS
has been revised. Most of the prime habitat is in public ownership.

24. Jim LaJoie
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Fully supports the EIS as presented and the estuarine sanctuary.

Response: Comment accepted.

25. Guy Sanderson
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: With the acquirin@ of the sanctuary we might save something for
somebody else to enjoy.

Response: Comment accepted.

26. Francis Harris
Trustee, Harley E. Knox and Mrs. Bessie J. Knox

Comment: Still has 84 acres of ranch left near the border. It was bought
in 950. He is a farmer and believes that not many people realize what it
costs to farm. Since 1970, their ground has been completely controlled by
governmental agencies. He is against the proposal unless the government is
willing to pay the fair maket value for the land.

Response: See General Response G.

27. Galen Watts
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comme nt: Mr. Watts is a horse rancher and owns 10 acres of land (Property
identified by symbol K). He clearly stated his opposition to the sanctuary
proposal and emphasized that if the government wanted his property they
would have to pay the proper price.

Response: We understand Mr. Watt's feelings. There will be no attempt to
condeFn-- his property or negotiate a sale for less than fair market value.
The State's commitment is to deal with willing sellers only. There is hope
however, that through the various methods of purchase, lease backs, or ease-
ments, Mr. Watt's concerns can be met and everyone comes out achieving their
particular goals.

28. John Kinsello
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Expressed concern over the limited funding and the small amount
that would1be available to purchase private land.

Response: See General Responses B and G.

29. John Ruger
Represents San Diego Chapter of the Southern California Wildlife Society

Comment: His organization supports the preferred alternative and had
several comments on the DEIS.

Response: Comments accepted.

Comment: Figure I (page 6) does not clearly show the eastern boundary.
It is easy to see why there is confusion.

Response: Upon close examination the boundary line should be read as the
darke undary that follows 19th street to Sunset Avenue and then heads
west. The smaller broken line depicts 19th Street only and is not a
boundary line.

Comment: These are several pieces of information on the map wfiich aren't
appropriately labeled and would help in clarification.

Response: New labels have been added.

Comment: Believed that there were too many representatives on the Management
AuthoFTty which would make it less effective. Felt.that some could be placed
in an advisory capacity.

Response: Our experience elsewhere has indicated that this number can be
effecf-i"ve. The advisory group that "put together" the Management Authority
felt the proposed structure would work.

30. Mary Ann Saponara
Resident, Chula Vista
School Program Specialist of San Ysidro School District

Comment: In favor of having sanctuary established. Sanctuary offers the
opportunity to the children in a natural environment and help teach them to
be better citizens of tomorrow (rather than destroy, they will help preserve
their environment).

Response: Comment accepted.

31. John Bradshow
Teacher, University of San Diego

Comment: Has used the Tijuana Lagoon for many years for teaching purposes
because it has a well flushed entrance. Supports designation of the
sanctuary.

Response: Comments accepted.

32. Mr. Holt
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Lives across from slough which has been a part of her life for
35 years and has appreciated its natural beauty. She stated the problems
of dumping in the slough even though against the rules. Gets mad when
people run the slough down. "God save the slough."

Response: Comments accepted. Dumping would be prohibited activity in the
sanctuary boundary and enforced by the State Department Parks and Recreation.

33. Sandy Woodhouse
Land Planner, San Diego Gas & Electric Company

Comment: Supports the efforts to preserve valuable ecosystems through the
Estuarine Sanctuary Program. The Gas & Electric Company owns 200 acres
within the proposed sanctuary. While they want to retain the land for future
possible energy related development, they would be willing to negotiate a
sale of the site at fair market value.

Response: Comment accepted and we appreciate the willingness to negotiate
a s a Te-.-

Comment: It i s my understand i ng t hat the g rant reque st i s fo r $3 mi 11 i on
from OCZM to be matched by $3 million from State funds.

Response: See General Response B.

Comment: Recommended the need to include the City of San Diego on the
Sanctuary Management Authority.

Response: Comment accepted. They have been included.

Comment: On page 51 , a correction should be made to reflect the fact that
the Regional Commission expires on July 1, 1981 and will not review the
City of Imperial Beach LCP.

Response: Correction made.

Comment: On page 61 , the DEIS should reflect the fact that a 200 acre
Tu-ture energy production site would be irretrievably lost.

Response: Addition made in the FEIS.

Comment: The sanctuary is the best possible way to implement the resource
management designations in the approved LCP and will ease the burden in
trying to figure out what types of zoning controls will be needed if the
land is acquired.

Response: Comment accepted.

34. Harold Wier
Resident, San Diego
Field Trip Chairman, San Diego Audubon Society

Comment: The estuary is accessible for bird watching and is used as part
of their annual Christmas Count Circle. The chief value of the sanctuary
is for its educational value because the building of a political support
base. Research is also important.

Respo nse: Comment accepted.

Comment: Believes that riparian habitat protection should be extended from
the eastern boundary to Dairymont Rd. because of the abundant bird life in
the water ponds and the importance to assure stable banks.

Response: The possibility of marsh (riparian) restoration has been added
as a research priority.

35. Linda Deaton
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Supports the estuarine sanctuary.

Response: Comment accepted.

36. Ed Deaton
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: Supports the estuarine sanctuary. He has helped clean up slough
before and expressed a willingness to help after the sanctuary is designated.

Response: Comments accepted and willingness to help appreciated.

Comment: Would like to see the FEIS discuss the economic benefits to the
city because of the sanctuary. He has seen similar cases wfien nature
centers have been built and it has had a positive impact on tourism.

Response: While we know that there will be positive impacts to bringing
visitors to visit the area, this is extremely hard to quantify and is
speculative at best. We do know that there will probably be more visi-
tations from educators, students, and researchers, but the general public
as well loves to see wild and scenic places.

37. Michael Bixler
Resident, Imperial Beach

.Comment: Lives adjacent to wetlands. Discussed the problems associated
'@i-ts@t Street traffic for residents. If additional use will result from
sanctuary designation there will be problems for the residents. Suggested
that some action (such as a deed back) be made to allow for some expansion
of the street with a sidewalk and turn around area. He is for the sanctuary
and feels that proper access would be in everyone's interest.

Response: Comment accepted. See General Response E.

38. Jackie Dewey
Resident and Columnist

Comment: For many years she has done research and printed articles in
favor of the marina, but feels that it is no longer a viable alternative and
therefore supports the sanctuary.

Response: Comments accepted.

Comment: Feels that the sanctuary may be one way to establish a reasonable
worTi-ng relationship with Mexico regarding the water quality problem.

Response: See General Responses C and D.

Comment: Emphasized the point that landowners should get the fair market
value for their property.

Response: Comment accepted. See General Response G.

Comment: The Interpretation Center may have beneficial impacts for
Imperial Beach and she suggested the sanctuary be named the Oneonta Estua-
rine Sanctuary. She submitted a copy of the recent column which was published
in The Star News (Sunday, July 19, 1981) which has been reproduced within the
compendium at the end of this section.

Response: OCZM and the State feel that a new name would not be inappropriate
Tt -this time, but would prefer that such a decision be made by the Advisory
Committee and Management Authority. See General Response A.

39. Ruth Schneider
Chariman, Otay Mesa Nestor Plan Group

Comment: Stated that the "highlands" area are important to the estuary.
Boundaries should extend from international border north to the southern
limits of the property on Leon Avenue through to the Imperial Beach city
limits. The eastern boundary should be all the way to the Freeway.

Response: We concur about the value of the "highlands." It is suggested
that a local land trust be established to accomplish these goals. The
Trust for Public Land a non-profit organization, provides such information
(415/495-4014) .

Comment: Believes that the sanctuary should be controlled by a large gov-
ernmental-entity than the City of Imperial Beach or San Diego with local
citizens sitting on the Board to make the decisions.

Response: Comment accepted. The sanctuary would be run by the State
government with impact from local citizens.

Comment: She feels that the land uses in the sanctuary should stay as
natural uses with farming allowed on the fringe areas.

Response: Comment accepted.

40. Lorraine Taverty
Resident, Imperial Beach

Comment: If we are going to have an estuary then we must have the Federal
money because of the scope of the project. There is not enough money to
buy the land or manage it.

Response: See General Response B.

Comment: She related the history of the area as pertaining to the desire
by the majority of the citizens of Imperial Beach to have a small boat
harbor, but that development was frustrated over and over again by State
and Federal agencies. In her opinion, various Federal and State agencies
have not managed the natural resources well and not been cognizant of the
flooding and water quality problems.

Response: See General Responses C, D,-and F.

Comment: Feels that the lst Street traffic problems should be addressed.

Response: See General Response E.

41. Patty Emond
Sanctuary Advisory Council Member and Mayor's Representative

Comment: Speaking for the Mayor of Imperial Beach, the Mayor will not
support the estuarine sanctuary until all avenues of approach to building
the marina have been exhausted. If all efforts prove futile, then she
believes the sanctuary would,be a good use of the area.

Response: See General Response F.

Comment: Speaking as an individual, she did not want to see the issue of
the 1 Street traffic congestion and inadequate road be addressed, and
supported Mr. Wixler's statement.

Response: See General Response E.

42. Randy West
Property Owner, Tijuana River Valley

Comment: Owns 40 acres of property. He feels that 1646 acres of public
property (which includes all of slough area) is sufficient for sanctuary
designation. The private land is outside of slough. He is not interested
in selling his land to the Federal government. The proposed price per
acre wouldn't allow him to buy comparative farm land.

Response: See General Response G.

Comment: As a farmer he was concerned with statement on page 53 which
states that "the application of fertilizers and pesticides is to be
strictly regulated." Farming is like fishing and you have to know the
land and what it needs. These decisions should be left up to the farmers.

Response: The statement on page 53 (now 55) is part of the Local Coastal
Plan developed by the City of San Diego.

Comment: On page 55, a correction should be made "to delete the proposed
Tissipation system."

Response: Correction made.

Comment: Would like to see more information distributed to residents of
tFe--va7ley regarding the wastewater. treatment plant.

Response: See General Responses C and D.

43. W. P. Vetter
Non-resident, Taxpaying property owner

Comment: He endorses Mr. Randy West's comments but feels that private
lands should be included (all or none).

Response: See General Responses D and G, and responses above to
Mr. West's comments.

Comment: Hope that final report gives a greater clarification of source
and availability of funds, particularly if it amounts to inverse
condemnation.

Response: See General Response B.

44i Sylvia Kaliss & Son (Tad Hinman)
Members, Wetlands Association

Comment: Supports the sanctuary as an opportunity to preserve open space
and add an economic advantage to Imperial Beach. As a graduate student
in history and archaeology, she became aware that some of the earliest
settlements were in the slough, including Indians of the Oneonta Community.
She hopes that the sanctuary and management plan will have a plan for the
rememberance of this early local history and of the farmers and settlers.

Response: Comments accepted . Sanctuary establishment would not preclude
the i rpretation of the historical/archaeoloical setting. Much of this
will depend on the advise of the Advisory Committee.and local interest
groups.

45. Jana Farfan
Parents live in Imperial Beach

Comment:. She is a student doing research on the Tijuana Slough for her
Master's Thesis. This area is very productive for research and teachers
and students from several universities use this area. Feels that the
sanctuary is important and for conducting baseline comparative studies
between this ecosystem and other more degraded ones.

Response: Comments accepted. Comparative research is certainly one of
the major. purposes of establishing national estuarine sanctuaries.

WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE TIJUANA RIVER DEIS

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Leg ANGELIES OISTRICT. CORPS 01' 1ENGINERRS @Altin:-: Mi .. =/McF.111-_-;1 NAVAL AIR STATION
NORTH ISLA 0
SAm al
LK'S: CALIFORNIA 00093
LOS ANISE" III ..I.R -
art'. 1943/JYL 1
Ser 18-

JUL 3
SPLED-E 6 July 1981

Director,
Estuarine Sanctuary Program Office
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Mr. Robert W. Knecht 3300 Whitebaven St., NW
Acting Assistant Administrator Washington, D.C. 20235
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Wh(tehaven Street, N.W. Dear Sir:
Washington, D.C. 20235 After review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary, HAS North Island has both
general comments and a number of specific comments/corrections,
Dear Mr. Knecht: the latter of which is attached separately.
This Is In response to a letter from your office which requested review In general, the document is well written and serves to communicate
and comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the pro- the proposed santuary in an excellent manner. Though the original
posed Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary, Office of CZM, San Diego County, Office of Coastal Zone Management matching funds grant is discussed,
California. further emphasis is required to sufficiently explain that process
during the initial 5-year grant period and how funding will be
The proposed plan does not conflict with existing or authorized plans handled once the California Department of Parks and Recreation be-
of the Corps of Engineers. We have no comments on the DEIS. comes the fiscal manager of the santuary. This discussion will
be particularly pertinent since the current funding climate is
Excavation, filling, or construction of any structures within the austere, and probably will become worse in the future.
c:)
Tijuana River (subject to tidal action) will require a permit from the C:)
Corps of Engineers. Also, any filling In the Tijuana (not subject to One of the major objectives for the establishment of an estuarine
tidal action) and/or Its adjacent wetlands will require a permit. We sandtuary is for research and educational purposes. This is em-
suggest that you contact our Navigation Branch at FTS telephone phasized in a major section of the document beginning on page 13.
8-798-5606 regarding requirements for filing permit applications at However, it is not clear how these programs and policies are to be
your earliest convenience In order to expedite the permitting process. implemented,i.e., the responsibilities of the Management Authority
and the Advisory Committee alluded to research and education, but
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this document. do not specifically provide for the implementation of such, which
according to background statements on page i, are of high priority.
Sincerely, Finally, it should be pointed out that the outlying Field, Imperial
Beach is a facility of and is administered by NAS North Island.
Reference to the facility as the Imperial Beach Naval Air Station
?AAA is incorrect.
hl.f. E Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft environmental
g ineeing Division document. NAS North Island looks forward to further participating
in the effort to establish the sanctuary as a viable means for the
conservation of a unique area.

Sincerely,

F,e HA T;1'@N
1311
Encl: CD CEC, USN
(1) Comments to Draft By direction of the
Environmental Impact Commanding officer

COMMENTS/CORRECTIONS TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE TIJUANA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY pg 54 first paragraph: change 220 to 340 in fourth line,
and eliminate everything after the word "leasing" in
the last sentence and add,"all their lands within the
pg ii - breakdown of acreage at bottom of page: OLF Imperial proposed sanctuary boundaries to the U. S. Fish and
Beach land within the boundaries of the proposed Wildlife Service, except those that historically have
santuary total approximately 603 acres. been encumbered by leases.

pg iii - first sentence: to alleviate the fears of many private pg 54 third paragraph: change "Wildlife and Resource Manage-
land owners in the Tijuana River Valley, this statement ment" section to "Natural Resources Management Branch",
should be either expanded or reemphasized elsewhere, change "U. S. Navy's" to "NAS North Island's, Staff
or both. Civil Engineering Department7-and eliminate everything
after the word "conservation" and add "at OLF Imperial
pg iii - third line under MANAGEMENT: the Sanctuary Management Beach".
Authority CommittWe -iscumbersome and redundant.
"Committee" should be left off. pg 54 - paragraph four: eliminate "Committee" in line 5
pg 2 - (second to last para, last line): hunting, if it implies pg 54 - paragraph five: starting with the word "the" in the
the use of firearms, should be eliminated. second line, reword to read "existence of a 100 year
flood plain within the area, no expansion into the
pq 7 - (second para, second line): "would be acquired" should be undeveloped portion of their lands within the proposed
changed to "are proposed for acquisition". sanctuary boundaries is planned.

pg 9 - sentence #4; this is a weak statement for the role of pg 54 - sixth paragraph: eliminate
research and education, given its emphasis in other sec-
tions of the document. pg 55 - first paragraph, second line: Rallus longirostris levipes
is misspelled.
pq 10 - sentence #3: based on this sentence, the City of San
Diego should be included in the Management Authority. Appendix B, Table 2, pq 2: change "Mesembryanthenum" to "Gasoul"

pg 15 - the proposed boundaries of the sanctuary should be Appendix B, Table 6: change Red-tailed "kite" to "hawk". C:)
included for perspective. add osprey as "R" to Falconiformes, change
.clapper rail" to "Light-footed clapper rail
pg 16 - sentence #1 top: sentence unclear. change "white-tailed" to "white-winged dove"
(Columbiformes).
pg 25 - last paragraph: paragraph out of date.

pg 27 - a newer map, if available, would reflect recent changes
in the area.

pg 39 - last paragraph: Monanthochle is a grass, Suaeda is
misspelled in line 5, numerous taxa are noE--underlined,
and cordylanthus maritimus ssp * maritimus,which is an
endan gered plant , is not mentinid -anywhere in this
section.

pg 44 - third paragraph, seventh line: replace "Common" with
"Caspian"

pg 45 - second paragraph, eighth line: replace "endangered"
with "rare". There have been no recent records for
the occurrence of the black rail.

pg 45 - third paragraph: add the osprey.
pg 47 - first paragraph, fourth sentence: this sentence is
confusing.

pg 53 - title "b" change "TiaJuana" to Tijuana"

Public Health Service A.

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND UR
At ant., G,,a 30333 WASHINGTON, D.C.
(404) 262-6649

July 29, 1981

OFFICE 0 THE AS.STA.T CRTAY
Hr. Milt Martin COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT
E tuarine Sanctuary Project Officer
OFfice of Coastal Zone Management Mr. Robert Knecht
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Acting Assistant Administrator
Washington, D.C. 20235 Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street NN
Dear Mr. Martin: Washington, D. C. 20235
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (915) for a Proposed Dear Mr. Knecht:
Estuarine Sanctuary Grant Award for the Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary
in California. We are responding on behalf of the U.S. Public Health Service We have carefully considered the draft stat
and are offering the following comments for your consideration in preparing California Grant Award for the Tijuana River
the Final EIS. astically support adoption of the proposal,
serves both national and State Interests.
We understand that the $1.5 million grant from NOAA/OCzM and natching State site in a truly urbanized area. Bordered by
funds will be used to acquire 885 acres of private real property for the County, and Lwial Beach, it is the the ani
proposed 2,531 acre National Estuarine Sanctuary. In general, we support surrounded by built arms.
the proposed designation. However, the designation and management of this
Sanctuary should not preclude the use of any control measures In the Sanctuary We therefore urge that surrounding Jurisdicti
for public health purposes. tions to otect the sanctuary area from high
the proposed Sanctuary area has the potential needs and pronotion of oducational" interest
The EIS should Indicate whether Which NiX intrude on the visual space, and
to harbor any large population of vectors capable of causing vector-borne carefully controlled to prevent wanton nis- oi
disease problems for local communities and residents. If vector-borne disease Urban park sites in my cities have unfortuna
problems occur or are anticipated, the use of special vector prevention and adequate precautionary zoning and land-use coi
control measures, including pesticides, may be necessary.
Continued local development my have a negative effect upon the Sanctuary due California's proposed nonaqgment I Is outs
of 0V
vW
we
ofitan
to possible increase in vector control Impacts, construction Impacts, drainage involving ant aspectA ioducaticl
alterations and diversions, pollution, ate. Therefore, it is Important that commity and otbor groups and Interests repr
the Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary Management Plan consider the" development rionce with citizen participation in homing,
effects. It may be necessary to Implement appropriate planning measures (i.e., W other progrooo involving broad cammity r
buffers, building codes, zoning, etc.) to help control and prevent Incompatible in ties, a very brood tative process
management and development activities, such as resorts, subdivisions, and camp- Interest an the part owny of the participon
grounds in the vicinity of the Sanctuary. ant active. Care oust be uarcisod to =into
Interests on the advisory canittees should ei
We appreciate the opportunity to review the Draft EIS. Please send us one
copy of the final document when it become available. Further infomation my be secured from our 1A
Coordinator, Mr. Coferino Ahuero. or Ine.
Sincerely yours,

Melvin W. Wachs
61a, PhD. HUD Coastal Zone Monagment Coordinator
Chief, Environmental Affairs Group
Environmental Health Services Division cc:
Center for Environmental Health Nis. Joyce M.T.Wood,Director
Office of Bcolosy 4 Conservation
Room 5813 - U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D. C. 20230

Department of Transportation
UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

10 July 81

Mr. Robert w. Knecht
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Knecht:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the proposed Tijuana River Sanctuary.

For purposes of Coast Guard Bridge Administration, permits will be required for the construction of bridges or causeways over/in navigable waters of the United States. The coast Guard has not studied the navigability of the Tijuana River, however, preliminary review indicates that it may be a
navigable waterway, for Bridge Administration purposes.

The Eleventh Coast Guard District Aids to Navigation office is currently
studying the navigability of the Tijuana River. The final results of
this study will be forwarded as soon as it becomes available.

Since the DEIS for the proposed sanctuary does not include plans to
construct a bridge or causeway, I have no further comments at this time.

Please send me a copy of the Final Environmental Impact Statement when it
is available.

M. J. Danko
Lieutenant Commander U.S. Coast Guard
Chief, Aids to Navigation Branch (DEIS)
By direction of the District Commander

ACTION: MINER/MACFARLAND

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105

Project ID-NOA-K90011-CA

Robert W. Knecht, Acting Assistant Administrator
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Knecht:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received and
reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
titled PROPOSED TIJUANA ESTUARINE SANCTUARY.

The EPA's comments on the DEIS have been classified as
Category LO-2. Definitions of the categories are provide by
the enclosure. The classification and the date of the EPA's
comments will be published in the Federal Register in accord-
ance with our responsibility to inform the public of our
views on proposed Federal Actions under Section 309 of the
Clean Air Act. Our procedure is to categorize our comments
on both the environmental consequences of the proposed action
and the adequacy of the environmental statement.

The EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on this DEIS
and requests five copies of the Final Environmental Impact
Statement when available.

If you have any questions regarding our comments, please con-
tact Susan Sakaki, EIS Review Coordinator, at (415) 556-7858.

Sincerely yours,

Sheila M. Prindiville
Acting Regional Administrator

Enclosure

cc: Joyce M. T. Wood, Director, Office of Ecology and Conser-
vation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Water Quality Comment
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) does not
adequately discuss the water quality in the Tijuana River and
the Tijuana River Estuary. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) should thoroughly discuss the water quality
and flows of the Tijuana River and indicate how these will impact the beneficial uses of the estuary.

EIS CATEGORY CODES

Environmental Impact of the Action

LO-Lack of Objections

EPA has no objection to the proposed action as described in the draft impact statement; or suggests only minor changes in the proposed action.

ER-Environmental Reservations

EPA has reservations concerning the environmental effects of certain aspects of the proposed action. EPA believes that further study of suggested alternatives or modifications is required and has asked the originating Federal agency to reassess these aspects.

EU-Environmentally Unsatisfactory

EPA believes that the proposed action is unsatisfactory because of its potentially harmful effect on the environment. Furthermore, the Agency believes that the potential safeguards which might be utilized may not adequately protect the environment from hazards arising from this action.
The Agency recommends that alternatives to the action be analyzed further
(including the possibility of no action at all).
Adequacy of the Impact Statement

Category I-Adequate
The draft impact statement adequately sets forth the environmental impact of the proposed project or action as well as alternative reasonably available to the project or action.
Category 2-Insufficient Information
EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not contain sufficient information to assess fully the environmental impact of the proposed project or action. However, from the information submitted, the Agency is able to make a preliminary determination of the impact on the environment. Epa has requested that the originator provide the information that was not included in the draft statement.
Category 3-Inadequate
EPA believes that the draft impact statement does not adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed project or action, or that the statement inadequately analyzes reasonably available alternatives. The agency has requested more information and analysis concerning the potential environmental hazards and has asked that substantial revision be made to the impact statement.
If a draft impact statement is assigned a Category 3, no rating will be made of the project or action, since a basis does not generally exist on which to make such a determination.

-2-
STATE Of CAutor"IA-A fSOURCtS kOJHCY EDMUND Q. UOWH 31, 0--
DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME assist in the establishment of the Sanctuary. Please call Bruce Browning,
1416 NINTH SIRF,-t
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 95814 cc: SPO our Coastal Wetland Program Coordinator, (916) 445-9992, should you need
(916) 445-3531 any further input regarding our comments.
ae,rely,
July 17, 1981
't.r

cc: Region 5
Scott McCrary, California Coastal Commission
Robert W. Knecht
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.V.
Washington, D.C. 20235
ejR d@L
Dear.M

Thank you for the opportunity to review the DEIS for the proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary Grant Award for a Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary in San Diego
County, California, As sponsor and manager of California's first estuarine
sanctuary and having a vested interest in all coastal wetlands, the Depart-
ment has a keen interest in the prospects and proposals for the Tijuana
River Estuary. We find the DEIS ver7 well prepared and commend Scott McCrary
for the excellent job. We have several review comments on a few specific
points, for your consideration.
Ul
Regarding the proposed boundaries map (Figure 1, page 6), we find the coding
confusing as to the parcels of land to be acquired in fee, as opposed to
those that are to be acquired and leased back. Generally, however, we find
the boundary lines well chosen.

It might be reinforced in the "No Action" - management structure alternative
(page 24) that the sanctuary would offer a more useful and reasonable
alternative to the existing, fragmented and impractical management structure
(vim. USFWS management responsibility - located in Imperial Valley, Depart-
ment of Parks and Recreation, Navy, City of San Diego, etc.).

Our most serious concern over the specifics of the subject DEIS pertains to
an oversight in the sections on research objectives and needs on pages 16
and 17. The Department feels strongly that one of the major research needs
regarding most coastal wetlands, including the Tijuana River Estuary, is
for research in wetland restoration techniques and methodology. Since much
of the southern. portion of the wetlands could and should be restored, the
sanctuary would be an appropriate place for such research.
We find the assignment of the Department as an ex-officio member of the
Sanctuary Advisory Committee appropriate, and will do whatever we can to

Ms. Joyce Wood
Director,
Office of Ecology and Conservation
U.S. Department of Commerce
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Ms. Wood:

The United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, has completed its review of the draft Environmental Impact Statement which you
submitted with your letter of June 12, 1981, on the "Proposed Estuarine
Sanctuary Grant Award to the State of California for a Tijuana River Estu-
arine sanctuary."

We, of course, understand that the Sanctuary program under the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972 (10 USC 1456) is designed to provide matching funds
to states for land acquisition and management of outstanding estuaries for teaching and research purposes. We also understand that a sanctuary designation does not impose new regulations or alter those already in place. At the same time, however, this agency is concerned that the draft statement does not properly address the jurisdiction, powers and prerogatives adequately for this international Commission to be able to fulfill the obligations and assert the rights under the boundary and water treaties between the United States and Mexico that those governments have entrusted upon the International Boundary and Water Commission.

The Governments of the United States and Mexico, pursuant to provisions in the Treaty of February 3, 1941, for the Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat. 1237) have jointly undertaken measures and works in the Tijuana River area of the Boundary for control of river floods, for emergency deliveries of water and for resolving border sanitation problems. The draft statement makes no mention of these international obligations. The invitation of membership from Mexico and this Section to the three tier Committee Management, while perhaps helpful to the estuarine sanctuary goals, cannot, nor should be, considered a sufficient safeguard to fulfill the obligations and asserting the rights under the boundary and water treaties entrusted to the International Boundary and Water Commission.

Recognizing the international obligations under the boundary and water treaties with Mexico, the Congress of the United States in passing the Coastal Zone Management Act provided in Subsection (e) (2):

"Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed..."

"(2) as superseding, modifying, or repealing existing laws
applicable to the various Federal agencies, nor to affect
jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the International
boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico."

-2-

With Specific reference to water quality, the Presidents of the United States and Mexico in the Fall of 1979, approved an agreement through this
Commission for a permanent solution to the border sanitation problems and directed this Commission to conclude supplementary agreements for solution of existing sanitation problems, including the one originating in Tijuana. In December 1980, the United States and Mexico approved the Commission-negotiated agreement for solution of the sanitation problem at Calexico-Mexicali. At this thime this Commission is negotiating an agreement for solution of the sanitation problem in the Tijuana area with a view to completing an agreement this year. It now appears that the most certain approach for a permanent solution of the problem is a joint waste treatment plant located in the lower Tijuana River Valley, to handle waters from both San Diego and Tijuana. In view of the hazard posed by the Tijuana sanitation problem to the health of citizens on both sides of the boundary including those using the ocean beaches and the estuary itself, and of the status of negotiations with Mexico toward a solution of the problem, this agency must oppose the designation of the Tijuana estuary as a National Estuarine Sanctuary, if such designation would preclude the construction of a joint waste treatment plant in the lower Tijuana River Valley at a site near the westerly end of the valley and near the international boundary.

To address these concerns, the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission suggests a number of revisions to the subject draft EIS, as noted in the attached memorandum, on the following places in the draft statement:
SUMMARY

Page iii, revise second paragraph, under "Proposed Action," and first paragraph under "Management."

TEXT

Page 7, revise second paragraph under:
"Private land to be acquired"
Page 10, revise first paragraph under:
"Responsibilitites of the Management Authority"
Page 11, revise second and third paragraphs under:
"D. Sanctuary Advisory Committee"
Page 12, revise paragraph under:
"Water Quality Subcommittee"
Page 24, revise first paragraph under:
"No action"

Page 48, add a Section J:
"International Considerations" to "part III":
Affected Environment"

Page 49, last paragraph under:
"General Impacts"

Page 57, add a new fourth paragraph and revise first paragraph under:
"Planning for Wastewater Treatment Facilities"

Page 58, revise second paragraph.

Sincerely,

J. F. Friedlin
Commissioner

cc: Robert W. Knecht
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 White Haven Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Richard Coddington
CPA, San Francisco

bcc: ARA/REX
OCS/EHR through ARA/KLX

MRY:JJV:CRB:JFF:var 7/27/81

MRY:tks
7/9/81

MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES SECTION.
INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY AND WATER COMMISSION'S
COMMENTS ON DRAFT EIS
PROPOSED ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GRANT AWARD TO THE STATE
OF CALIFORNIA FOR A TIJUANA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY."

SUMMARY

Page iii, Paragraph 2, add portion underlined to last sentence so as to
read: "These uses may include low intensity recreation, fishing, and wild-
life observation, and facilities consistent with the obligation by the
Government of the United States in the Treaty with Mexico of February 3.
1944 for the Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers
and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat. 1219).

Page iii, first paragraph under MANAGEMENT, add portion underlined to last
sentence so as to read: Membership composition of the management committee
will include representation from the private sector, governmental agencies
of the United States and Mexico, real property owners and interested and
qualified citizens, it being understood that the management program will be
consistent with subsection (e) (2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. 16
USC 1456.

Text

Page 7, second paragraph under Private Land to be Acquired, add portion underlined to read:
Of the 31 parcels proposed for acquisition, seven parcels above the river
and thirteen parcels below the river would be "leased back" to sellers for

-2-

agricultural use and other activities, including sanitary facilities, com-
patible with the maintenance of the sanctuary. See Appendix D for descrip-
tion of land ownership.

Page 10, first paragraph under Responsibilities of the Management Authority, add underlined portion so as to read: "Sanctuary status will confer no new regulations on the Tijuana River, nor affect the jurisdiction, powers, or prerogatives of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States and Mexico as provided under subsection (e) (2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act, 16 USC 1456. Rather,..."

Page 11, under b. Sanctuary Advisory Committee, Revise second and third paragraphs, deletions in brackets and additions underlined, so as to read: A seven-member Advisory committee is proposed. Membership would include
the City of San Diego, the County of San Diego, the California Coastal Com-
mission, a representative of agricultural interests, [a representative of
the government of Mexico,] a representative of the water quality agencies,
and a representative of research and education interests. A member from
Baja California, Mexico, would be invited.

The Sanctuary Advisory Committee will have direct links to both the Sanctuary Management Authority and its subcommittees. One member of the Advisory Committee elected for a year term by a majority of its members, will serve on the Management Authority. The person with expertise in ranching and agriculture will serve on, and represent, an Agriculture Subcommittee. Both the [representative of Mexico] member from Baja California, and the representative of the water quality agencies will be invited to serve on the Water Quality Subcommittee. Similarly, the spokesperson for research and education interests on the Advisory Committee will also be a member of the Research and Education Subcommittee.

-3-

Page 12 paragraph under Water Quality Subcommittee, revised, with bracketed
portion deleted and underlined portions added so as to read: "The water quality subcommittee responsibilities include 1) to help improve the coordination of planning already underway for the Tijuana Valley in the United States, and 2) to ensure that sanctuary goals are considered in planning for flood control, groundwater management, and [planning for wastewater treatment] sanitary measures. [with] Membership will be invited from Baja California, [the governments of] Mexico and the executive branch of the State of California. With membership from Baja California, Mexico, the subcommittee would [will] have the [unique] opportunity to [foster international progress towards] obtain views from Baja California on the [dual] goals [of resource protection and water quality management] of this subcommittee. The participation of the United States Consulate in Tijuana and the Commission of the Californias will be useful in inviting the appropriate representative of Mexico. The same individual will be invited to serve on the Sanctuary Advisory Committee. Agency representatives will be invited from the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, the United States Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission and Hetro II.

Page 24, under 5. No Action, revise first paragraph, deletions in brackets
and additions underlined, so as to read:

A course of "no action" on this sanctuary proposal would sacrifice an opportunity to secure the entire wetland ecosystem and adjacent lowlands of the lower Tijuana River Valley in a unified program of management, and compatible use. Part of the core wetland area river corridor and vital uplands will remain outside public stewardship, and the maintenance of compatible agricultural uses in perpetuity will not be a certainty. A forum of working towards [cooperative management] further cooperation with Mexico for water quality and resources would also be lost.

-4-

Page 48, add Section J after last paragraph, as follows:
J. International Considerations The Governments of the United States and Mexico, pursuant to provisions in the Treaty of February 3, 1944, for the Utilization of the Waters of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande (59 Stat. 1237) have jointly undertaken measures and works in the Tijuana River area at the boundary for control of river floods for emergency deliveries of water and for resolving border sanitation problems.

Under the 1944 Treaty that the two Governments through their joint International Boundary and Water Commission undertook works in their respective territories for a coordinated plan for control of floods from the Tijuana River. Under the plan Mexico, between 1972 and 1979, constructed a concrete-lined channel for 2.5 miles to meet a similarly designed channel at the boundary, constructed by the United States as a dissipator structure between 1978 and 1979 so as to reduce the velo-
city of floods from Mexico and spreading these for their natural flow into the Tijuana Estuary.

Also, the two Governments through the International Boundary and Water Commission in 1972 (TIAS 8412) entered into an agreement for use of the Southern California aqueducts to deliver a portion of the waters of the Colorado River allotted to Mexico for use on an emergency basis in the City of Tijuana. That agreement remains in force on a standby basis.

With respect to sanitation problems, the two Governments through the Inter- national Boundary and Water Commission in 1965 entered into an agreement for emergency use by a rapidly growing City of Tijuana, Mexico of the sewage disposal system of the City of San Diego and jointly constructed an emergency connection line to effect toe agreement. The connection is de- signed to prevent overflows on the surface of sewage from Tijuana into the

-5-

United States during periods of breakdowns to the Tijuana Sewage disposal
system that relies heavily on pumping.

In more recent years, the two Governments through the International Boundary and Water Commission in September 1979 reached agreement for the solution of border sanitation problems which specifically confers to this Joint Commission the responsibility and jurisdiction to effect the provision in the 1944 Water Treaty that the two Governments shall give
preferential attention to the solution of border sanitation problems. Following instructions of the Presidents of the United States and Mexico, in September 1979 the International Boundary and Water Commission is at work seeking supplementary agreements for specific solutions to existing border sanitation problems, including one at San Diego-Tijuana, where breakdowns to the sewage disposal system at Tijuana and the resulting excessive use of an emergency sewage connection to the City of San Diego present a threat to the health and well-being of inhabitants on both sides of the border and to the beneficial use of the waters of the Tijuana River and of the surf waters near the boundary.

At this time this Commission is engaged in negotiating an agreement for sulution of the sanitation problem in the Tijuana area, with a view to completing an agreement this year. One of the possibilities for permanent solution of the problem is a joint waste treatment plant located in the lower Tijuana River Valley, to handle wastes from Both San Diego and Tijuana.

Page 49, under a. General Impacts revise last paragraph, deletions in brackets and additions underlined, so as to read:

The Advisory Committee and Subcommittees on Agriculture, Water Quality, and Research and Education, will provide a forum to [work toward] provide the technical advice to the appropriate agencies in the solution of environmen-
tal problems in the larger region. Special emphasis will be directed for re

-6-

-7-
search and estuary [water] management between the United States and Mexico
as may be appropriate with the understandings in Sub SEIction (e) (2) of the both sides of the boundary including those using the ocean beaches, and the es-
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 16 USC 1456. tuary itself, and of the status of negotiations with Mexico toward a solution of
the problem, this agency must oppose the designation of the Tijuana River estuary
Page 57 under 5. Planning for Wastewater Treatment Facilities, add a new para- as a National Estuarine Sanctuary, if such designation would preclude the construc-
graph 4 after "... to expire on June 13, 1981," and revise last paragraph, dele- tion of a joint waste treatment plant in the lower Tijuana River Va lley..
tions in brackets and additions underlined, so as to read:
The planning by the City of San Diego for additional wastewater treatment Page 58, revise'second paragraph, deletions in brackets and additions underlined
facilities in the Tijuana Valley assists the Internationa .I Boundary and Water so as to read:'
Commission in developing alternatives for a long term solution to the border "The management structure of the Estuarine Sanctuary San [explicityl respond [s.] to
sanitation problem at San Diego - Tijuana; a problem now being considered by [the] water quality issues in the Tijuana Valley, though recognizing the preroga-
this Joint Commission of the United States and Mexico for an agreement for tives reserved to the International Boundary and Water Commission by Subsection-Lei
(2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. A representatives of the water
a solution under the Commissioner's agreement approved by the two Governments
quality agencies, and a representative [of the government of Mexico], from Baja Ca-
in 1979 for solution of border sanitation problems. One of the possibilities CD
lifornia will be invited to serve on the Sanctuary Advisory (Management authority]
for permanent solution of the problem is a joint waste treatment plant located
Committee. A water quality subcommittee will be established with membership invited
in the lower Tijuana River Valley, to handle wastes for both San Diego and
Tijuana. from the EPA,the United States Section of *the International Boundary and Water Com-
mission, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a member from Baja California, [a
Recent correspondence from EPA to the Coastal Commission (April 10, 1981) representative of the government of.Mexico,J and a representative of [those agencies
expresses interest in construction of a facility to serve both the United in] the Executive Branch of the State of California. [Government that have discus-
States and Mexico, perhaps at a site other than the reserved site of the
sions underway with the government of Mexico
Tijuana River and South San Diego County beaches as more sewage is pumped
The following suggestions reflect comments on technical aspects.
through Mexican connector lines, which are operating to capacity, to a surf Page 5, revise item 4, deletions in brackets and additions underlined so as to
discharge several miles below the border. Also, recent correspondence from
the United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission (May 8, read:
1481), advises that at this time that Commission is engaged in negotiating an "Encompass enough of the drainage area to make possible reasonable and consistent
agreement for solution of the sanitation problem in the Tijuana area, with a management of the immediate floodplain and (drainage basis] side drainage area.
view to completing an agreement this year; further, it advises t .hat in view of Note: The proposed sanctuary area of 2,531 acres (4 square mil es) only 0.2 percent
the hazard posed by the Tijuana sanitation problem to the he alth of citizens on of the 1,731 square mile drainage basin.

Page 17, revise item 3, deletions in brackets and additions underline.1 so as to

read:

"3. Determine expected sedimentation rates [under various strategies for managing

the watershed and correlate these rates with disturbance M the watershed] in re-

lation to flood flows to determine sediment inflows to the estuary, beaches reple-

nishment, and impacts on the estuary.

Page 36, contains a description of the freshwater Inflows into the estuary. It woutd

be desirable to include the silt and sediment inflows and their impacts on aquatic or-

ganisms.

CC: Nefli

CC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND 0. BROWZ Jpo-.-.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Aft@
30 VAN NESS AVENUE 19m) 21 July 1981
SAN FRANCISCO, CAUFORNIA 94102 1W
IHONE: 557-3696 ScottoMcCreary Pip
Calif rnia Coastal Commission
June 25, 1981 631 Howard Street
San Francisco, California
94105 Al.2

C41F. COMT-AL
Dear Mr. McCreary: Dl;r:.9

Southern California has suffered more extensive loss of
Mr. Robert W. Knecht coastal wetlands than has been observed in any other area of
Acting Assistant Administrator this Nation. In order to address this problem of loss of
office of Coastal Zone Management thes@ nvaluable habitats with their diverse importance to
3300 Whitehaven Street, N. W. birds, fish and shellfish, and interesting flora and the
management of these resources, the California Wetlands Coalition
Washington, D. C. 20235 was formed. The objectives of this cualitivii ln@lude
the protection, maintenance, enhancement, and restoration
Dear MT. Knecht' of wetlands habitats throughout this State.
We have received and reviewed the Draft Environmental Please note our enthusiastic support of the establishment
Impact Statement on the Proposed Estuarine Sanctuary Grant
Award to the State of California for a Tijuana River National of the Tijuana Slough Estuarine Sanctuary. This area is extensive
Estuarine Sanctuary and have no comments on the document. We and in a nearly natural state. It has a long history of
should appreciate receiving a copy of the Final Environmental importance as habitat for those species which have adapted to
and require these productive environments. Many of these species
Impact Statement. are now either rare, endangered, or no longer may be found in
Very truly yours, C'alifornia. Some species which once depended upon these habitats
are now extinct.

In order to dvoid additional loss of the existent coastal
JEFFRY S. BLANCHFIELD wetlands and reduction of the valuable renewable resources
Chief Planner which depend upon them, many laws have been passed. In addition,
where it is obvious that acquiAion of the properties involved
is required to assure ef fective@ protection for the benefit of the
JSB/jr general public, funds have been appropr-* -ated to implement
such actions. In part, these acquis.-tions may be accomplished
cc: Joyce M. T. Wood as a result of the national estuarine sanctuary program.
Milt Martin We support this acquisition and designation of the area of the
Scott McCreary Tijuana Slough as an estuarine sanctuary for the people of
California and the Nation.

Yours sincerely,
C

Rimmon C. Fay, Ph.D.
cc: Charles Schneebeck California Wetlands Coalition
John Bradshaw P. 0. Box 536
Venice, California
90291

envirosphere company
A Division of EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
130 Newport Center Drive, Newport Beach, CA 92660 (714) 759-7700

July 30, 1981
Ms. Joyce M. T. Wood
Director
Office of Ecology and Conservation
United States Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Office of Coastal Zone Management
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Ms. Wood:

In response to your request for comments on the Draft EIS of the
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary, I would like to submit two
items:

1. I have corrected the spellings of many of the family names
listed in Table 2, "Flowering Plants of Tijuana Estuary".
In addition, I have listed the current family names where
appropriate (e.g., Poaceae for Graminese). Also, Cuscuta
is now place in the genus Convolvulaceae. All of these
suggestions are from Munz, 1974, A Flora of Southern Cali-
fornia, UC Press.

2. I am sending a list of species that you may want to incor-
porate in your final report. These were personally collected
by me (or reported in the literature) during December 1979
through February 1980. On the list that I have sent you,
these are marked with an arrow on the left margin. (Please
disregard information in column 4, "Source" and 5, "Survey
Site". The other species on this list lie outside the es-
tuary and the Tijuana River area).

If I can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to ask.
Unfortunately, I was not be able to attend the Public Hearing on
July 23, 1981.

Sincerely,

R. John Little, Ph.D.
Botanist
RFJ:vr
Enclosures
cc:

TABLE 1
SPECIES LIST
Native/ Survey
Scientific Name1 Habit2 Introduced3 Source4 Site5

AGAVACEAE
Yucca schidigera T/S N PMS

AIZOACEAE
Carpobrotus aequilaterus PH N ECOS, PMS, E6a
RMB, URM
Carpobrotus edulis PH I ECOS, RMB, A4
URM
Carpobrotus sp.6 PH N/I ECOS A3, EE2, b

Drosanthemum floribundum PH I ECOS A3, A2

Gasoul crystallinum H I WRM, PHS, A3,B2,B3,C2
ECOS E1,E3,E4,E6b.
Gasoul nodiflorum H I WRM, PMS A3, E5a, b,

AMAPANTHACEAE

Amaranthus albus H I RMB

Amaranthus blitoides H N RMB

Amaranthus sp. H N/I ECOS A4, C2

ANACARDIACEAE

Rhus integrifolia T/S N ECOS A6, E6a, b, F

Rhus laurina T/S N ECOS A6, B2, D1, F

Schinus molle T I PKS, ECOS E1, E2

APIACEAE

Apium graveolens PH I ECOS

Foeniculum vulgare PH I RMB, PMS,
ECOS
Unknown genus - - ECOS C3, D2, E2

ARECACEAE

Washingtonia filifera T N ECOS A1

Native/ Survey
Scientific Name1 Habit2 Introduced3 Source4 Site5

ASTERACEAE
Amblyopappus pusillus H N WRM, PHS
Ambrosia chamissonis PH N WRM, ECOS E5a
Ambrosia psilostachya PH N RMB, ECOS C4
Ambrosia psilostachya PH N ECOS A4,B1,B2,C
var. californica D2,E2,E3,E
E6b,c
Ambrosia sp. PH N ECOS A4
Artemisia californica S N PMS, ECOS B2
Artemisia sp., UNKN #1 S N/I ECOS B1
Artemisia sp., UNKN #2 S N/I ECOS D2
Aster spinosus PH N RMB, ECOS B1,C6
Baccharis glutinosa S N RMB,PMS B1,B2,B3,B
ECOS C4,C5,C6,D
D3,E1,E2,E
E4,E7
Baccharis sarthroides S N RMB,PMS
Baccharis sp. PH or S N ECOS F
Centaurea melitensis H I PMS
Centaurea sp. H I ECOS A1,A2,A7,B
C6
Chrysanthemum carinatum H I PMS
Chrysanthemum coronarium H I RMB, ECOS A3,B3,D4,B

Conyza canadensis H I ECOS A ,A3,A7,B
B3,D ,C2,C

Cotula coronopifolia PH I RMB,PMS A3,B ,C3,E
ECOS E5b,E7
Eclipta alba H I ECOS C3,C4,E1
Gnaphalium beneolens PH N RMB,ECOS A3,C2,E1
Gnaphalium bicolor PH N ECOS A3,B1
Haplopappus venetus S N ECOS D3,E ,E7,E

Haplopappus venetus PH N RMB,PNT A3, ,A7,B
ssp. vernonioides PMS,ECOS B
Helianthus annus H N RMB
ssp.lenticularis
Helianthus sp. H N/I ECOS
Heterotheca grandiflora H N RMB, PMS A3,A ,A7,B
ECOS C2,C3,C4,C
C6,F

-21-
Native/ Survey
Scientific Name1 Habit2 Introduced3 Source4 Site5

ASTERACEAE,Continued
Hymenoclea monogyra S N RHB,ECOS D1
Iva hayesiana S N RMB
Jaumea carmosa PH N JBS,WRM
PMS
Lactuca serriola H I ECOS A4
Lepidospartum squamatum S N ECOS A3,A7,B1,
C5,D ,E2
Pluchea sericea T/S N RMB,WRM A4,C5,C6
PMS,ECOS
Senecio douglasii PH N RMB,ECOS C5
Sonchus oleraceus H I RMB,ECOS A4,A7,B3,
Stephanomeria virgata H N ECOS A3,A4,A7,
C4,D1,E3
Genus, UNKN #1 - - ECOS C4
Genus, UNKN #2 - - ECOS D2
Genus, UNKN #3 - - ECOS E2
Xanthium strumarium H N ECOS E1,E2,E5a
Xanthium strumarium H N RMB,ECOS A4,C3,C4,
var. canadense ,D3,E4,

BATIDACEAE
Batis maritima PH N JBZ,PMT, A3
WRM,PMS,
ECOS

BORAGINACEAE
Heliotropium curassavicum PH N PMS,RMB A1,B1,B3,
var. oculatum ECOS b. E6b,c

BRASSICACEAE
Brassica geniculata PH I ECOS B3
Brassica nigra H I RMB,ECOS B2,
Brassica rapa H I RMB
ssp. sylvestris
Brassica spp.B H I ECOS A2,A4,A
C3,C4,D5
E2,E5,E4
Cakile edentula H N WRM
ssp. californica
Cakile maritima H I ECOS E5,E6

-22-

Scientific Name 4 Sul-ve%,5 2 Na ti ve/, 4 Surve,
I Habit 2 Native/ 3 Source Si @' Scientific Name Habit In ;3 lourc S.-
In trod tic ed C troduce e
BRASSICACEAE,Continued CHEt,'OPODIACEAE,Continued
Hutchinsia procumbens H N PI-IS Atriplex spp. UJIN, N/ I PMS
Lobularia maritima PH PMS Bassia hyssopifolia H P14S, ECOS AL
Rapbanus sativus H ECOS All, A4, C3, DI Chenopodium album H RMB, ECOS 63, C'. C3. C4,
El , -- . E3, E4,
BUXACEAE E6,- :7
Chenopodium ambrosicides H RMB, ECOS C5
Sirmondsia chinensis S N ECOS A6 Salicornia bigelovii H N JB2, PMT,
w PMS
CACTACEAE Salicornia europaea H I PMIS
Opuntia ficus-indica T/S ECOS 62 Salicornia subterminalis PH N JBZ, PMT,
OPun t i a littoraMs T/S N RMS, WWI !..'R'.!, F'I@S
va r. littoralis Salicornia virginica PH 1; JBZ, FV7 E. @ E5,,
Opuntia parryi T/S N I-,R;,', w F,;,:, PIIS E;@
var. serpentina ECOS
Opuntia sp., UNKU T/S N11 ECOS Ei Salicornia sp. H or PH ECOS A7
Opuntia sp., UNKN #2 T/S N11 ECOS B2 Salsola iberica H RMB, PPIS, A!, A2, A3, A5,
ECOS A6, A7, B2, B3,
Opuntia sp., UlIK14 -.-'3 T/S N/I ECOS C-5, E2, E6a Cil Cl-, Oll C5.
C;, C7, D2, D3,
E b, C, F
CAPPARACEAE Suaeda californica PH N JpZ, t.pm
Isomeris arborea S N ECOS [7. PMS
var. arborea Suaeda torreyana PH N P:.!T, 1..,Rtl,
CAPRIFOLIACEAE P:-@-.
Sambucus mexicanus T/S N RMB, ECOS 62, D3, E2, E Suaeda sp. PH or S N/I ECOS AS, A7. E6b
CARYOPHYLLACEAE CONVOLVULACFAE
Cardionema ramosissimum Cressa truxillensis PH N JBZ, VRII,
PH N PI-Is var. vallicula pt.@s
Spergularia marina H PMS, R;!B Cuscuta campestris H N R14B
Spergularia sp. H or PH ECOS A4 Cuscuta salina H N JBZ, PMS A3, A", A7
ECOS

CHENT. OD jArEAE
Atriplex canescens S N Plis D--. E-. E5@-, CRASSULACEAE
ssp. canescens ECOS, M-T Crassula erecta H N PI-Is
Atr plex rosea H N R%3
Atriplex seadbaccata PH k:'@- F-T,
PmS, '-El, c. F CUCU..@!T@rEAE
E ', Cl S Marah macrocarpus PH N ECOS AC
Atriplex watsonii PH N RM , WRI.',,
PMS CYPERACEAE
Cyperus esculentus PH N ECOS 63

-23-
-24-

Native/ , Sur-v 5 2 3 Source 4
2 4
ific Name Habit Introduced- Source Nam-1 Habit I n N. ar to divu cod
Scient Scientific
CYPERACEAE, Continued JUNCACEAE
Cyperus spp. H or PH N/1 ECOS Ct. 14, C5, Eig
Juncus acutis PH N PMS
Et@b, E7
Juncus acutis PH N R14B, WRM, 1, E
Scirpus americanus PH N RMB var sphaerocarpus ECOS
Scirpus californicus PH N PMS
--v Scirpus olneyi PH 14 RMB, ECOS C 2 JUNCAGINACEAE
Scirpus robustus PH N ECOS A 3 Triglochin maritimum PH N isz,
N/1 PMT,,ECOS A!, C1, El, E5L PM.S
Scirpus spp. PH E;

LAMIACEAE
EUMRSiACIAIE Marrubium vulgare PH I RVB. [COS @ L , fw' 62 C,
Croton californicus PH N ECOS C .5 C--. @;., C2, C--,.
E:
Croton californicus PH N RMIB, ECOS C
var. tenuis Salvia me 11 i fe ra PH N PMS
Euphorbia sp. H ECOS F
Ricinus communis T/S RMB, ECOS 63, C3, C4, C6, MALVACEAE
D?, E3, E4.. Malva sp. H ECOS
c
FABACEAE ECOS C@ MYRTACEAE
Astraga-lus trichopodus PH E,-.
-ssp. leucopsis Eucalyptus spp. T ECOS
Astragalus trichopodus PH N ECOS A.
ssp. trichopodus NY CT M 1:11 'ICE AE
Lotus nuttallianus H N PMS Abronia maritima PH N ECUS F-
Lotus sp. UNKIi -@l PH N/1 ECOS C.7
1 Abronia umbellata PH N Pm.7, i.,Rm
Lotus sp. U@o,,111 7@2. H or PH :V I ECOS E@.a
Lupinus sp. Hor PH N ECOS C,-
ONAGRACEAE
H P@-- . :COS C@, 7'.
Mlelilotus albus Camissonia cheirar-thifolia H P1.15
Melilotus indicus H ECOS F RMS, P!., C:@ I C.@ @5a,
T
Camissonia cheiranthifolia PH N
Prosopis pubescens T/S N R14B ssp. suffruticosa ECOS E6a
ProsOpic@ sp. Sor T 1:/ ECOS C(
PHYTO!-i..CC `-C
Trifoliur. sp. Hor PH ECC- I EAE
Phytulacca americana PH EC35 C

FRANKENIACEAE
Frankeni; qr6rdifolia P H N I-, z PLANTAGINACEAE
E
wi@rp, P;-..S [COS El, E-
ECOS Plantago major PH
Frankenia Palmeri S N P;.1.S Plantago sp. H or PH N/ I 1COS F

-25-
-26-

Native/ Survey
Scientific Name1 Habit2 Introduced3 Source4 Site5
PLUMBAGINACEAE
Limonium californicum PH N JBZ,WRH, A1,A2,A3,A7,
ECOS,PMS E5b,E6b

POACEAE
Arundo donax PH I RMB,ECOS A3,C3,C6,D1,
D2,E3
Bromus rubens H I PMS
Bromus spp. H I PMT
Cynodon dactylon PH N ECOS C5,C6
Distichlis spicata PH N JBZ,PMT,
PMS
Distichlis spicata PH N RMB
var. stricta
Hordeum leporinum H I PMS
Monanthochloe littoralis PH N PMT,PMS A7,A3
ECOS
Parapholis incurva H I PMS
Polypogon monspeliensis PH I RMB,PMS A3,A4,B3,C3,
ECOS D3,E1,E2,E3,
E4,
F7
Spartina foliosa PH I JBZ,PMT,
PMS
Genus, UNKN #1 - - ECOS E2
Genus, UNKN #2 - - ECOS E2
Genus, UNKN #3 - - ECOS E2
Various genera - - ECOS A1,B1,B2,B3
C3,E1,E3

POLYGONACEAE
Eriogonum fasciculatum S N PMT,WRM A1,A7,F
PMS,ECOS
Eriogonum fasciculatum S N RMB
ssp. fasciculatum
Nemacaulis denudata H N PMS
Polygonua aviculare H I PMS
Rumex crispus PH I PMS,ECOS A4,B2,C6,E2,
E7
Rumex feuginus H N RMB

-27-

Native/ Survey
Scientific Name1 Habit2 Introduced3 Source4 Site5
POLYGONACEAE, Continued
Rumex pulcher PH I ECOS A1,
Rumex sp., either PH I ECOS A6
R. crispus or R. pulcher E1,

POTAMOGETONACEAE
Ruppia maritima H N PMS

ROSACEAE
Heteromeles arbutifolia T/S N ECOS A5,

SALICACEAE
Populus fremontii T N RMB,ECOS C3,
Salix exigua S N RMB
Salix gooddingii T N ECOS D2
var. gooddingii
Salix gooddingii T N RMB,ECOS D1,
var. variabilis
Salix laevigata T N ECOS
Salix lasiolepis T/S N RMB
Salix spp. T or S N PMS,ECOS

SCROPHULARIACEAE
Cordylanthus maritimus H N RMB,PMT

SOLANACEAE
Datura meteloides PH N RMB,ECOS
Lycium andersonii S N RMB
Lycium californicum S I RMB
Lycopersicon esculentum H I RMB
Ricotiars glauca T/S I RMB,PMS A3
ECOS

Petunia parviflora H N ECOS E7
Physalis philadelphica H I ECOS D1

-28-

2 Nati vel 3 4 Survey
Scientific Name Habit Introduced Source e

SOLANACEAE, Continued
Solanum nigrum H I ECOS 63
Solanum nodiflorum PH I RF.B.ECOS C4
Solanum sarrachoides H I RMB
Solanum spp. H or PH ECOS AJ, , C5, D2,
L, LEb

TAMARICACEAE
Tamarix aphylla T I ECOS C-1 E7
Tamarix pentandra T I NIB
Tamarix spp. S or T I Wple PMS A!, C3, C4,
ECOS CE, CE, EI, E4

TYPHACEAE
Typha latifolia PH N PMS
Typha spp. PH h, PMT,ECOS A3, A4, El, E4.

ZOSTEPACEAE
Zostera marina PH PS

1. All nomenclature from Munz, 1974,"A flora of Southern California," (7), e for
Tamarix pgntarLr, taken from 1ason, Herbert L. 1957. A flora cf the rnarsE. of
California, University of California Press.
2. Tree; T/S-Treelike shrub; Smshrub; PPerennial herb; Herbaceous (annvalt UK11=Unknown dve to unidentified species; T or SwEither a tree or a shrv
3. Native plant; Introduced plant; IN/Either native or introduced.
4. ECOS=ECOS Management Criteria, 1979; PMBeauchamp, 1976 (1); WRMMcIIwec, 11370 (3);
PMT=Mudie, 1970 (4); PMS=Mudie, 1970 (5); JBZ=Zedler, 1977 (11).
S. Sites surveyed during [COS Vanaqeent Criteria vegetation survev, 1979.
6. Sp.: One unieentified species in a cenus.
7. UNKN: Unidentified species; one of several unidentified species in a cenuz. or
one of several unidentified but different genera.
8. Spp.: Several unidentificd specas in a gcnis, tcEher. It is
that some of the taxa so included fiave already been listed, but were not
due to lack of fruit, floer or other distinguishing charactrs.

ACTION: RINER/MACFARLANO
League of Women Voters of San Diego YWCA Building
1012 C Street
San Diego, California 92101
LNY (714) 235-VOTE
DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPW
COLLEGE OF ARTS AND LETTERS
Dallas Miner SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY
Sanctuary Manager SAN DIEGO. CA 92182
Office of Coastal Zone Management (714)265-5437 July 16. 1981
3300 White House Street
North West, Washington D.C.

Hr Milt Martin
Dear Mr. Miner*, Es;uarine Sanctuary Project Officer
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
In refering to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Washington, D.C. 20235
..Tijuana River which concerns the proposed Estuarian Sanctuary
Award for the Tijuana River Estuary in the State of California, DearSir:
submitted by the California Coastal Commission.
The League of Women Voters of San Diego supports the sanctuary Although I will be away from San Diego on July 23 and unable to
status in keeping with the League support of preserving wetlands attend the hearing, I would like to indicate my support for the
in their natural state. proposed Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary.

I teach courses in environmental studies, water resources, and
land use planning at San Diego State University, and often bring
Sincerely, classes to the lower Tijuana River valley for field study. .1 have
found it to be one of the best areas in San Diego County for the
J study of the interaction of natural and human environments, as
well as an outstanding example of an endangered and very productive
southern California landform and ecosystem. I believe your proposal
Betty Challberg would help prevent this important natural area from becoming
Natural Resources Chair any more impacted by adverse human intrusion than is already the caseo
and I wholeheartedly endorse the Sanctuary concept.

May I request that this letter be included as part of the hearing
record.
Pat Richardson
President Sincerely yours,

Philip R. Pryde
Department of Geography
San Diego State University

THE CALFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES

GRAY.@C^RY. Ames & F-L

GRAY, CARY, AMES & FRYE:
GORDON GRAY(1677-1967) ATTORNEYS AT LAW OTHER OFFICES Mr. Robert W. Knecht
W- R. CARY (1082-1943) 52S B STREET, 5UITE 2100 June 20, 1981
WALTE R ANES (1693-1980) LA IOLLA
FRA.. A. FRYE (1904-1970) SAN DIEGO, CALIPORNIA 92101 -EL CENTRO Page 2
TELERHONE[714]236-1661
T-C.R.t.[7-]236-IO48
WUD TWX 040 335-IZ73
as to be meaningless. How the money will be spent in light of
these circumstances is unknown.

it is our request that your office reject this pro-
posal. We believe that the proposed project is impossible of
July 20, 1981 accomplishment in the manner described in the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement. If you desire additional information,
we will be happy to cooperate in any way we can. Based upon
the information available to us, adjacent property owners in
the area feel as we do and would be cooperative in supplying
Mr. Robert W. Knecht information to make all of the facts available before the
Acting Assistant Administrator Department of Commerce takes action.
office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Thank you very much for your consideration of this
Washington, D.C. 20235 matter.
Re: Draft Environmental Impact.Statement Very truly yours,
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctunary - June, 1981

Dear Senator Hayakawa:
iihioesre S?11@ran'sto*ft
Our office represents Mrs. Harley Knox and Francis For
Harris, co-trustees under the will of Harley Knox. The trust GRAY, CARY, AMES FRYE
and Mrs. Knox individually own real property in the proposed C)
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary. TJC:cg
we are opposed to the proposed project because we Enclosures
believe that it represents a potential waste of government
money, both state and federal. The basic concept is to obtain cc: Mrs. Harley Knox
$1,500,000 from the federal government and match it with Francis Harris
$1,500,000 from the state of California. The resulting
$3,000,000 thus generated will be used to acquire 885 acres to
be combined with existing public acreage to form the Sanctuary.

The proposal is not to acquire the property through
eminent domain but rather through negotiated purchases from
willing sellers. if one divides the $3,000,000 by the private
acreage in the amount of 885 acres, the result is slightly over
$3,000 per acre. Property in the area has been selling in ex-
cess of $15,000 per acre. Without much effort, therefore, it
is obvious that the California Coastal Commission cannot ac-
quire free title to the acreage necessary for the sanctuary.
The proposal suggests that less than fee simple acquisitions
will be pursued "if they are cost effective and provide appro-
priate protection for the sanctuary resource." It is our be-
lief that such a goal is not only impossible, but also so vague

ACTION; MINEFVMACFARLAND
PUBLIC HEARING STATE14ENT REGARDING
H. G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY
PROPOSED TIJUANA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY DRAFT EIS
P. ol BOX 64 . (702 WEST WAS...GTO. T.EETI
SAN DIEGO. CALIFO-A 10-1. - TELE-ONE 298-8824 AT IMPERIAL BEACH CITY HALL - 7:00 P.M. JULY 23, 1981

July 30, 1981

My name is TIMOTHY C. FLANAGAN. Property Engineer for H. G. FENTON MATERIAL
Robert W. Knecht COWANY, P. 0. Box 64. San Diego, California 92112.
Acting Assistant Administrator
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT
3300 Whitehaven Street. N. W. Our company owns approximately 52 acres of land located at the extreme South
Washington, D. C. 20235 east corner of the proposed Sanctuary as shown on Page 6 of the DRAFT EIS.
Our property is adjacent to the International Border on the south, and
Subject: PROPOSED TIJUANA RIVER ESTUARINE SANCTUARY; DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL Monument Boulevard on the north. The area is commonly known as the BORDER
IMPACT STATEMENT HIGHLANDS, and the elevation of most of our property is significantly higher
than the nearby floodplain.
Enclosed is the text of a statement made at the July 23, 1981, Public Hearing We are in the sand and gravel business and we have a City of San Diego
on the subject Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). which reflects the Conditional Use Permit to mine aggregate from our property.
H. G. FENTON MATERIAL COWANY'S position on the proposed Estuarine Sanctuary.
In short, our position is that our 52 acres Is not necessary for the success The points I wish to make are as follows:
of the Sanctuary and should be removed from consideration as part of the
Sanctuary. 1. We are not opposed in general to the creation of a Sanctuary, but we are
most definitely opposed to inclusion of our property in the Sanctuary
The DEIS infers that the proposed boundaries were developed from several because the property is on the fringe of the proposed sanctuary, is not
principles (page 5). The principle which apparently led the preparer of the riparian habitat by any stretch of the imagination, and is an active
DEIS to include our property Is n4. Encompass enough of the drainage area to gravel pit. Only this morning in Los Angeles, the Coastal Commission
make possible reasonable and consistant management of the immediate floodplain approved the City of San Diego's L.C.P. for the BORDER HIGHLANDS Area
and drainage basin." You may or may not be aware of the Border Highlands Local of the TIAJUANA RIVER VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN and L.C.P. This plan recog-
Coastal Plan that received final California Coastal Commission approval on nizes the natural . resource value of the aggregate materials of the
July 23. 1981. It is our contention that this Border Highlands LCP which In- BORDER HIGHLANDS to the south San Diego communities, and we wish to
cludes our property will adequately mitigate erosion and siltation concerns. continue sand and gravel extraction without any additional "management".
It would appear that the City of San Diego. San Diego Water Pollution Control
Board and California Coastal Commission have adequate controls without the need We take on faith the statement on iii of the Summary which states that...
for expenditure of public funds to purchase the property. "California does not intend to exercise its power of eminent domain -
(condemnation) to acquire any of the land. but will rely on negotiated
The property is not for sale, and It would appear that the DEIS makes a weak sales with willing sellers".
case for inclusion of our property within the boundary of the proposed Sanctuary.
We are most definitely not "willing sellers" and since we are on the
As a side note, there is an error on page 4 of Appendix D of the DEIS. Assessor's fringe of the proposed sanctuary, excluding our property from the
Parcel Numbers 663-02044. 05, 06 A 07 are not owned by R. E. Hazard Contractin Sanctuary will have little if any effect on the remainder of the proposed
r
Company (DEIS parcels WW, XX, YY & ZZ) but are owned in fee title by H. G. FENTSN sanctuary area.
MATERIAL COMPANY.
2. The second point is that the grant request is significantly low when
We would appreciate receiving a copy of the Final EIS when It becomes available. compared to the value of the land which would have to be purchased to
create the proposed Sanctuary. As an example, if the entire Three
Yours very truly,, Million Dollars were spread over the theoretical 885 acres of "privately
held land" it would compute out to about $3,500 per acre, which is in
itself woefully low. While I don't speak for the City of San Diego who
owns 120 acres, I do know that the City policy is to consider all property
they own similar to the way private property owners do ... that is ... whether
TIN FLANAGAN, Propeity Engineer CC: DAVID M. MILLER
HENRY F. HUNTE
TF/mcK T. R. HALE

Enclosure. With Enclosure.

PUBLIC HEARING STATEMENT

PAGE TWO

2. (Continued)
their lands are used for industrial parks (as at Torrey Pines) or local, regional or state parks, the land is not free, but must be purchased at
the fair market Value. The effect of the policy is that the 3.0 Million
Dollars would have to purchase not 885 acres, but 1805 acres, which
computes-to an average of less than $3,000 per acre available for land purchase.

Either the scope of the project needs to be reduced to fit the proposed
budget, or the budget needs to be enlarged to fit the proposed scope.

Thank you.

TIMOTHY C. FLANAGAN, Property Engineer
H. G. FENTON MATERIAL COMPANY

TCF/mcw

LAW OFFICES OF
LEONARD HORWIN LAW CORPORATION
121 SOUTH BEVERLY DRIVE
BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA 90212
(213) 272-7607 OR (213) 270-5132

July 8, 1981

Robert W. Knecht
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Re: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary

Dear Mr. Knecht:

Mrs. Horwin and I, are owners in community property,
of property, within the proposed boundaries of the "Sanctuary"
and accordingly are among the noticed parties mentioned in the
Draft Statement.
We join in the view expressed by Tim Lichty, in his letter
of July 2, 1981, opposing the Statement and State of California
Application for Grant From U. S. Department of Commerce, insofar
as it includes deprivation of property without payment of fair
market value.

Sincerely yours,

LEONARD HORWIN, for
Property Owners

LH/aw

cc: Mr. Tim Lichty

123

1$ 1 0
@4 4- 4@w
0cu I .o
-1 mo04- r.
rk. M @ca0F4C0
140V010a
c: rv 0'0 E! co
14 Z 4 4-40'0
bO 04.)04-9
c '1 0cc ca
I 4@ 4@0ul0> 4.1 P.
Cd x Cd -4 41 -4 @O @4 co =1
cd F. 4. cd 940
4@ a)>a,
a) to 41
vru
P, ;4 14olu cavm4.
v0 MU4) 4@0tt o
S.CU) 4@ 4@
w 0V) 41u
F. ewc: Q,
woV 4@44tv o Ho
D"4 ca Cd 4-W0v
14 1-1 4- @4 c: -&-, 1.
H;4 cu co 3c mlocco
w jz cdo
orl o, m Ilpw
n u-\ Ln 0,pr. r.oow
-4 - t- o li cd =1 -4 4@ F-I0
oD c@ r-ZC
40). 4@
t:l a, >. 4. ;4
r= CM 4Cd 4- -H0CMr-I a
a) m 4- WCd 4) Q
4- 00 o40- 4'o;@
cd =1 4a,- >, 4- .0 P, o 4@ q4)
4-p r-I 4@o1., 4 4,
coV 14 o i@ 9.04-p;. ca
0 -4 0) 4-0Q, Wul ;4 14 -4
41 cd SCd ar. 91 -4 C:@ 1;W E-4
0 ca 10 @o 04,oo4r.
,a co V, 14c'a 41 f. 4. a)0
;) " wQ64Q6
0 4-.4-W
og 4,ow
D o-1
r
4@a
ca :3 o ZF. c,o
4
4@ :> 4- 44-@ @4-0
@ cd 4-0 4@
Zul 0 $4Zo F-.wv0w
m T@j > Wr-
E 1: C?) @ta 4oWW D":Ij '0 to tox
r- f4 Ou @:; w ul\gr. a) od @q0o
o4) o., @, 4>W14o
> W 4) W -14 4,cC>.
4 o'O WC:>Cd 4- -4W0 4@
> 94 0 C 4@ 0 4104@ 4.0VoS@
r. n4- -Hoo-I'd r. 10o
H Wcd r. sd 4@ 4) A.vmi 0,
co c N @q cu 0 '1 4 H Cdwf@ :1o
cr\ 4@ cd cc, @c 4.) Cd 41 Hw0;@
4 q... =1 Cd CYN 4@ r. fo -4
ot,9r
(a :3 -4 -4 W0m@rm
$@ 14 4@ @c 4 @4 qO Pw @q0
c\) cy t,P to " El 4@0;. CdH=1v
W0 to cd 04 (a @4 4. >@ 0(d
>. w 4) '1 @q :1 4.
H bo W 0 a) r.vo$4
::l (d r- W4 4;@. u 4W 4..o
@D A@ co 0 > E@0cd QIH 4@ E.

I
1,41 1 1r c;
Cd . @40"1 4@ -4
El 43cm r-I -4 1 10 r_
D20a41 lu s:; 41 @D F. M14 41
"Z "o to
41 CO Cd 4- 'vVl 9 PC! qc): cu @cj -1 4) '0 1%.Me. 4@ .34
C Q Of000 C . -, > 0 4. (d
4- Cd V @CmcdoD W. V 14 0 r. o w X: w
@l ul 14 14 lk. A@ 4) 3: s@. 0 o4-1 o
r-I 14 4rQc4 4 w to $,
o HQ. r-I 43 $m.ot@0.. 0 4@ 4@ ca a, to V
1:4 D0C) CO LrN @4 02 41 c:v S4 -4 o E! F- F@ V cd
vi Acd o 4@ =1 Htio o=1 00 EZ V a) tu
.041M@4 4) 4@ W 4.1 Oa '1 -4 ;. 4@ Cd >.'o a) W > f.. Lr\
@i 4@Cmo-I =%uCM $4 aj w o.4, v sml w r@ 1-4 @D cd c.
f. r.md) CL co c: I(a 4. . F= cc r_o F4 H u, a, u,\
cdoCL UCa a m Ww 14 t04-1 0 o co
q:% 0 10oo>w @cH M -4 4) 14 4- 00 -4 -0
4) 4@ 4. CIJ @ 43 ooj 14 a) Z., w
P. P 0
00 4@00 43 -0 Ch -H -H 0. r-4 a)o 03 10 P, " 0 @.' N ;. 4@ q-- E- 03
0;4 4-oW-4 V) w Cw o oale) c: o @a (u
@D rq -HQ0-14 w c @4 wo 0z 0;@ @A -4 g 4J M
>EP Z 4@ $4 0 0 p j'. bD 0X F@ C4 H F4
lu r- 19 ow Cd Id z o w a o bo o w t@
4) U3 -H 4-V04@ 'A Cd a 14 4@ :1
m@r caP() (0 o o 4-. r-4 4 0 >, w r.4 a) 0 Z 41 Cd Cd (I
o 4,o$4 " 4) 1c; w0 -1 4. q r,w o Cd r-I 4 P o -H V Ij
aA.. to u Hoq v) @c -4 -r4 4 m o mv 41 -r-I @ - a @4 0 514 P
4@ o cd td4edW 0:1, @1! 4) 0 4.) -4 @A 0 4@W 'A -4 'n o
ca Oo r 0 $4 r. Z0 4@ > 4@ CLO 10 v) r-I :3 0 r. -H
'M o Q.Ao-4- Oo r- oca Cba to >,I o w cu z -H 14 crD "
cp\ S cd 94 44 @W x4@ 9 @q m F. a) o Id vc S u w
14 4) ;4 W4) 114,v0:3 c: 0 oSw0 @4 @q to F@ 'i %I v W M43 ca V3 4@
IR :! 4.1 CU @@ jCEr.>Oll 0 @.0 F4 3: $@ 1 0. ::1 @.l c D Lr\
.j Cd :3 4- E- 0 14 @ 4 4 -1 11 4@ o -H I ul f-@ 0 41 Z o _;
clj 4- @ or= Wr- 4. 4, pP. cu :3 ul :5 o = u o mw (o o H
cov 4-.4-w-4 cd a 4. v W c- ;.. -4 cd cd 0 w m :% :5 A-4
c: j .'I Fj Cd 43 r-I W CO 4-1 U r-I V Q W -4 W@l 41 w r-I 0
A w 43 cu c.1-4 ca r.o ccoW cc @l F@ :3 r-0 0 ca P, E4 ca
:s c) ca 43tctl Q, -4 '1 'o 4) Go -1 > r-Io c: r= o >
ca o 0
.0W 14 ca 04) =1P>v 4@ 14 @4 41 g@i 0$@, CO >@ 10 4@ 0 C
4., bo - c6 o 3: @l 0 @lo ca ID to car4@ 'o 4) cts cd > w o w w
cu (d _--c S r_ 4- 4-- -H 4D :3vc: _4 C414) 10 o 4.1 @4 0 co 4) P 4- w 41 0 r=
0@C -HE S MW M 10 4@
,@ @ 14 4) W W W 0
oCdQo (a to 4A o 4. 4@ 4)
cd 4) 4@ 00 z
to u,\ r-4 r 44 0 ca
4 r
Cd :3 @c rA 4@mco >@ @D o -i r_ Ifo @ a) oo r. a Ca o 'o Cr
CW41 (V 4@ 4. oca IJ-4.1 vu Io o lu 4. 4. Ctj ca r z 4, 4@ W
14co cD c:Q 4) 4@wF@or, @ .(6 bo .2 rl 4@ to F, 34) 14 (d P 4) 14 '6 p
4@ 00 C\J 0 W 0 wwz 4oo14c 4)jW 10 41 r4 Z W WO Z 4@ N: "
.a mF. E 4@ @q a) vc 14 @l c: a,woc: -4 Cd oc lu C: 43 cu M
0 4. r F@ 9@ 4, '10 '0 Q) ::' mp Cd W 16 1 >,,-I V)
41 lo oo wal C: >. c$. t. 'o r-o Wo @ I..v :3 4 m
c: IIv 1-1 P> .. o, :5pr= F40co " cd Id0CU r.o@c o o cL " :j 14
b4 C: 4@C -H 'i 4@0410cd a :@oI @Ao r-4 , wF4 4@ 10 14 -4 0 Z 4) M
CdWo > W C$4wW$@ =1 :5 4-@WCL Z -4 r.0>@ 0 U)M CU 0 M 0 V CO @A 4 Q, 4
4- CO> a () C6W W 4. 41 W 4- 01 F.>F., - H P 4.1 4) E r o r.
WoCd w w410W W00r. ov m oc@l $4 P P E@
c: o;@o -.r o a.
Cda>4. W 4;m, w w o o o o
.v. wri " c q.
1.16 bdWuca -1 c/3 H
o r
;4 '.4 Z) %-. z >@4Mcu41 r-4 W -4 @4 4) 4a r-4 @ CYN
w <o14 41 cd M.,4v@of.0 cd 4_4 CO @ -40 41 W Q cu r-4 > @l -4 ca tl-
D 4 bG Pmc: bo wEl 00 00 -,4 t' . @4 M 4@ C@ 0 o -H Ca -rA 'D P a\
0 bO a) @1: r 1z) El mW4 r.cd)0P r'0 @r E- 4@ 0 W A 3: 4@, wc 0 F3 $4 0,4
c:u -H CtJ CO40W j:: L.21 (oo a) Cd
-4 c> @c r. 4@ $- -4 0-.. > -14 -4 E o W
4.. cD w . . cd co r: cda@, r@ 4) rA ;@ W o - I. -
aI.. m ca a) a)Z0oZ0S0@4 CM r_ ;4 cu C ;4 cd a) ca
-:4 0 m@l: m i=@ @ EP() @ @CO a\ 4@ 'I r= @ C.4 > "r4

Cossle Morton Cossie Morton
1266 First Street 1266 First Street
Imperial Beach. California 92032 Imperial Beach, California 92032
a-,@F 9ff1

K@/

4-a

,2 0.2- 3 S'

AXI@

4@-

d-UA-1

4000@@-./

Design Consultant
Consultant

57a,,

50 a c,-M@ rAp

'n AN

4W
a-1 -2 a4-zlic; ylt@e@4& a-
/@2 .0 Cla /7 a, U.,A-ej

6-Ah 440
4 -Iyj
//77

7
Ta6 74eA'7@ d6@4

@@tr - 1A O-at AZA&el,@X@
"z"""a. e@ V"g
lo-5-51s 1-7 ISS-e Sa4aeljW
('4,V 7-2e@@3

Sm Diego Gas & Ekwide Mr. Robert W. Knecht
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management -2- July 23, 1981
July 23, 1981
I It F. NO

111. LCP. 9 - As referenced in Paragraph 4, South San Diego
is not a "known" community in the area. Perhaps
deleting "South" would add clarity.
Mr. Robert W. Knecht
Acting Assistant Administrator IV. LCP. 24 - In the last paragraph, change "County" to "City."
office of Coastal ZoRe Management There is no unincorporated County land near the
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. proposed Sanctuary. lt*is all either City of
Washington, DC 20235 Imperial Beach or City of San Diego land.
Dear Mr. Knecht: V. LCP. 25 Again, the reference to South San Diego. The City
of San Diego Planning Department and the residents
San Diego Gas & Electric supports the efforts of the California Coastal of this area refer to it as "Nestor."
Commission and the Office of Coastal Zone Management to preserve valuable
ecosystems through the Estuarine Sanctuary Program. We thank you for the VI. p. 51 The Regional Commissions expired July 1, 1981, and
opportunity to participate as a property owner in the Sanctuary Advisory will not be reviewing the City of Imperial Beach
Committee. LCP.

We own approximately 200 acres in the Tijuana River Valley. The site was VII. LCP. 61 Paragraph D states that there are no resources
originally acquired for potential use as a power plant. Although the site that will be Irreversibly or Irretrieveably lost.
has been designated as "not suitable" for a thermal power plant of 5OMW or SDG&E feels that our assembled, level 200 acre
greater by the California Coastal Commission, we have retained the site for site is indeed a resource which might be critical
possible energy related uses. to future energy production using new technologies.
In this time of rapidly developing energy technology, we perceive there are
advantages to retaining an assembled 200 acre parcel of level land for Our comments I and VII are by far the most important for you to review.
possible future use. New, maybe yet undeveloped, energy production tech- Comments Il through VI are based on the political realities of dealing with
niques or a substantially changed political climate, either domestic or adjoining local jurisdictions and address the problem of community identity
International, may render the site-feasible for development. While we being different from USGS place names.
believe retaining the land would increase our future energy-related
options, we are willing to negotiate a sale of the'site at fair market I thank you for the opportunity to review this Draft Statement and look for-
value. ward to reviewing the Final. If you have any questions, please contact we at
(710232-4252, Ext. 1887.
In considering the accuracy and sufAciency of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement, I have noted several areas which either contain errors
or need clarification. Most of these are minor. They are as follows: Sincerely,

I. p.ti - it is my understanding that the California Coastal
Commission is filing a request for $3 million from Sandra L. Woodhouse
MOAA/OCZM, to be matched by $3 million from State Land Planner
funds. SLW:mel

Il. pp.8, - Atthe most recent meeting of the Sanctuary Advisory
9&11 Committee, it was agreed that the City of San Diego cc: Mr. Scott McCreary
should have full representation on the Management California Coastal Commission
Authority, since a large portion of the Sanctuary is 631 Howard Street
within the City of San Diego jurisdiction. Changes San Francisco, CA 94105
inPages 8, 9, & 11 are necessary to reflect this.

Jackie Dewey The Star News-Sunday, July 18, 1981 Guess What

Sanctuary? Could be class act for IB

One of the first gigs I worked at as a
beginning scribe was to do
and write position papers in favor of a
marina in the Tia Juana Sloughs, (Oh,
please, couldn't we call that the
oneonta Estuary? It is flushed by
twice-daily tides and has a salt water
marsh. Oneonta is a proud Indian
tribal name It wouldn't sound as
though we were an anpez or suburb of
Tijuana.)
The matter of the marina is no longer
the point. Stockholders in the marina
venture have already spent or banked
the money the Department of the
Interior paid them for the real estate-
both wet and dry- in question.
If you don't think the question is
closed, look how the Navy got its
hospital in Balboa Park despite the
combined opposing clout of the Big
Democrats and later even the San
Diego Republicans close to President
Reagan.

Long ago, the Navy took a bite out of
the middle of the marina, said there
would be none and there is none.
The point now? Well what will
become the Tia Juana National
Wildlife Refuge and Border Field State
Park and much territory around and in
between lie there under the moon and
the sun, administered by a fragmented
afray of often divergent entitles?
Or, after the 7 p.m. July 23 hearing
for public input at imperial Beach City
Council Chambers (before members
from the Office of Coastal Zone
Management under the U.S. Dept of
Commerce), what if we were able to
persuade the good folks to designate
the area as an Estuarine Sanctuary?
After all what is a name?
Actually, in this case quite a lot of
federal money. And a cohesive and
cooperative management team, if all
were to go as planned in the draft
environmental statement I read.
It would give a handle we have
never had before.
Imperial Beach would have some
may-zo in her own fate and future.
voting on a tenth that would include
people working together Mexico,
and the U.S. at the Federal, state and
local level, the Army Corps of
Engineers,

Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife, the
California Parks and Recreation
Department and the State Fish and
Game Department, the U.S. Water and
Boundary Commission and local
farming communitites. All are
projected to have a hand in managing
the area. Instead of being placement,
management could be comprehensive.
The draft plan puts great importance
on water quality, in fact, it might turn
out to be Imperial Beach's very best
defense against being turned into the
county's buffer against sewage
from Mexico.
Those of you who don't give a rat's
whisker about clipper rails and mess
mint and some of except
had better give a thought
to how much Mexican sewage
you are prepared to live
with on your beaches and in the Tia-
Juana River Valley.
No way to take it: TiaJauna is still the
second largest city

Indifference and ignorance. They are
playing catch-up as fast as they can in
an overwhelming situation. But the sad
fact is that their sewage system con-
sists only of pipes to carry the stuff-
untreated-to the ocean less than five
miles south of our border. We do have
frequent strong northerly currents.

Even when there are no floods, their
sewage often flows into the Tia Juana
River Valley. But we need to get the
Mexican and U.S. Feds into the act. It
is not a local matter.
The draft plan calls for an inter-
pretive Center to be built. It could
serve as a center for research. And for
education from the preschool to the
doctoral degree level. It could be an
attraction for tourists, with books,
slides and various displays, films and
lectures and walking tours.

Because this sanctuary would be one
of only 10 like it in the U.S., it would be
unique and highly visible.
The impact on South County could be
under affirmative. The possibilities for
spin-offs and the- are limitless. And
they are international in

Tourism in Baja California's No. 1
industry. Our youth hostel is off to a
modest start here. There is South-
western College, the California
University system, Baja's university
system. The University in San Yaldro.
The trolley.
The problem for Imperial Beach is
that though we have the glory of being
this country's most southwesterly
mainland city, we are off the beaten
path. We are not on the way TO
anything. Our beach is a summer
attraction, but the Sanctuary and the
interpretive Center could be a year
round attraction.

When you do something which is
right and elegeant, it has a way of
snowballing. It moves along of its own
momentum, gathers followers and
attracts support.

If only the sanctuary could be the
catalyst that gets the people in this
town to haul in the same harness.
Sanctuary status for the (ahem)
Oneonita Estuary could be a real class
set for Imperial Beach.

July 22, 1981

July 17, 1981
Robert W. Knecht re: Tijuana River
Acting Assistant Administrator Estuarine Sanctuary
Office of Coastal Zone Management DEIS June 1981
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. California Coastal Commission
Washington, D.C . 20235
Dear Sir: Re: Proposed Ti.juana River Estuarine Sanctuary
Whether we call it education or life enrichment, fully
understanding and fully interacting with the unique area in The educational value of the proposed Sanctuary has already been
which we live makes an enormous contribution to the health, demonstrated by the many elementary, high school and university
longevity, and pleasure of living in Imperial Beach, Calif. students and instructors who have studied the flora and fauna of
It may also contribute to the income of the local residents. the ecosystem in this area.
Except for the war years in the Navy, I have spent my I personally have participated in many guided walks with elementary
entire life in education -- the last eighteen years as a Calif- age children and adults. People come from all parts of San Diego
ornia university administrator. While studying for my doctorate County to study this unique and beautiful wetland. In addition to
and serving on the faculty of the University of Colorado, I school groups several organizations have used the area for study;
witnessed the value of the continuing educational program The San Diego Ornithological Club, Sierra Club, Operation Wildlife
emphasizinf, the clean air, the tundra vegetation and the snow and The Native Plant Society.
caps' the bounding waterfalls and lakes, and the wild flowers
in season. The children learned their names and they learned I am a teacher and recognize and appreciate the marvelous educational
to respect and rare for them. Experts came from abroad to value of the whole salt marsh and estuarine system.
study them and tourists came to enjoy them, but it was the local
people, young and old ' who knew them best and felt the health
and longevity and life enrichment of the area in which they I strongly urge the approval of the Tijuana River Estuarine Sanettiary
lived. And they profited immensely from the business it brought to be established by the Federal Government.
When I was considering retirement in 1977p I looked for a
location that offered similar health and life enrichment oppor-
tunities. Along many miles of California coast I found railroads Respectfully, N)
and freeways and industrial parks and smoke and smog and over- 00
whelming noise. That is why I moved to Imperial Beach. My family
44 euu@
and I enjoy the clear air and mild climate, and we are studyin Lauiel Granqu"st
the plant and marine life In the area. We participated several 1 1@
184 Citrus Ave.
years ago in the development of a nature study center in Placer- Imperial Beacl;, CA 92032
ita Park north of Los Angeles, and we have seen first hand what
it meant and continues to mean to the thousands of young and old
who visit it. And we have seen the commercial growth nearby.
This is why my family and I want the same educational opportunity
In this area.

Sincerely,

40'
15i. Willard Edwards
1163 Louden Lane
Imperial Beach, Ca. 92032

Dear Sirs,

As houses and highways and business centers intrude on this
once rural area, we have a unique opportunity to save some of that
precious "open space" for ourselves, our children, and for the other
creatures that will find a santuary within.

This is also a unique opportunity to add an economic advantage
to Imperial Beach. In the years to come, tourists, students and
scientists will be drawn to the area. Support for this project
will come from many sources, and groups. We are fortunate that we
have such a "natural Advantage".

We hope that the Council and peoples of Imperial Beach will
wholeheartedly stand behind this Estuarine Sanctuary.

As a graduate student in History & Archaeology I became aware
that some of the excellent settlement - of the Indians of the Oneonta
Community were there in the slough area. I hope there will be some small
place in this plan to remember of record our early local history & the
history of the earlier farmers and settlers.

Sincerely,

Sylvia Kaliss
Tad Hinman

Comments on the Draft EIS for the Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary
E. A. Keen, Professor of Geography, San Diego State University

Among the first Environmental Impact Statements that I ever read
concerned the Tijuana River Estuary. It was the one prepared in 1969 (?)
by the Corps of Engineers for the Tijuana River Flood Channel Project. The
efficacy of the EIS as a part of the decision making process was proved by
that EIS. The information in it, rudementary though it was compared to the
information in this one, brought out the economic and ecological irrationalities of the channelization project for this side of the border. It was the key factor in starting the process to reversal of the original decision made some years before EIS's were required as part of the planning process.

The EIS at issue here is a much more sophisticated document. It
reflects the refinement of 12 years of experience in preparing EIS's;
it also reflects 12 years of additional knowledge of the values -- economic and ecological -- of coastal wetlands in general of the Tijuana River
Estuary in particular. To read this EIS should convince anyone that the
reversal of the decision to build a flood channel was a wise one. That the
decision in favor of a sanctuary has been reached gives ample proof that local, state, and federal officials can work together with private citizens in a democratic framework. The end result of their efforts on this controversal issue will benefit present and future generalizations as no other decision concerning the Estuary could.

To conclude, the decision and the EIS concerning it are good. However,
I would like to suggest two changes in the management structure and raise
one question of fact.

First, may I suggest that the City of San Diego be included as a member of the Management Authority. This body as it now stands admittedly appears a bit unwieldy in its size and composition. However, San Diego does fit the main criteria cited for membership -- being a landowning public body in the proposed sanctuary -- and will, I hope, donate this land to the
Sanctuary. Also, it is the local government of primary jurisdiction of
about half of the Sanctuary as proposed and of all of the river valley
between the Sanctuary and the U.S. Mexican border. What happens in this
immediate upstream area, of course, is of great consequence to the Sanctuary.

Secondly, may I suggest that the U.S. Mexico Boundary and Water
Commission be included in the management structure in an advisory capacity.
This Commission is at present the single most important agency for management of the waters of the Tijuana River Basin. It should be informed in all aspects of the Sanctuary and its management. May I also suggest that the Department of State, the U.S. agency responsible for the Commission, be
furnished a copy of the draft and final version of the EIS.

The question of fact concerns land ownership. The last paragraph
on page 25 states the 385 acres are still in private ownership "including the prime habitat adjacent to the estuary mouth." This appears to contradict the ownership map in Appendix D and, I hope, the reality of ownership in the proposed Sanctuary area.

E.A. Keen

DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY
rg
COLLEGE OF SCIENCES
DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY 23 july 1981
j,
SAN
A
SAN DIEGO, CA 92182
tX `2
(714) 265-6767

To: Office of Coastal Zone Management
From: Joy Zedler, Ph.D., Professor of Biology -'s
Re: Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary
The Tijuana Estuary is an extremely valuable natural resource for research and t
educational purposes. As evidence for this statement, I cite the fact that
I have used it for 10 years for exoatly those purposes. Much of the work
which my graduate students and I have carried out at Tijuana Estuary is cited
V
in the EIS. The estuary has served as a focal point for several scientific ol
24; V11144-V
articles, I Ph.D. dissertation, several Masters' of Science theses, and

fA
researched are only a fraction of the features.of an estuary that can be
numerous undergraduate reports. --Yet the many aspects that have been

investigated, and the facts in print are a miniscule portion of what remains 7'.
4!N
to be learned from future dudy. Likewise, the number of students who have
learned from their experiences at Tijuana Estary are only a drop In the bucket
of upcoming generations who can benefit from what this ecosystem has to teach
them.

Why is Tijuana Eatery such a valuable resource for research and education?
The answer is in its high quality habitat for native southern California species.
I can't call it pristine; hardly a square ofoot of southern California meets
the strictest definition of that concept. In southern California we have to is,
speak in relative terms, and Tijuana Estuary scores very high as a relatively

other, more heavily impacted wetlands in my recent research projects. It
undisturbed ecosystem. For that reason, I chose it as a model to cmpare
0,,
continues to serve as an example of how our estuaries probably functioned
prior to the arrival of white man, and as such will teach us how to enhance
54
jig L16411.
more degraded systems in southern California.

In speaking out in favor of making Tijuana Estuary a sanctuary whose purpose
is to insure sites for future research and education, my motive is only
A
to see that this last remaining, relatively natural, ecosystem be given the
opportunity to provide answers and experiences for future generations of
.. ........
investigators. Its status as a sanctuary will not bring me or my colleagues -J C- W
any new research funds; nor is our future research dependent on its becoming r,
a sanctuary. Ecologists are a flexible lot--we find things to study even in
the most degraded, stinking wetlands. I've been lucky--I've had the opportuni
ty
to 'examine firsthand something much closer to a pristine ecosystem, so I
know what those more degraded systems were once like, how they might be
enhanced, how they might be restored. Others in the future may not be so
fortunateg unless the Tijuana Estuary is set aside as a National Estuarine
Sanctuary.

At-
THE CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY AND COLLEGES
4
-7 ss - -1/

let'

SOUTHWEST WETLANDS INTERPRETIVE ASSO.CIATION SOUTHWEST WETLANDS INTERPRETIVE ASSO.CIATION
Post Office Box 57S Post Office Box 57S
Imperial Beach, Califq@rnla 92032 Imperial Beach, California 92032

July 23, 1981 Page 2
Sirs:I July 23, 1982
As chairperson,of the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive
Association, I M representing the association in favor of Although the Wetland Association's main goal is primarily
the Estuarine Sanctuary Program for Tijuana River Estuary educational, the association realizes the value of multiple uses
including the core wetlands and floodplain. compatible with preservation such as low intensity recreation,
fishing, and wildlife observation.
The wetlands association Is working to further the pre-
servation and appreciation of these wetlands through However, the association views the sanctuary status as the
educational activities, guided walks and the distribution most Important vehicle for increasing public knowledge and
of Informational literature. The long-term goal of the awareness of the complex nature of estuarine systems, their
association is directed toward the construction of a blo- benefits to people and nature, and the problems confronting
museum within the sanctuary. the ecosystem. Therefore,,the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive
Association recommends that the office of Coastal Zone Manage-
The Coastal zone management Act, which establishes the ment approve the application from the State of California to
Estuarine Sanctuary Program, would enhance the possibilities establish a National Estuarine Sanctuary in the Tijuana River
of reaching these goals. This would be accomplished through area and the associated wetlands and flood plain.
the program by establishing an esturine sanctuary at the
Tijuana River Estuary and associated wetlands. Sincerely,
The funding of the program would provide a suitable outdoor
laboratory for teaching and research. m@do
This would, in turn, provide a thorough understanding of ieq.!@ @be dn
ecological relationships within the estuarine environment. Ohabperson, Southwest Wetlands
Interpretive Association
Proper management would encourage multiple use of the sanctuary
to the extent that such use would be compatible with research RB/ca
and education. Another Important,aspect is that the conse-
quence of the proposed action would be long-term preservation
of the area and it6 resources in thbir natural state for
scientific and educational uses.

The grants and funding would permit protective guided walk-
ways which would increase 13ublic use through controlled
access-points, and certainly, Increased usage would also
bring economic benefits to Imperial Beach and the surrounding
region.

July 23, 1981

Public Hearing Panel on Tia Juana Estuaryi

I would like this letter read at the public hearing if
possible. I work nights and am unable to attend In person.

I feel that I am in complete agreement with Jackie
Deweys' article In Sundays' (June 19. 1981) Star News. Let
us do all we can to preserve our last open space in our area.
once we give up even part of It for developement or a marina
It can never be the same. It has a beauty all its' own at
all times of the year. I have lived facing that area for
almost 20 years and still find it to be something worth look-
ing at regardless of the time of day or the season of the
year. Let us all work together to do all we can to keep it
as it is, unspoiled by human progress. When man tries to
Improve on nature he usually makes a mess of it.

Jean Strongylos
M)
1072 3rd St.
Imperial Beach, Ca.
92032

MICHAEL A. McCOY
538 12th Street
Imperial Beach, CA 92032
Business: (714) 424- 3961
Home: (714) 423-0495

August 1, 1981

Dallas Miner
Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Coastal Zone Management
3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20235

Dear Mr. Miner,

This letter is written with reference to comments on the
Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary. I am a member of the
Advisory Committee appointed by the Coastal Commission, a
founding member of the Southwest Wetlands Interpretive
Association and a board member of the State affiliate of
the National Wildlife Federation. NWF represents well over
four million people nationwide and supports the estuarine
sanctuary concept.

I want the following comments and materials incorporated
into the record.

1. A concerted effort must be made to establish a positive
relationship between the sanctuary management authority,
local communities and private landowners surrounding the
sanctuary boundaries. Many of the local residents are confused
about the concept of the sanctuary. They fear eminent
domain and they need help in understanding how the sanctuary
can augment the local tax base. A good relationship will
establish a strong, positive planning model for the region
and for other sanctuaries.

2. Protection is critical for Border Highlands, an upland
area. Sand and gravel extraction must be monitored and comply
with the 1975 Surface Mining Act. Impacts will affect the
sanctuary in the following areas:
1. Sedimentation 3. Haul roads
2. Water table 4. Endangered plant species in
buffer zones.

The management authority must be capable of citing violations
which threaten the integrity of the wetlands and buffer zone.

2.
3. There should be an annual meeting where representatives
from the management of all estuarine and marine sanctuaries
can gather to discuss ways to make the program better.

4. The concept of an applied multiple use research program
should be established to protect wetlands.

a. As demands for food production increase pressures on
wetlands will also increase. Model agricultural and aqua-
cultural programs must be developed which are compatible
with maintenance of a healthy, functional estuary.

b. The relationship between the estuary and the commercial
and sport fisheries is important.

c. A model research program is needed to evaluate and correct
urban impacts on the immediate watershed and the wetland.
This would include monitoring toxic wastes, urban runoff,
sewage, solid waste and other urban impacts.

d. The pure and applied research programs should be
combined to give a practical comprehensive overview for
more effective management, restoration and compatible use
of wetland areas.

5. The riparian habitat east of 19th street along the
Tiajuana River and including the freshwater ponds near
Dairy Mart Road must be protected. A plan should be worked
out with the farmers in the valley to do this.

6. The bi-national water and sewage plan is one of the most
important parts of the sanctuary program. The local people see
this as an opportunity to deal with this issue.

a. The 27th and Sunset site should not be developed but
should be held for a treatment plant. This will take the
pressure off using the Hollister and Monument Road Site.
Holding the site should become a condition of granting the
secondary plant waiver to the City of San Diego by the E.P.A.
(see enclosed article)

7. Habitat restoration and protection will be very important.
The upland areas in the northern end of the sanctuary have
been severely degraded. There are several sites in this area
which could be good candidates for an interpretive center.
Some of these areas have been badly degraded. I have
talked to Scott McCreary about this in detail.

8. Additional sources of funding for land acquisition and

-3-
management must be explored. Easments, deed restrictions,
land trusts and other creative financing strategies will be
important adjuncts.

9. I have enclosed additional materials which have been discussed
with local leaders and residents.

I appreciate the opportunity to give input on something that has
been part of my life for the past ten years.

Sincerely,

Michael A. McCoy, D.V.M.

Natural Resources/Aesthetic, Cultural & Recreation

The community of Imperial Beach is fighting a constant
battle with tax base and community instability. Income
to increase tax base, community stability and quality
life styles for the community members can come from
environmentally supportive revenues. They do not always
have to be revenues generated from destruction of complex
ecological life support systems.

Marshland habitat is poorly understood by many. We happen to
be blessed with one of the largest and almost intact marsh-
land habitats on this coast. The intrinsic value of this
habitat should be understood and enjoyed in its natural state
by everyone.

Successful projects build a successful community over a
period of years. The more practical altruism a project
can incorporate the more recognized the area will be. A
modified slum never does seem to attract many people, I
mean people from all walks of life from all over the world..
A well planned attraction will. The ramifications
a venture might have on community stability and satisfaction
on one hand and on public education, enjoyment, understanding
and appreciation on the other could be quite gratifying.

To the point:

The Arizona Sonora Desert Museum in Tucson has capitalized
on its surroundings with a venture which offers a tremendous
lesson in practical altruism and development of environmental
and community integrity, with profit for the community and
the visitor. The total picture is drawn between the relation-
ship of a plant or animal to its micro and macro environment.
An animal in a non-endemic environment is as out of context
as a misused word in a sentence. It changes the meaning, or
more likely offers no meaning at all. This has been my
experience working as a zoo veterinarian.

The Desert Museum offers enjoyment and in addition truth,
education and understanding. It explains the biome of desert.
No plants or animals or even soil particles are usurped
and put in meaningless habitat. Rather one understands
the truth intact habitat has to offer.

The concept started by the Desert Museum is excellent
and can be used in our own marsh with the building of a
bio museum here in Imperial Beach. It would not be along
the lines of either zoo or circus, but of the quality offered
by Scripps Aquarium. This type of museum would permanently
protect the marsh against any intrusion and create understanding

2
TIA JUANA ESTUARINE SANCTUARY EDUCATION CENTER
of the marsh by people from all over the world. It would In order to maintain the health and integrity of our
bring a prestigious attraction to Imperial Beach and foster natural environment it is necessary to demonstrate and promote
higher quality In Our community and greater respect outside. ecologically sound ways of meeting human needs or water, food,
One of the real benefits would be the creation of a tax base energy; housing, transportation, recreation, and so forth.
without destruction of land. Pursuant to this need for public education we are proposing
that an educational center be developed as an adjunct to the Tia
Juana Estuarine Sanctuary project.
Obviously such a venture will take a great deal Of Co-operation The purpose of the educational center would be:
and work f)rom the community.
I would suggest setting up a Committee to investigate the lly sound
feasibility of a bio museum. 1) To serve as an educational m del for ecologica
If the idea is considered a good building practices and energyo efficient architectural
one, both practical and valuable design. As such, it w Id incorporate passive solar water
then the committee would present the idea th the community. heatitfg. In addition,outhe materia Is used in the construction
We would need to see the Arizona Sonora Desert Museum and talk to would be selected for their environmental compatibility.
Officials there for advice and direction.
2) To provide-information to the public on how the estuary
A Working integration Of forces from Imperial Beach, U.S. Dept, functions, and on how our use of products in the home and
Of the Interior, U.S. Dept. of Defense, California State Parks workplace impact estuary ecology. Information on ecologi-
COMMisslon-gnd Helix Corp. and the Desert Museum could make cally sound alternatives (i.e. bio-degradable cleaning
this viable. Outside help from San Diego State University, products) would also be provided.
U.C.S.D., amd Scripps Institute Of Oceanography to mention
a few organizationfig would be helpful. 3) To develop and demonstrate appropriate technologies adapted
to the needs and unique characteristics of the San Diego/
My initial site Proposal would be adjacent to the Sports Park. Tijuana region. Energy production, waste management and Lrl
This piece of land is used as a dumplag ground, It seems to recycling, and energy and water conserving landscaping are
indicate the level of environmental awareness in the city. possible areas of investigation.
People who treat their surroundings like this usually dontt
care about themselves or the city where they live. It is 4) To work with local farmers to develop sustainable and econo-
our job to help change this. mically viable systems of agriculture which are compatible
with the estuary. This would consist of the center seeking
People can appreciate a Museum and the great marsh.without joint funding with local farmers to experiment in such
ever setting foot In the latter. In fact, with high quality areas as integrated pest management, and the use of organic
explanantion a plan like this would provide the incentive materials for soil building.
to respect and protect the marsh.
5) To conduct experiments which would determine the feasibility
of using healthy estuarine systems for aquaculture.
Respectfully submitteds
Q.-Nt",
Michael A. McCoy, D.V.M.

136

V,'
41 i4 E C, .1 1-1
w L, o !bD @4 o-4
+1 4@ Z:
Z: cz -4 C, U.,0
Q 41 :3 w 41
41
r:.c o E cu L, L) 0 Eca0r-
Cc)) ML) 0 C)ua) Ov 4@
0 Zo 0 -4 E
C) v Sm4 41W
>: bn V, > 0 M Z -I r- >@ bD
41 @D
< 0 H 41 :5 C, 41 v -H -i a, Ict
0 L) 0-@@4- LO M 0 0; sz C 03: ;z
d c CO (1) 9 3: 3: 0 E@ 0, 0Et
L) co -D @4 0 P, E
0, 4@ 11 4@ 4@ C.)S
rn W.0
0 r
co
10 Cd 0
Cc - +1
c@ - V 0) 4@0 r 4- 0+- W :50
c E C rz 0 -q LIZ " rz r- a-,
-;:,c rCd 41 0 o Q) rD biD 41 .0 4-
< m I-iM t'D .. bD 0) m -I r@ r. ctS AC041- 41 -H
CD :5 Cd s:; p r- w =S cs --i --I (z 31 < oo>;@ -4
Cd a) iD,.H 4@ 0 4- 0 H '0 a) ;:4.rq w Cc
Z 070 w w ra 4) hoc) P, r-4 C =4-W0) V
a a cd 9 0) P4 CO +1 4- Cd C C -ri r-i
Co 41 41 Cd a, +1 0 a) r- 4- 41 r= 44 T%
ca -4- 0+, 0 1-1 m bD a) r- 4-0 4) a,
>, M r. 4-4 -4 4- 0 44 .0 0 cE4) F Cd r- '14 -P
0 -m o cz 0 Cd -r' 4)E0 @4M
" 0 43 (D -1 tr0 @o a)
-4 41 E m r- tr co -4 Va) Cd $@
0 bD SZ r- 9., U.0 4 0 Q) 0 Q) cu Z: " 1-10 v
a) 0:3 :@ o 0 M :3 $.41 W " Et E! C@ @4 4'
Z C) 4- -@ M M Cd cz r= E -H -M :3 ;:: U) Er
041 c. @4 W 0 0 0 0 >@ 00 0 rz
4-q cO .,i W-ri -m .0 = W M --1 0a) U) --4 Q
m -@4.a p 4- Q) E W @4 a r- 0) 0 C) -4 C@!
a)0 tv C) 4@ W M Cd ;4 Cd Q) 4@ .A P -H M.0
.c 4@ @Q .0 cd cd tkD M 4) -,q W 4) :1 p," -4 0bL
4- @o Z 0 N 10 4 4- -0 4@ a) 4.4oa) @. '0 @40
c: -a ccl G).,q r= H g E@ a) 0 LLD 0 0 a) C0 04
0 4- CJ 4) (D > tko -0 co .14 P, +1
-H to 14 41 0) b-D Cd LV r. @4 = 4- 1;4
to 14 c " r-> a) C C 0 cd r. - Wo to bD S@0a) 4-10
m -@q cd q -H P@ 0 9 S r- cCs C@= 0 0 Cd r@
.11 CN &41 0 4 -4 4- rm M 0 H 9) Q) Cd d) Cd 4- 4) +- G)
to C: " 0 M co a) 4- 4- U 4 m> (DE
S@ a) "4@ C,) :5 a H -- Cd V) Cd a) 4- iZ ED 4-4 4@ -4 ME4)
0a) 0 rz CdM rz 9 1 C) >@ Z 41 @4 #--I M 4- -H -H tkO
0a) :@ Cc od -P :5 co Lt 03 1. EMed a)0 Z 4- Cd
+@ 40 HE r-i 0 C v E +- 0 0ca0$4 4) +'C
$4 14 0 Cd (z >@ Cd FU bD a) 4) M 4-4 M.0UW 44 a) Cd
Cd cd Ena (Dc :3 C: r-i Z rj k +- 4-4 a)>r=
W 4J m -.4 ca T@ 0 A 'o @ -I Is +;-4 -4 M 0 za) @4 cd
94 M -,f 41 cd 4- @o 4) W 4- 4) -H -,I -H DD 4)
'r, 0 cs S@ 0 4- 4- 4@ > 0 4@ 0 9 SZ -4 C CO lz 24-M 1-1
a oMC 0 a) -4 L) 4) -f 4) W 4 4) 0) 4- 0) :5 4-PCd a) ct 10 :5 -4
-0 r- '0 H "rO 4@ Cd ?: r= Cd E ocz -i C: 1-4 +1
Fm r) 3: cs C.) 0)
-4 41 C: '0 0 r. 00 a) a) P. v 0 -1 :3 4. C) -1 :3 =1 L4
0@4 LO
4, rx, :3 H mj-.H ;4 u a) t%D J"- E @4 -4 @-l P4 P@ .0 04@ cl,
4- 4- p 00 H P, Go Cd 4. 0 a) .0 Q10-4 Q) 3: L)
0 ca r- Cc 41 >1 @4 PO G,' 4) 0 c o > 0 L) a) r- @. >. r-
C.) 4- CIN Cd a) r- r- C 9 = @@ ca @pq 0 -H r- = al Cd0 4@ r- -
W V)@o m 1@ .14 W E, -m F-4 4J E 0 cd bb > 4. Sc r- cd w

bD
bD r-
0 0
Cd 1-4 Cd w
0 0 4.
= M 0 0
> 0 C V 4@ $m@ 4-1 4@E C
cd - E 0 Z 0 0 a) Cd 0 41
L)0 41 T M bD w +4 - 0
.M ;@ W E- a 0a) m V., .1 41
@m 0) Q) 0 -@ 0 E >, -,@ 41 :3
L) .. ac a) Z@ co -H &0 m 0
@. L@ 0,41 -4@ >1 ;-,
0Z- C3 CS 4@ cr u Q) -14
4@0U'.' CP 4@ M 0 - Cd Cd Cd 0 k
U(ri 0 o C, 4@ L) @ 0
tl, M @4 $. 0 r 0U co B:
k c: C 4) 0 a) E @4 UO C Q 0
M C) 0 k 41 0 -n (L) 0 0
mC., > -lq 0 r. -4 00 0 cd
ed U) @4 C0 0 W
$. :3 to m E- 0. "Z
0 41.0 c
IH 4-4 Cd 0 Cd E0 a) a) Cd
0 T :3 4. 4@
G @4 a V V 0 Cd r
rc 0 C) a) 0 0 0 W
0L's C) 0 k
s.> bD D@ -H M 0. 0 a C:
Lf, bb 41 4@ - 0 " L*J Cd
U) 010 L. z 4@
.1 C. C@ 0 0 Q CL bo -@ c
E'" = Go u a)0 =1 "= Cd
E0 E. C) v V, cr 41 < >
0CL - 41 0 0 a) 0)
u0 cd Cd w a a w Cd Cd
0 a4l M 41 "0 0CL
V@u Cc X a) z
4@ z 0
bD c
0 =1 - 0 a)
04, cr bD 0 C 41 W 1.
00 0 Cd - U,' 41 r- Cd @ W
tr @ @c e bD cn @ a)a Cd C
(D bo -j 0 r 0) 5: u
w z 0 Cd .. " c u
m > U r 'o M 0.- C)
Cd C) W a a) bc
cd LC C; +1 Q) = 41 -Z CS0 C) -0
L. a, c @o Er S. @-4 -@ Q) C.
a) -C cd G) E 0 0 w M0 = 'Z- 0
n 0) > w C; 0 (n
cd m c E Iz V) r.Q -j L)
a) -+. cd om G) m 0 cd
.4 T$ 0 E co Q)z I-)
a) W d - E 0 0
a) U) V) com rd $. a; a) C: Bt @-@ tr,
.= V'@,-H 0 bD a- Q.-
E-1Qc c C0 Cc (1) w $.0 E- - ..
1. 4@ 41 -) 0 @.. >, Vi cl
0. r 0 $@ o ;.
x, m , ;@ 0 >1 6 0
Q) 0 V@ 0 0. " .0 C@, >

137

Page 4 - THE MINORITY ENTERPRISE - June 1981
EDITORIAL
Water And Sewage -
A Binational Issue
The issues of water and sewage for both the United States and Mexico am
particularly critical during this decade. The traditional solution to supplying
water to San Diego can no longer be relied upon. Even the issue of expanding
the sewage capacity of the metropolitan area is still involved. Similarly, Ti-
juana is expanding its water supply but it lacks a basic sewer sYsteM
Everyone recognizes that inadequate sewage -treatment facilities can pro-
duce enviroriniental problems that cannot be separated by a line on a map.
That imaginary line, however, has been a real barrier to the resolution of the
waterlsewage problem. How can we address the issues? How win the city and
county of San Diego avoid the pending threat of a water shortage? How soon
win Tijuana build a sewer system that can idequately meet the needs of its ex-
panding population? Apart from the International Boundary and Water Com-
Irdesion, what local, cooperative mechanism or institutional arrangements can
be formed to identify and manage mutual binational problems?
These are just a few of the many questions that require immediate attention
bemuse, left unattended,, they can peril relationships between the two border
communities arfd their respective countries. The problems of Tijuana and San
Diego are regional and so are the solutions. These two interdependent cities
represent different cultures, languages, and political systems, yet they share
common'social and economic goals and objectives. If*we can dismiss the inter-
national boundary for a moment and take an aerial view of the region we will
find a common geographical environment. If we examine the fabric of human
relationships we will also find a tremendous opportunity for an exchange of
technical and social information and mutually agreeable approaches to pro-
gress-
While many pressing problems exist on both sides of the border and the
@
ties are determined differently, we may wish to establish a new beginn-
froir joint solutions to common problems. A good place to start is with the
water and sewer issue. Such an undertaking would also be very appropriate in
view of the United Nations proclamation of the 1980's as the Water Decade
and the call to governments to cooperatively attack the problem of providing
clean drinking water and sanitation for all by 1990.
Durinj this decade, water will become an increasingly precious commodity
With the prospect of dwindling fresh water supplies. The California Depart-
ment of Water Resources has estimated that within the nekt ten years, ban
Diego County'should begin recycling at least 36 million gallons of wastewater
per day to avoid serious water shortages. Water will not be available as the
state's water supplies begin using these resources themselves. By 1985, the
Central Arizona Project will begin draining what will eventually be almost
half of Southern California's existing Colorado River water alloocation for the
use of the Phoenix metropolitan area. Contracts for diminishing water sup-
plies will be more costly which suggests a six-fold increase in water rates that
can effectively eliminate agriculture in San Diego County. It, will represent,
Fiajor financial disincentives for Water-intensive industries seeking to, locate;
in San Diego. It will place a significant hardship on many low and moderate
income residential users.
San Diego imports much of its water from the far-off Colorido River - a
distance of over 500 miles - across mountain ranges and earthquake faults at
a great cost. Ironically, a large portion of it goes into the ocean as basic
treated sewage. Raw sewage consists of 99.9 percent water, and only 1/10 of
one percent solids. San Diego possesses a primary sewage plant that present-
ly is operating at its maximum capacity, but with plans for expansion.- On the
other hand, Tijuana is being connected to a new fresh water supply which will
result in more demands for services from a growing population due to grearei
water availability. Unfortunately, Tijuana doesn't have a sewage treatment
plant and only 40 percent of its population is connected to 'sewage lines.
Clearly, both cities share common needs and predicaments. What*can San
Diego and Tijuana do to meet these challenges and ensure a continued,
reliable and adequate water supply and to dispose wastewater adequately?
Among the alternatives, it makes sense to-look into water reuse and reclama-
tion possibilities.
The San Diego Metropolitan Plan of January, 1977, recommends that the
city of San Diego work diligently toward achieving a major reclamation pro-
gram leading to massive recycling of the domestic water supply. In addition,
the Area Water Quality Management Plan (AWQMP) adopted by the San
Diego Association of Governments (SAN DAG) Board of Directors in June,
1978, and approved by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
encouraged water conservation (presently under study) and water reclama-
tion as key elements.
In short, what is needed is cooperative binational studies of pollution control
and environmental management. The cities o** Tijuana and San Diego have a
golden opportunity to capitalize on a long history of interlocking interests and
establish action plans for progress to improve the quality of life in the bina-
tional region both as a local imperative and as a response to the global concern
sym-bolized by the LJnited Nations Water Decade proclamation., M
T

OTAY MESA
HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION

PO.BOX 445
NESTOR, CA.
o-, (9@!e 1-0'ttr
?T2 /,o Avg
5 3.w
J,;ej 0, CA

bx2

L-Q D

'OL,_ -ttAl

CA-)
4L

3.
all

VAC@
ail cl-@ 01-i

OAI
P-A

\-9@) bl@

OL@@

-trv
Ob

cl__9
do

141

PART VIII: APPENDICES

A. Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1974 and 1977

B. Table I - Endangered and Rare Species Inhabiting Tijuana
Estuary and Adjacent River Valley

Table 2 - Flowering Plants of Tijuana Estuary

Table 3 - Common Algae of Tijuana

Table 4 - Marine Invertebrates of Tijuana Estuary

Table 5 - Fishes of Tijuana Estuary

Table 6 - Birds of Tijuana River Valley

Table 7 - Mammals of the Lower Tijuana River Valley

Table 8 - Amphibian and Reptiles of the Lower Tijuana River Valley

Table 9 - Archaeological Sites Near Tijuan a Estuary

Table 10- Academic Research Conducted at Tijuana Estuary

Table 11- Summary of Educational Use of Tijuana Estuary

Table 12- Soil Attributes in the Tijuana Valley and Vicinity

Table 13- Proposed Framework for a Research and Education Program

C. Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee

D. Lower Tijuana River Valley Ownership List

APPENDIX A

Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines, 1'974 and 1977

920.61 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade 921.3

necessary to the objectives of the grant
project. As used herein the terms
"cost" and "grant project" pertain to
both the Federal grant and the match-
ing share. The allowability of cost will
be determined in accordance with the
provisions of FMC 74-4: Cost Princi-
ples applicable to Grants and Con-
tracts with State and Local Govern-
ments and with the guidance con-
tained in section 920 42(b)(3).
(f) The Forum SF-424, Application
for Federal Assistance (Non-Construc-
tion Programs), constitutes the formal
application and must be submitted 60
days prior to the desired grant begin-
ning date. The application must be ac-
companied by evidence of compliance
with A-95 requirements including the
resolution of any problems raised by
the proposed project. The Associate
Administrator will not accept applica-
tion substantially deficient in adher-
ence to A-95 requirements.
(g) In Part IV, Programs Narrative of
the Form SF-424, the applicant should
respond to the following requirements:
(1) Set forth a work program de-
scribing the activities to be undertak-
en during the grant period. This work
program shall include:
(1) A precise description of each
major task to be undertaken to resolve
section 306 deficiencies, and a specific
timetable for remedying these defi-
ciencies:
(ii) A precise description of Imple-
mentation activities for approved man-
agement components, including a dem-
onstration that these implementation
funds will not be applied outside the
approved coastal management bound-
aries;
(iii) A precise description of any
other tasks necessary for and allow-
able under subsection 305(d):
(iv) For each task, identify any
"Other Entitles," as defined in the
"Manual," that will be allocated re-
sponsibility for carrying out all or por-
tions of the task, and indicate the esti-
mated cost of the subcontract for each
allocation. Identify, if any, that por-
tion of the task that will be carried
out under contract with consultants
and indicate the estimated cost of
such contract(s): and

(v) For each task, indicate the esti-
mated total cost. Also, indicate the es-
timated total months of effort, if any,
allocated to the task from the appli-
cant's staff.
(2) The sum of all task costs in the
above paragraph should equal the
total estimated grant project cost.
(3) Using two categories, Profession-
al and Clerical, indicate the total
number of personnel in each category
on the applicant's staff that will be as-
signed to the grant project. Also indi-
cate the number assigned full time
in the two categories. Additional-
ly, indicate the number of new posi-
tions created in the two categories as a
result of the grant project.

PART 921-ESTUARINE SANCTUARY
GUIDELINES

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.

Subport 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.
921.14 Application time schedule and pro-
cedure.

Subport C-Selection Criteria

921.20 Criteria for selection.
921.21 Public participation.

Subport D-Operation

921.30 General.
921.31 Changes in the sanctuary boundary,
management policy or research pro-
gram.
921.32 Program review.

Authority: Sec. 312, Pub. L. 92-583, as
amended: 86 Stat. 1280 (16 USC 1461).

Source: 39 FR 19924, June 4, 1974, unless
otherwise noted.

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 opportu-
nity to examine over a period of time
the ecological relationships within the
area. The purpose of these guidelines
is to establish the rules and regula-
tions for implementation of the pro-
gram.

921.2 Definitions.

(a) In addition to the definitions
found in the Act and in the regula-
tions dealing with Coastal Zone Man-
agement 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 estu-
ary, 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
within the area.
(b) For the purposes of this section,
"estuary" means that part of a river or
stream or other body of water having
unimpaired connection with the open
sea where the seawater is measurably
diluted with freshwater derived from
land drainage. The term includes estu-
ary-type areas of the Great Lakes as
well as lagoons in more arid coastal re-
gions.
(c) The term "multiple use" as used
in this section shall mean the simulta-
neous utilization of an area or re-
source for a variety of compatible pur-
poses 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 accom-
plished by the establishment of a
series of estuarine sanctuaries which
will be designated so that at least one
representative of each type of estuar-
ine ecosystem will endure into the
future for scientific and educational
purposes. The primary use of estuar-
ine sanctuaries shall be for research
and educational purposes, especially to
provide some of the information essen-
tial to coastal zone management deci-
sion-making. Specific examples of such
purposes and uses include but are not,
limited to:
(1) To gain a thorough understand-
ing of the ecological relationships
within the estuarine environment.
(2) To make baseline ecological mea-
surements.
(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 fore-
cast and mitigate possible deteriora-
tion from human activities.
(5) To provide a vehicle for increas-
ing public knowledge and awareness of
the complex nature of estuarine sys-
tems, their values and benefits to man
and nature, and the problems which
confront them.
(b) The emphasis within the pro-
gram will be on the designation as es-
tuarine sanctuaries of areas which will
serve as natural field laboratories for
studies and investigations over an ex-
tended period. The area chosen as an
estuarine sanctuary shall, to the
extent feasible, include water and land
masses constituting a natuarl ecologi-
cal unit.
(c) In order that the estuarine sanc-
tuary will be available for future stud-
ies, research involving the destruction
of any portion of an estuarine sanctu-
ary which would permanently alter
the nature of the ecosystem shall not
normally be permitted. In the unusual
circumstances where permitted, ma-

144

za- p.2 6 b i3 6.-C 6 @ 6, gi, 6.S.6 c
2 @01 z
5 -
SO .0 V' aZij - d
0 N
a &A
S.-C z C,
V ..Rf- CA
0 .2 C, 2 .vW 04 v
w
a
C-v -Z
02 06M '; -2 - C@ @ 0 &. 0c '15
In
A C,,0Zv 2 _9 - 0 E .0 E 0
>
C, z
so
E:@ ow. 0 0
E Bto it
IL ..A r, a. -C
0. cc WL) .. 0 0 A
A 00
w x d
cd a
@w` E 0 E so 2 -,.s -0 re,
a .0 w da v 9:
0-E ;@ 0 a, ,; Q@ , E Cc,r
0 Z . E ..
80 M 0 'i laccas
c 0 W 0.2 zcdc UR:=0 IL V, w
ul be 0 S
, &. =.- @ .. t:0 0 0
J. 01" -003
E
.2 -Z 0 cq d =0
V.S 0.2 0 N r
cl.@M d 0.
W v c
4.1c, gal 40 0
4;
09 ar
bow QZ vs@ 06E.4.4oN Mario ut a aso a

00 W10 Ncv E_ LIE 610, 61 A 2 .L:2 Ih 66 1@ -h 66 66 M_ 4@ 2 V
<z.;5wowv.M W r
ON'D V Wa �'.Z 4: d= it 8
0 W.QZ C'.' It2- 0 -6 E .6.0 20 -0
uzbpo@ pp- a0 gq = a ot: ;@ W==
rQ Wa W a OR 12-0 oc
Ll v c v S T
'0- W O_ 6Z ,Owz @W-Ww d cc d Witbc W a
OwvZr.-o r.2v-4r-w Z v B 2--.g d 0 V Do
&vy-d WZ "O"Wic ER Zw cd WW B NZ Q.S r
6. a cc 9:5 AS u r. , c
- E 0
cQ'o 0'.B= 0 = b'd @d 3 oz .2 0,o-cc Qr.,ZZELWO W W, t W
0 01-.a 55.2 -
0 C20 r_ W2@0 C 11 `6 -r.E Ed buc '0m zed wo== 0 do$- E@x
75 = 0, 4 aTo .0v WA cd'f 0 O@@ 0 0 0 v w
v 4,1 6 1- a 4, c 30 .0. .0-2
c omBow itwo- cd@&.Q. 224 W w-
wa@ 0 C,
do Ja_
'WO a
=4.-.! wv@
2&0.@ Z
dw -E C,
z gcl=-v d2fst- N 39: E.-S
4) PA E 'Zp6Z Z= 3-c z L4 4; :@.9 'a 'a S E .0 a,, v @cv
6. 0 U0 - 4)
uv lfcv, =6 2.0 0
x 1. 560.2 c c -c wo z0 VA.C 40M.J.- a 0 A-PIOMWEeiv 'a" 'Su -C5
Wc 0 w ;11 , zd 0 co.@ OM'a W d.@a , el
Cd ft@'zd I. O's =.@ it
-1. ;.1 a 1. 1.:5 c cc cvv .0
0 94 bi CF
9g W 6 z
092w 0 Id 2 @ bow
W'.R 0.a
0 C, w s
72 C, W1
Mct_-z.H t6 0 0 E N 2 is
cd d.9- do
r ZW L. '. E V Oa
5.@.6s rv- All a .2 -0 1=0 .00, -90 @P. w 6. 40
V vMg :;
cdr 0 A
I.: .d

0
E 6.5.6 4E -v C-N 6= M*O I@S v 601.2 IOU Cc OV b,
5Em E=: v -41 .2 1 E .0 0 I.S4=2=4
Cg , 2L a
.8t = 5 v
Iva IS" -_ N i, ;h Q
z c-w 0
's 206 VS V-- 2@ 2 a.Q oua2.ov W
.O_@Wvq 2 lt, _AS E10 dwo a M d.0
ca --r. , 2EQM 0 -dS E'Co U10 2 r-= -..5
EM. -0 C6 -,%
ed .0 C P;M.0 Cd -0 @t tj d
dSA-A 20 =M W -9
0 0
N. -2 0 as
E @4; -g
at
d M
ag s- w- 0
W'D 0 as, Hot .0
NO 0 C@ 0 c I ag0E z C-04 - M we 0,9 E
r
. .0 r
zz . M
'i v d, C20 'M WO E
E
E E .2s 0 w 04- v
0 S0X882 Lq .2B .1 9'.t
a@ =.so.%
".0.20 "B= k W C 5;
2 TJ
5 t j; C- ;.S 64 CL) 2
QGj W
5
E z N CA
0M01 cj
-Wu g.0 02- W C,
E. -17C c;.c .2W ms 0, C4 w 0
c i,W 06
0; C, JzF
14 W 9 '.05 0
W 'Ed W
H= W-02 04) WWa vow @ - 6.@ @ FW:h 0 tka -.6 -a Evz- - E E j-
L) d- 0 cc e0, r. @
am E- C:5.tjW..Q W0c E 0 2: c
8 1Z; -, R.,Oi I
VA VO-3 U=a o Rt,F at S
0 - da N'B it 0 w 0=10, Sto .0 - 0, it
=; a C Or- ;. 0- R= 1 2-
I.a.C.R w 0.0115 .,1*, S@Ctw a .0.82
o 'a W C 04 1"- W as .0 E10-0 01 0 8
`.Z E t 'U'o-Ewl" 0 i@.Q A .0 OP
E W,
c "57: >W
C
p g - -
Q C IN
.0 .0 sw a 'N 4, -C co@
ie wm-d>. _S a s rh
XZo = M 0 0 . W C
W w w Cc$ 2 - E d
=a B .=t.Sco
w > -
r d,;
a=
wxrc., W. Vcr uCd v
cz!- a :E
a to W
". = = a, 4) t 0Ce 8 M& z wFA
-6W Sw -ass 3 03
ME
z 2 -
-0.2 E a
-it JW vS. V E M VI'M
acI :h @ wdCL, a UIVE'M 8 Es '-Sim W- CA
>v 10-ac =5 0C040 4)E d.2M0 - r ;;T
N I.
OT o.2
ac ;ftdM, C d9 061
".9-6 S. - 0 9 W ..-
0WcNrz 19 Z.R x Z 012-6, S.9 @ r a
0QA
4 r v V.20lull
>rs2z . g r. - 9
11 V) 4; CP
> W.5! = Z. .
=c -z u = "
.0a0 1,AX W;S

� 921-12 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade Chapter IX-Notional Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. 1921.14
and to protect the integrity of the eco- gram or within other Federal, State or and to protect the Integrity of Lite eco- Lions received between January 1 and
system. Research will not normally be private programs, which are located In system. Extensive management pro- June 30 of any year will be considered
funded by Section 312 grants. It Is an- the same regional or biogeographic grams, capital expenses. or research together beginning July I of that year;
ticipated that other sources of Feder- classification. will not normally be funded by section applications received between July I
al. State and private funds will be (1) It Is essential that the opportuni- 312 grants. and December 31 will be considered to-
available for research In estuarine ty be provided for public Involvement (b) After the creation of an estuar- gether beginning January I of the fol-
sanctuaries. and input In the development of the Ine sanctuary established under this lowing year.
(d) Initial applications should con- sanctuary proposal and application. program. applications for such devel- (b) All applications received during
tain the following information: Where the application Is controversial opment and operation grants should any application period will be subject
(1) Description of the proposed sanc- or where controversial Issues are ad- Include at least the following informa- to simultaneous review and considera.
tuary include location, boundaries. size dressed, the State should provide ade- tion: Mon. At the end of each application
and cost of acquisition, operation and quate means to ensure that all Inter- (1) Identification of the boundary. period. a suitable number of applica-
development. A map should be Includ- ested parties have the opportunity to (2) Specifications of the manage- tions, Lbased on the level of funding
ed, as well as an aerial photograph. If present their views. This may be In ment program. including managing available, will be selected for further
available. the form of an adequately advertised agency and techniques. review and processing. Unless suffi-
(2) Classification of the proposed public hearing. (3) Detailed budget. ciently distinguished as major subcate-
sanctuary according to the blogeo- (11) During the development of an es- (4) Discussion of recent and project- gories, no more than one application
graphlescheme set forth In � 921.4. tuarine sanctuary application. all land- ed use of the sanctuary. from each blogeoFraphic category will
(3) Description of the major physi- owners within the proposed bound- (5) Perceived threats to the integrity be selected for I I at processing during
cal. geographic and biological charac- aries should be Informed In writing of of the sanctuary. each review period. Normally, the ap-
teristics and resources of the proposed the proposed grant application. plications selected will be processed
sanctuary. (111) The application should Indicate J 921.13 Federally owned lands. and the grants awarded within 6
(4) Identification of ownership pat- the manner In which the State solicit- (a) Where federally owned lands are M011ths from the end of the applica-
terns. proportion of land already In ed the views of all Interested parties part of or adjacent to the area pro- tion period. that Is before the next
the public domain. prior to the actual submission of the a begins. Applications
(5) Description of Intended research application. posed for designation as an estuarine review period
sanctuary. or where the control of which are not selected for processing
uses, potential research organizations (e) In order to develop a truly repre- land and water uses on such lands Is may be resubmitted for consideration
or agencies and benefits to the overall sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- necessary to protect the natural during the next review period. Cn
coastal zone management program. aries, the States should attempt to co- system within the sanctuary. the State (c) At least ninety (90) ditys prior to
(6) Demonstration of necessary au- ordinate their activities. This will help should contact the Federal agency submission of an application under
thority to acquire or control and to minimize the possibility of similar maintaining control of the land to re- this section. an applicant state must
manage the sanctuary. estuarine types being proposed. for quest cooperation In providing coordi- notify in writing the OCZM, appropri-
(7) Description of proposed manage- designation In the same region. The nated management policies. Such ate state and regional A-95 clearing-
ment techniques, including the man- application should Indicate the extent lands and State request, and the Fed- houses. and other states within the
agement agency. principles and pro- to which neighboring States were con- eral agency response. should be Identi- same biogeographic category (see
posed budget Including both State and sulted. fied and conveyed to the Office of Table 1) of its Intention to file an ap-
Federal shares. M Discussion, Including cost and Coastal Zone Management. plication for an estuarine sanctuary
(8) Description of existing and po- feasibility, of alternative methods for (b) Where such proposed use or con- grant. Such notification should In-
tential uses of and conflicts within the acquisition, control and protection of trol of federally owned lands would clude at least the Identification of the
area if It were not declared an estuar- the area to provide similar uses. Use of not conflict with the Federal use of state agency applying for the grant;
Ine sanctuary; potential use, use re- the marine sanctuary authority and their lands, such cooperation and co- the geographic location of the pro-
strictions and conflicts It the sanctu- funds from the Land and Water Con- ordination Is encouraged to the maxi-
. posed sanctuary and Its boundaries;
Rry Is established. servation Fund Act should be specifi- mum extent feasible. proposed objectives of the sanctuary,
(1) Assessment of the environmental cally addressed. (c) Section 312 grants may not be including Intended research uses: esti-
and socio-economic Impacts of declar- awarded to federal agencies for cre- mated cost of sanctuary: and estimat-
ing the area an estuarine sanctuary. 1921.12 Application for subsequent devel-
opment and operation grants. ation of estuarine sanctuaries in Fed- ed date for submission of application.
Including the economic Impact of such erally owned lands; however. a similar Copies of the A-95 notifications to the
a designation on the surrounding com- (a) Although the Initial grant appli- status may be provided on a voluntary state and regional clearinghouse
munitY and Its tax base. cation for creation of an estuarine basis for Federally owned lands under would be considered sufficient and de-
(9) Description of planned or antici- sanctuary should Include Initial devel- the provisions of the Federal Commit- sirable notification to OCZM and to
pated land and water use and controls opment and operation costs. subse- tee on Ecological Preserves program. the other states.
for contiguous lands surrounding the qtient applications may be submitted
proposed sanctuary (including If ap- following acquisition and establish- 921.14 Application time schedule and TABLE I -LIST OF STATES BY BIOGEOGRAPHIC
propriate an analysis of the desirabil- ment of an estuarine sanctuary for ad- procedure. CLASSIFICATION
ity of creating a marine sanctuary In ditional development and operation (a) Effective January 1. 1975, the 1. AcadiRn-MRine. New Hampshire. Mas-
adjacent areas). funds. As Indicated In �921.11, these review and selection of estuarine sanc- sachusetts.
(10) List of protected sites. either costs may Include administrative costs tuary applications will be conducted 2. VirRinian-Massachusetts, Rhode
within the estuarine sanctuaries pro- necessary to monitor the sanctuary on a twice yearly basis. All applica- Island. Connecticut. New York. New Jersey.

921.20 Title 15-Commerce and Foreign Trade

Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Caroli-
na
3. Carolinian-North Carolina, South
Carolina, Georgia, Florida.
4. West Indian-Florida, Puerto Rico,
Virgin Islands.
5. Louisianian-Florida, Mississippi, Ala-
bama.
6. Californian-California.
7. Columbian-California, Oregon, Wash-
ington.
8. Flord-Alaska.
9. Sub Arctic-Alaska.
10. Insular-Hawaii, Guam, American
Somoa.
11. Great Lakes-Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsyl-
vania, New York.

(d) The Director of OCZM may,
upon the finding of extenuating cir-
cumstances relating to applications for
assistance, waive appropriate adminis-
trative requirements contained herein.

(30 FR 45214, Dec. 31, 1974)

Subpart C-Selection Criteria

921.20 Criteria for selection.

Applications for grants to establish
estuarine 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 propos-
al to the development or operations of
the overall coastal zone management
program, including how well the pro-
posal fits into the national program of
representative estuarine types: the na-
tional 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 external stresses.
(c) Size and choice of boundaries. To
the extent feasible, estuarine sanctu-
aries should approximate a natural
ecological unit. The minimal accept-
able size will vary greatly and will
depend on the nature of the ecosys-
tem.
(d) Cost. Although the Act limits the
Federal share of the cost for each
sanctuary to $2,000,000. It is anticipat-

ed that in practice the average grant
will be substantially less than this.
(e) Enhancement of non-competitive
uses.
(f) Proximity and access to existing
research facilities.
(g) Availability of suitable aterna-
tive sites already protected which
might be capable of providing the
same use or benefit. Unnecessary du-
plication of existing activities under
other programs should be avoided.
However, estuarine sanctuaries might
be established adjacent to existing
preserved lands where mutual en-
hancement or benefit of each might
occur.
(h) Conflict with existing or poten-
tial competing uses.
(i) Compatibility with existing or
proposed land and water use in contig-
uous areas.

If the initial review demonstrates the
feasibility of the application, an envi-
ronmental impact statement will be
prepared by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management 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 estuarine
sanctuaries. In addition to the partici-
pation during the application develop-
ment process (921.11(e)), public par-
ticipation will be ensured at the Feder-
al level by the NEPA process and by
public hearings where desirable subse-
quent to NEPA. Such public hearings
shall be held by the Office of Coastal
Zone Management in the area to be af-
fected by the proposed sanctuary no
sooner than 30 days after it issues a
draft environmental impact statement
on the sanctuary proposal. It will be
the responsibility of the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, with the
assistance of the applicant State, to
issue adequate public notice of its in-
tention to hold a public hearing. Such
public notice shall be distributed
widely, especially in the area of the
proposed sanctuary; affected property
owners and those agencies, organiza-
tions or individuals with an identified
interest in the area or estuarine sanc-

Chapter IX -- National Oceanic, Atmospheric Adm. 921.32

tuary 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 addi-
tional information about the proposal.

Subpart D-Operation

921.30 General.

Management of estuarine sanctuar-
ies shall be the responsibility of the
applicant 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 individual grants. It is suggested
that prior to the grant award, repre-
sentatives of the proposed sanctuary
management team and the Office of
Coastal Zone Management meet to dis-
cuss management policy and stand-
ards. It is anticipated that the grant
provisions will vary with individual cir-
cumstances 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
purposes of the estuarine sanctuary.
(b) Define permitted, compatible, re-
stricted and prohibited uses of the
sanctuary.
(c) Include a provision for monitor-
ing the uses of the sanctuary, to
ensure compliance with the intended
uses.
(d) Ensure ready access to land use
of the sanctuary by scientists, stu-
dents and the general public as desir-
able and permissible for coordinated
research and education uses, as well as
for other compatible purposes.
(e) Ensure public availability and
reasonable distribution of research re-
sults for timely use in the develop-
ment of coastal zone management pro-
grams.
(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 repre-
sents will be maintained.

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

921.31 Changes in the sanctuary bound-
ary, management policy or research
program.
(a) The approved sanctuary bound-
aries; management policy, including
permissible and prohibited uses; and
research program may only be
changed after public notice and the
opportunity of public review and par-
ticipation such as outlined in 921.21.
(b) Individuals or organizations
which are concerned about possible
improper use or restriction of use of
estuarine sanctuaries may petition the
State management 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 estuar-
ine sanctuary. The estuarine sanctu-
ary program will be regularly reviewed
to ensure that the objectives of the
program are being met and that the
program itself is scientifically sound.
The key to the success of the estuar-
ine sanctuaries program is to assure
that the results of the studies and re-
search conducted in these sanctuaries
are available in a timely fashion so
that the States can develop and ad-
minister land and water use programs
for the coastal zone. Accordingly, all
information and reports, including
annual reports, relating to estuarine
sanctuaries shall be part of the public
record and available at all times for in-
spection by the public.

PART 922 -- MARINE SANCTUARIES

Subport A - General
Sec.
922.1 Policy and objectives.
922.2 Programmatic objectives.

147

45522 PROPOSED RULES
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE exceed 50 percent of the acquisition costs (2) By revising Subpart B-Applica-
involv d. Any State receiving an initial tion for Grantz-as follows:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric granteshall be obligated @ to repay It If, Subpart B-Application for Grants
Administration due to any fault of the State, the sanctu-
E 15 CFR Part 9211 ary is not established. � 921.10 General.
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY GUIDELINES As a result of this new grant procedure, Section 315 authorizes Federal grants
much more information relating to costs, to coastal States so that the States may
Policies and Procedures for Selection values, management procedures, and re- establish sanctuaries according to -egu-
Acquisition and Management search programs will be available at the lations promulgated by the Secretary.
time of the publication of a dmft'en- Coastal States may file applications for
AGENCY: National Oceanic and AtM03- vironmental impact statement. Proposals grants with the Associate Administrator
pheric Administration, Department of made public to date in the form of in for Coastal Zone Management (OCZM),
Commerce. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) office of Coastal Zone Management, Page
A,CTION: Proposed rule. have been criticized for lack of specificity 1, 3300 Whitehaven Parkway NW. Wash-
in these areas. BY making a small Pre- ington, D.C. 20235. That agency which
SUICAARY: This proposed rule will liminary acquisition grant to a State, has been certified to the Office of Coastal
allow the National Oceanic and Atmos- the estuarine sanctuary proposal can be Zone Management as the entity respon-
pheric Administration to make a pre- more fully developed and the public can sible for administration of the State
liminkry acquisition grant to a State to become more aware of the costs and the coastal zone management program may
undertake a fair market value appraisal. exact nature of the long-term manage- either submit an application directly. or
and to develop a uniform relocation act ment. must endorse and approve applications
plan, a detailed management Plan and a In response to State questions about submitted by other agencies within- the
research framework for a proposed estu- estuarine sanctuary research, the pro- State.
arine sanctuary, developed pursuant to posed regulations provide that such re-
Section 315 of the Coastal Zone Manage- search can be funded if it can be shown � 921.11 Application for preliminarr
ment Act of 1972, as amended. to be related to program administration. acquisition grants.
DATE: Comments must be received on or NOAA has reviewed these proposed (a) A grant may be awarded on a
before October 1, 1977. regulations pursuant to the National En- matching basis to cover costs necessary
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CON- vironmental Policy Act of 1969 and has to preliminary actual acquisition of land.
TACT: determined that promulgation of these As match to the Federal grant, a State
regulations will have no significant im- may use money, the cost of necessary
Robert R. Kffer, Physical Scientist, pact on the environment. services, the value of foregone revenue,
Policy and Programs Development Of- Compliance with Executive Order and/or the value of land either already
11ce. Office of Coastal Zone Manage- 11821. The economic and Inflationary in its possession or acquired by the State
ment. 3300 Whitehaven Parkway, Page impact of. these proposed regulations has specifically for use in the sanctuary. If
One Building, Washington, D.C. 20235 been evaluated in accordance with OM33 the land to be used as match already is
(202-634-4241). Circular A-107 and it has been deter- in the State's possession and is in a pro-
SUppIMMENTARy INFORMATION. nlined that no major inflationarY im- tected status, the State may use such
On June 4. 1974, The National Oce: pact will result. land as match only to the extent of any
anic and Atmospheric Administration Dated - August 26, 1977. revenue from the land foregone by the
State in order to Include it In the sanc-
(NOAA) published 15 CFR Part 921 en- T. P. GLEMR, tuary. Application for a preliminary ac-
titled, "Estuarine Sanctuary Guidelines"
pursuant to then section 312 of the Assistant Administrator quisition grant shall be made on form
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, for Administration. SF 424 application for Federal assistance
as amended, for the purpose of establish- It is proposed to amend 15 CPR Part (non-construction programs).
Ing policy and procedures for the selec- 921 as follows: (b) A preliminary acquisition grant
tion, acquisition. and management of (1) BY revising the table of contents may be made for the defrayal of the
estuarine sanctuaries. and authority citation to read as f ollows. cost of:
Under new subsection 315 (1) of the Subpart A--Generai (1) An appraisal of the land, or of the
Act, the Secretary of Commerce is au- sec. value of any foregone use of the land,
thorized to make available to coastal 921.1 Policy and objectives. to be used in the sanctuary;
States grants of up to 50 per centurn of 921.2 Definitions. (2) The development of a Uniform
the cost of acquisition, development, and 921.3 Objectives and implementation Of
the program. Relocation Assistance and Real Property
operation of estuarine sanctuaries. In Acquisition Policies Act plan,
general, subsection 315(l) provides that 921.4 Biogeographic classification.
921.5 Multiple use. (3) The development of a sanctuary
grants may be awarded to States on a 021.6 Relationship to other provisions of management plan;
matching basis to acquire, develop, and the Act and to marine sanctuaries. (4) The development of a research and
operate natural areas as estuarine sanc- Subpart IS.-Application for Grants educational program; and/or,
tuaries in order that scientists and stu-
dents may be provIded the opportunity 921.10 General. (5) Such other activity of a prellmi-
to examine over a period of time ecologi- 921.11 Application for Preliminary acquisi- nary nature as may be approved in writ-
cal relationships withur the area. The tloa grants. ing by OCZMT. Any grant made Pursuant
921-.12 Application for land acquisition to this subsection shall be refunded by
Purpose of these guidelines is to. imple- grants.
ment this program. 921.13 Application for operational grants. the State to whatever extent It has spent
As a result of two years of program 921.14 Federally-owned lands. in relation to land not acquired for the
implementation, the regulations are pro- .Subpart C-Selection Criteria sanctuary, and if OCZM requests such
posed to be modified to specifically au- 921.20 Criteria for selection. refund.
thorize the granting of acquisition 921.21 Public Participation. (c) The application should contain:
money to States in two stages - Subpart D-operstion (1) Evidence that the State has con-
(1) An initial grant for such prellmi- ducted a scientific evaluation of It:; estu-
021.30 General. aries and selected one of those most rep-
nary purposes, as surveying and assess- 921.31 Changes in the sanctuary -bbundary, resentative.
Ing the land to be acquired, and the de- management policy, or research
velopment of management procedures program. (2) Description of the Proposed
and research programs; and 921.32 Program review. sanctuary including location, Proposed
(it) A second grant for the actual ac- AvTuOR=: Sec. 315(l). Coastal Zone man- boundaries, and size. A map(s) should
quisitlon of the land. The Federal share agement Act of 1972, as azasrLded (go StAt. be Included. as well as an aerial photo-
of the sum of the two grants shall not 1030, (16 U.S.C. 1461) Pub. U 94-370). graph if available.

fEDERAL MOISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175--RIDAY, S&MMSEZ 9, 1977

148

PROPOSED RULES 45523

(3) Classification of the proposzd Public domain. fair market value ap- conftict with the Federal use of their
sanctuary according to the biogeo- pi-isal and Uniform Relocation Act plan. lands, such cooperation and coordination
graphic scheme set forth In 1922.4. (3) Description of research programs. Is encouraged to the maxim= extent
(4) Description of the major physical. potential and committed research or- feasible.
geographic, biological characteristics and ganizations or agencies, and benefits to (c) Section 315 grants may not be
resources of the proposed sanctuary. the overall coastal zone management awarded to Federally-owned lands; how-
(5) Demonstration of the necessary program. ever, a similar status may be provided on
authority to acquire or control and man- (4) Description of proposed manage- a voluntary basis for Federally-owned
age the sanctuary. ment techniques, including the manage- lands under the provisions of the Federal
(6) Description of existing and poten- ment agency and proposed budget-in- Committee on Ecological Perserves
tial uses of, and conflicts within. the cluding both State and Federal shares. program.
area if It were not declared an estuarine (5) Description of planned or antici- � 921-20 (Amended]
sanctuary; and potential use restriction pated land and water use and controls
and conflicts if the sanctuary is estab- for contiguous lands surrounding the (4) Subpart C-Selection Criteria-is
lished. proposed sanctuary (including, if appro- amended by changing the first sentence
(7) List of protected sites, either with- priate. an analysis of the desirability of in � 921.20 to read: "Applications for
In the estuarine sanctuaries program or creating a marine sanctuary in adjacent preliminary acquisition or land acquisi-
within other Federal. State, or private areas). tion grants to establish estuarine sanc-
programs, which are located in the same .(6) Assessment of the environmental, tuaries will be reviewed and Judged on
region or biogeographic classification. and socio-economic impacts of declaring criteria including:"
(8) The manner In which the State the area an estuarine sanctuary, includ- (5) Section 921.21 is revised, as fol-
solicited the views of Interested parties. ing the economic impact on the sur- lows:
(9) In addition to the standard A-95 rounding community and its tax base.
review procedures, the grant application (7) -Discussion. including cost and � 921.21 Public participation.
should be sent to the State HLsto!-fc Pres- feasibility of alternative methods for ac- (a) Public participation In the selec-
ervation Office for comment to insure quisition and protection of the area. tion of an estuarine sanctuary is re-
compliance with section 106 of the Na- � 921.13 Application for operation quired. In the selection process, the se-
tional Preservation Act of 1966. grants. lecting entity (see 9 921.10) shall seek
(d) In order to develop a truly repre- the views of possibly affected landown-
sentative scheme of estuarine sanctu- (a) Although an acquisition grant ap- ers, local governments. and Federal
arles, the States should coordinate their plication for creation of an estuarine agencies, and shall seek the views of pos-
activities. This will help to minim' a sanctuary should include Initial opera- sibly interested other parties and orga-
possibility of rimilar estuarine types e- tiOn costs, subsequent applications may, nizatlons. The latter would include. but
Ing propoeed in the same region. e be submitted following acquisition and need not be limited to, private citizens
extent to which neighboring States establishment of an estuarine sanctuary and business, social, and environmental
consulted should be Iditional operational funds. As in- organizations In the area of the site be-
� 921.12 Application for land acqui i dicated In � 921.11. these costs may In- Ing considered for selection. This solici-
tion grants. s" clude administrative costs necessary to t6tion of views may be accomplished by
monitor the sanctuary and to protect the whatever means the selecting entity
(a) Acquisition grants will be made to integrity of the ecosystem. Extensive deems appropriate, but shall include at
acquire land and facilities for estuarine management programs, capital expenses, least one public heaxing in the area. No-
sanctuaries that have been thoroughly or research win not normally be funded tice of such hearing shall include infor-
described in a preliminary acquisition by section 315 grants. mation as to the time, place, and subject
grant application, or where equivalent (b) After the creation of an. estuarine matter, and shall be published in the
Information is available. Application for sanctuary established under this pro-
An acquisition grant shall be made on gram, applications (Form SP 424) for principal area media. The hearing shall
SP 424 application for Federal assist- Federal assistance (non-construction be held no sooner than 15 days follow-
ance (construction program). program), for such operational grants Ing the publication of notice.
In general. lands acquired pursuant to should Include at least the following in- (b) The Office of Coastal Zone Man-
this subsection are legitimate costs and formation: agement (OCZM) shall prepare draft
their fair market value, developed ac- (1) Identification of the boundary and final environmental impact state-
ments pertaining to the site final y se-
cording to Federal appraisal standards. (map) - lected for the estuarine sanctuary fol-
may be included as match. The value of (2) Specifications of the research and lowing public participation in the selec-
lands donated to the State and cash do- management program. including man- tion of that site. and shall distribute
nations may also be used as match. If aging agency and techniques. these as appropriate. OCZM may hold a
the State already owns land which is to (3) Detailed budget. Public hearing in the area of such site at
be used in the sanctuary. the value of (4) Discussion of recent and projected which both the draft environmental im-
any use of the land foregone by the State use of the sanctuary. pact statement (DEIS) and the merits
in order to Include such land in the (5) Perceived threats to the Integrity of the site selection may be addressed by
sanctuary, capitalized over the next 20 of the sanctuary. those in attendance. OCZM shall hold
years. may be used by the State as � 921.14 Federally-owned lands. such a hearing if: (1) In Its view. the
match. 7be value of lands purchased by
a State within the boundaries of pro- (a) Where Federally-owned lands are DEIS is controversial, or (2) If there ap-
posed sanctuaries while an application a part of or adjacent to the area proposed pears to be a need for further informing
for a preliminary acquisition grant or for designation as - an estuarine sanc- the public with regard to either the DEIS
land acquisition grant Is being consid- tuary, or where the control of land and or one or more aspects of the site se-
ered may also be used as match. water uses on such lands is necessary to lected, or (3) if such a hearing Is re-
(b) An acquisition application should protect the natural system within the quested In writing (to either the select-
contain the following information: sanctuary, the State should contact the ing entity or (CZM) by an affected or in-
(1) Description of any changes in pro- Federal agency maintaining control of terested party, or (4) for other good
posed sanctuary from that presented In the land to request cooperation in provid- cause. If held, such hearing shall be held
the preliminary acquisition grant appli- ing coordinated management policies. no so(?ner than 30 Aays following the is-
cation. U such an application has not Such lands and State request, and the _suance of the DEIS and no sooner then
been made, then, information equivalent Federal agency response, should be Iden-: 15 days after appropriate. notice of such
'to that required in such a grant applica- tifted and conveyed to the Office of hearing has been given In the area by
tion should be provided. Coastal Zone Management. OCZM with the assistance of the select-
(2) Identification of ownership Pat- (b) Where such proposed use or con- inff entity.
terns, proportions of land already in the tMl of Federally-owned haits would not IFR Doa.77-M2& Filed 0-6-77; 8:45 am]

FEDERAL REGISTER, VOL 42, NO. 175--FAIDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1977

Os
national 149
estu Pine

'4"?"MENT O@ C,
sanc @ "a
program aged, or reduced in size through de- against which to measure ecological
velopment and pollution. These changes in other estuaries. In addi-
prime food sources and beautiful tion, the sanctuaries will provide stu-
natural areas are in danger. dents and the general public with
In the late 1960s, two Federal places where they can learn about
studies depicting this unfortunate ecology and the environment in a
In sheltered areas where rivers, situation convinced Congress that natural setting. A further benefit of
streams, or other bodies of fresh something must be done for our es- these sanctuaries is the protection
water meet the open seas, living tuaries. The result is the National of vital habitats for estuarine-de-
creatures flourish. The diluted salt Estuarine Sanctuary Program, estab- pendent plant and animal life, in-
water they thrive in is constantly lished through the Coastal Zone cluding endangered species. Also,
stirred by the tides, causing the Management Act of 1972 (and multiple uses can take place in the
land's waterborne humus, topsoil, amended in 1976). This program was sanctuaries as long as the activities
and other necessities for life to mix designed to make 50 percent match- do not detract from their research
with the ocean's minerals and or- ing grants to coastal States for the and educational uses.
ganic products of underwater decay. purposes of acquiring, developing,
The resulting broth is perfect for or operating estuarine areas to be
protozoa, which are eaten by plank- set aside "to se'rve as natural field Estuarine Sanctuaries Grants
ton, which, in turn, are eaten by very laboratories in which to study and The sanctuaries are owned and
young and/or small fish, and so on gather data on the natural and hu- managed by the individual States,
up the scale to shrimp, oysters, man processes occurring within the but the States are financially assisted
flounder, lobsters, and, of course, estuaries of the coastal zone.'' The (through 50 percent matching funds)
man. data gathered at these sanctuaries by the federal government in three
Ecologists have found that many will be useful in management deci- ways: preacquisition, acquisition.
of these natural areas provide man sions concerning the coasts. and operations grants. The preacqui-
with more food per acre than the At least 20 estuaries are planned sition grant may be used for real es-
best Midwestern farmland (in addi- to be preserved in perpetuity for edu- tate appraisals, refinement of bound-
tion to providing, at no expense to cation and research, and they will aries, and for the development of
the taxpayer, such services as waste- be chosen in such a manner that management plans or programs for
water treatment and storm protec- they represent all of the nation's bio- research and education. The acquisi-
tion). Also, it has been estimated that logical and geographic regions, in- tion grant is to cover the actual
more than two-thirds of the commer- cluding the Great Lakes. (For the and related costs of land acquisition.
cial and recreational fish caught and purposes of the Estuarine Sanctuary Finally, operations grants are for
eaten by Americans today directly Program, the term estuaries is de- those costs necessary for monitoring
depend on these areas, which are fined to include "estuary-type" areas the sanctuary and protecting the
known as estuaries. of the Great Lakes;) In this way, the health of its ecosystem, and for the
But there is a problem with this information obtained within these establishment and' maintenance of
lifegiving process: nearly all of our sanctuaries should be useful in mak- an educational and scientific pro-
estuaries are being destroyed, dam- ing de@@isions concerning the welfare gram.
not only of all the nation's estuaries,
but of the entire coastal zone as well. The Individual Sanctuaries
The national program is adminis-
tered by the Estuarine Sanctuary At present, there are nine sanc-
Program Office in the Office of tuaries in operation and several in
Coastal Zone Management, a com- the planning stages for funding in the
ponent of the National Oceanic and not-too-distant future. Each of the
Atmospheric Administration ol the sanctuaries is biologically and geo-
Department of Commerce. graphically unique, so that (he bene-.
fits of each will accrue both -Lo the
Sanctuary Utilization region in which it is located and to
the nation as a whole.
The estuaries will be kept as un-
disturbed as possible so that scien- SOUTH SLOUGH, OREGON
tists will be able to study the naturally
functioning system and also will be The first estuarine sanctuary
able to use the areas as controls funded under the program is South

150

has within it a few small taro (poi)
farms. Because one is inhabited and
the other is not, these two estuaries
could, in the future, provide a ''natur-
al experiment" to examine the effects
of farming and habitation on the es-
uarine ecology in comparison with
an undisturbed system. Waimanu
was recently featured in A;rnerica's
Maiestic Canyons, published by the
National Geographic Society.
Uwe

OLD WOMAN CREEK, OHIO
@Wft Old Woman Creek, Ohio, is rela-
tively small-on(y 637 acres-but
ecologically it is extremely valuable.
WE'
The sanctuary area is one of the few
comparatively natural estuaries re-
maining on the heavily populated
shores of Lake Erie. As such, it is of
great importance as a control, or
Slough, within Coos Bay, Oregon. tists have been pursuing a variety of baseline area, for measuring the
Truly enabling researchers to study studies in the biological sciences on success of coastal land and water
both "natural and human proc- the island's isolated wetlands en- management efforts for the Great
esses,'' this 4,200-acre sanctuary vironment. This research has been Lakes biogeographic region, Ohio is
preserves freshwater and saltwater based at the University of Georgia currently exploring the use of Old
marshes, an island covered with a Marine Institute, on the island's Woman Creek Estuarine Sanctuary
climax forest, numerous species of southern end, within the sanctuary. as the State's freshwater research
plants and animals, and in addition, The sanctuary itself preserves 7,400 center. Since it is near urban cen-
a prehistoric Indian miciden, an acres of Sapelo Island, encompass- ters, the educational aspects of es-
abandoned gold mine, and the sites ing the Duplin River. But the whole tuaries also will be heavily empha-
of old railroad logging dumps. This island, in addition to two adjacent sized.
timber country sanctuary is managed islands, is preserved by various
by the South Slough Estuarine Sanc- State and Federal agencies. Sapelo ROOKERY BAY, FLORIDA
tuary Management Commission, is the site of prehistoric Indian
which is comprised of several State mounds, an oyster shell ring, and Covering more than 8,500 acres,
agencies, local agencies, private numerous plantation ruins from the Florida's Rookery Bay sanctuary pre-
sector representation, and a mem- late 18th and early 19th century. The serves a large, mangrove-filled bay
ber of the Oregon University system. only privately held property on the and two creeks, along with their
Because South Slough is one of the island, within a community called drainage corridors, from Florida's
first large natural areas to be pre- Hog Hammock, belongs to approxi- ever expanding land clevelopment.
served in this manner, its multidisci- mately 200 black people whose farn- Management of the sanctuary is by
plinary management commission ilies have lived and worked on the the Florida Department of Natural
may become a prototype for the islands since the early 1800s. Resources, the Collier County Con-
planners and managers of other servancy, and the National Auclubor
ecosystems to be protected in the WAIMANU, HAWAII Society. This unusual managemer,
future. structure originally was creat@_
Waimanu, Hawaii, a mountain-en- when the two private organizatic!
now

SAPELO ISLAND, GEORGIA closed stream valley, is so isolated granted a dollar-per-year, 99-ye
that land access is gained only by a lease of the land to the State. Fec:-
The concept of a ''wetlands re- strenuous 6- to 8-hour hike. Because al and State funds will add addjtic@-
search park" became a reality in of this isolation, this 5,900-acre estu- key acreage to the existing c--
the unspoiled marshes and beach arine sanctuary is nearly pristine. area. The diversity of the are@,
stretches of Sapelo Island, Georgia. Adjacent to Waimanu, however, is a fauna can be recognized by the L
Here, for more than 20 years, scien- nearly identical valley, Waipio, which poises that feed there and the _". I

151

eagles and whitetailed deer that gether, represent a unique coopera- coastal bays with a supply of eel-
-11ake Rookery Bay their permanent tive effort at ecosystem protection. grass. Other uncommon inhabitants
residences. Within the sanctuary is of Padilla Bay include the American
the Rookery Bay Marine Laboratory, ELKHORN SLOUGH, bald eagle, red fox, great blue heron,
,,vhich, even before the sanctuary's snowy owls and harbor seals.
establishment, provided data used in CALIFORNIA The establishment of Padilla Bay
:Important coastal management de- One of the more recent estuarine was unique in land acquisition pro-
cisions-a primary objective of Con- sanctuaries to be funded is Elkhorn
c grams. A steering committee com-
gress in legislating the existence Of Slough, California. The sanctuary posed of local, State and Federal
the National Estuarine Sanctuary itself, which is on the south and east representatives was established and
Program. portions of the slough, covers 1,510 given authority to make all decisions
acres, but these will be contiguous about boundaries and sanctuary
with a proposed U.S. Fish and Wild- uses, as long as they were consistent
k- life Service Refuge on the north and with NOAA sanctuary guidelines and
other Federal and State laws. The
west portions so that the whole
committee adopted a philosophy
slough system will be protected. In
calling for coexistence of the sanc-
the future, joint management prac-
tuary with other community needs
tices for both areas will be pursued
such as agriculture and industry.
';i, by the State and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. The small town of The Padilla Bay sanctuary is lo-
n
cated in northern Puget Sound, 5
Moss Landing, at the mouth of the
miles from the community of Ana-
slough, contains within it Moss
cortes. The sanctuary is under the
Landing Marine Laboratorv, whi&
i_n:
administration of the State Depart-
has been and will continue doing re-
ment of Game. The Skagit County
search on the slough. Because, in Board of Commissioners serves as
general, the salt concentration of an oversight committee.
Elkhorn is close to marine, one re-
APALACHICOLA BAY/RIVER, searcher has called it "a portion of
FLORIDA the ocean bottom conveniently NARRAGANSETT BAY,
located for study." RHODE ISLAND
The largest sanctuary, at more Study here, and at the other es-
The Narragansett Bay Estuarine
,.@an 190,000 acres, Florida's Apala- tuarine sanctuaries, will help to better
-,Iicola Bay/River estuary has been understand coastal areas, so that Sanctuary consists of two islands
called one of the largest remaining they may remain functioning ecosys- and the portion of a third lying in
naturally functioning systems in the tems while humans continue to enjoy the center of the bay. The bay itself
extends for 25 miles from Newport
,lation, and it is also the first sanc- their many benefits.
-jary on the mouth of a major naviga- on the ocean to Providence.
ble river. Because of this, its estab- PADILLA BAY, WASHINGTON With the assistance of the National
Ishment served to promote improved Estuarine Sanctuary Program, al-
cooperation among - the States of The Padilla Bay sanctuary con- most all of Patience Island was pur-
F:oncla, Alabama, and Georgia over sists of 11,612 acres of tidal marsh chased in 1980. It is combined with
,,ver navigation, The major business and upland areas. Its extensive eel- State-owned lands and waters on
activity of the town of Apalachicola, grass beds, which are perhaps the Hope and North Prudence Islands
adjacent to the sanctuary, centers largest within the continental United
to form the 1,629-acre sanctuary,
@round the oyster industry, and it is States, are primary habitats for sub- the first of its kind (Virginian classi-
,@x.oectecl that the sanctuary will stantial numbers of water fowl. On fication which extends from Cape
neriefit this and other fishing inclus- an average winter day there are over Cad to Cape Hatteras) in the National
es by protecting the environment 50,000 ducks in Padilla Bay, includ- Estuarine Sanctuary Program.
P4

and by providing research informa- ing scamps, golden eyes, buffle- The islands contain the largest
3n that will help assure the con- heads and the endangered canvas- salt marshes in Rhode Island and
@,nuecl productivity of this river/bay back. the largest rookery in the Northeast.
ecosystem. Within the Apalachicola Padilla Bay is the most important They are generally in an undisturbed
:@:s,,uarine Sanctuary boundaries are habitat in the northwest for the natural condition, or were once de-
ain existing U.S. Fish and Wildlife scarce black brant duck, since this veloped but are gradually returning
Refuge and a State Park, which, to- species is dependent on shallow, to a natural%state which the sanctu-

152

ary protection will encourage. The Padilla Bay, ESTUARINE SANCTUARIES
waters included within the sanctuary Wash.
will provide an excellent opportunity
for research, reflecting as they do
a high water quality to compare with Old W:k7an A
the more polluted condition of the lii slougN ",Oregon Cre
north part of the Narragansett Bay. Ohio
The sanctuary will be run by a full-
time manager for the Rhode Island 4,..-E1khokn Slough Na nseft
I - , , .
Department of Environmental Man-
Say, R.I.
agement. In addition to research, the
sanctuary will provide educational
opportunities for the 600,000 people
that live within 10 miles of the
islands.
Sapelo
ESTUARINE SANCTUARY Island, Ga.
NAMES AND ADDRESSES Wailmanu, Hawaii
For more information concerning
the individual sanctuaries or the Na- 160/ Apallac l1colla
tional Estuarine Sanctuary Program Bay/R ver, Fla. Rookery
in general,- contact the appropriate %0 Say, Fla.
State coastal zone management
agency or the Federal Office of
Coastal Zone Management, Es-
tuarine Sanctuaries Program Man- OLD WOMAN CREEK, OHIO Department of Natural Resources
ager, 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Eugene Wright, Manager 3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Washington, D.C. 20235. Old Woman Creek Estuarine Tallahassee, Florida 32303
Phone: (202) 653-7301. Sanctuary (904) 488-0795
2005 Cleveland Rd., East
SAPELO ISLAND, GEORGIA Huron, Ohio 44839 ELKHORN SLOUGH, CALIFORNIA
Elizabeth Winship, Estuarine Sanc- (419) 433-4601 Kenneth S. Moore
tuary Coordinator Manager, Elkhorn Slough
Department of Natural. Resources Dr. David Klarer, Sanctuary Biologist Estuarine Sanctuary
Coastal Resources Division Old Woman Creek Estuarine 1454 Elkhorn Road
1200 Glynn Avenue Sanctuary Watsonville, California 95076
Brunswick, Georgia 31520 2005 beveland Rd., East (408) 728-0560
(912) 264-7218 Huron, Ohio 44839
SOUTH SLOUGH, OREGON (419) 433-4601 PADILLA BAY, WASHINGTON
Mr. Rod Mack
Dr. Delane Munson, Manager ROOKERY BAY, FLORIDA Department of Ecology
South Slough Estuarine Sanctuary Dr. Kris W. Thoemke, Manager Mail Stop PV-11
c/c, Oregon Institute of Marine Rookery Bay Estuarine Sanctuary Olympia, Washington :90854
Biology @ DNR, Divsjon of Marine Resources (206) 753-6874
Charleston, Oregon 97420 P.O. Box 9018
(503) 888-bOl 5 Naples, FL 3 -3941 NARRAGANSETT BAY,
WAIMANU, HAWAII (813) 261-1310 RHODE ISLAND
law,

Mike Munekiyo APALACHICOLA RIVER/BAY, Judith Benedict
Department of Planning and Department of Environmental
Economic Development FLORIDA Management
P,O. Box 2359 Casey Gluckman 83 Park Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Director, Division of Resource Providence, Rhode Island 02903
(808) 548-3047 Management (401) 277-2776

TABLE 1

Endangered and Rare Species Inhabiting Tijuana Estuary
and Adjacent River Valley

San Diego
Field Ornithology
U.S. State Locally
Birds Endangered Endangered Endangered

Brown Pelican
Pelecanus occidentalis x x

American Peregrine Falcon x x
Falco peregrinus anatum

Light-footed Clapper Rail
Rallus longirostris levipes x x

Snowy Plover
Charadrius alexandrinus x

California Least Tern
Sterna albifrons browni x x

Elegant Tern x
Thalasseus elegans

Bell's Vireo x
Vireo bellii

Belding's Savannah Sparrow x
Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi

PLANTS

Salt Marsh Bird's Be ak x
Cordylanthus maritimus maritimus

TABLE 2

Flowering Plants of Tijuana Estuary

Family Species Common Names Habitat Abundance-
MONOCOTS
Triglochin coninnum Arrow grass-
Juncaginaceae Triglochin -E-ar-itima Arrow grass

Zosteraceae Zostera marina Eelgrass shallow water

Juncaceae Juncus acutus Spiny rush salt marsh

Cyperaceae Scirpus californicus California bulrush brackish pond* 1c
r0yu-stus Al kal i bul rush bracki sh pond* c

Poaceae Bromus mollis Soft chess grassy uplands* c
gromus TrTg-idus Ripgut grass grassy uplands* c
Bromus rubens Foxtail chess grassy uplands* c
Monanthoc littoralis Salt cedar middle marsh* 1
Distichlis spicata Salt marsh grass middle/high marsh* c/lc
Hordeum murMm Wild barley uplands/salt flats* c
Parapholis incurva Sickle grass salt marsh
Spartina foliosa California cordgrass low marsh/middle c/lc

DICOTS

Tamaricaceae Tamarix sp. Tamarisk upland areas* c

Frankeniaceae Frankenia grandifolia Alkali heath midd.le/high marsh c/la

TABLE 2. (Con't)

Family Species Common Name Habitat Abundance

Cruciferae Cakile edentula Sea rocket dune areas* c
(Brassicacene)
Caryophyl laceae Sperguliaria marina Saltmarsh sand spurrey coastal strand

Aizoaceae Gasoul nodiflorum Little ice plant coastal strand
Ta-s-ouT crystal I inum Ice plant coastal strand
Gaso5T chilense Sea-fig dunes and bluffs
Gasoul edule Hottentot fig dune areas

Cactaceae Opuntia serpentina San Diego cholla coastal sage scrub
Upuntla occidentalis coastal pricky pear coastal sage scrub

Polygonaceae Eriogonum fascicalatum Coastal buckwheat upland border* c

Chenopodiaceae Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush salt marsh
AtripTe`x_ watsonii Watson saltbush salt marsh
@triplex -canescens Saltbush coastal strand
Salicorna suFt'erminalis Glasswort high marsh/
salt flats* va
Salicornia virginica Pickleweeed mid marsh/
low and high marsh* va/c
Salicornia bigelovii Annual pickleweed- low marsh/
creek banks* c/la
Suaeda torreyana Torreye sea-blite disturbed high
c/a
Suaeda californica California sea-blite middle/high marsh* 1c/c

TABLE 2 (Con't)

Family Species Common Name Habitat Abundance

Nyctaginaceae Abronia umbellata Beach sand-verbena sand dunes* c

Batidaceae Batis maritima Salt wort salt marsh/strand

Plumbaginaceae Limonium californicum Sea lavender middle high marsh* c

Zn
Convolvulaceae Creassa truxillensis Alkali weed highmarsh/sand flats* 1c

Convolvulaceae Cuscuta salina Salt marsh dodder high marsh* Ic

Boraginaceae Helotropium curassavicum Seaside helitrope strand

Solanaceae Lycium californicum California box-thorn high marsh*

Scorphulariaceae' Cordylanthus maritimus Salt marsh bird's beak high marsh
I (endangered by state) central slough* 1c
Fabaceae Lotus scoparius Deerweed upland brush* c

*Onagraceae Oenothera cheiranthifolia Beach evening primrose dune* c

TABLE 2 (Con't)

Family Species Common Nar@e Habitat Abundance

Asteraceaee Iva hayesiana Southern poverty weed high marsh* r
Franceria, chamissonis Beach sand bur dunes* Ic
Jaumea-carnosa Jaumea low/middle marsh* c
Amblyo pus pusillus Amblyopappus salt flats* c
Haplopappus venetus Goldenbush coastal sage scrub
Artpmpqla calitornica coastal sagescrub I California sagebrushl
Pluchea purpurascen-S Marsh-fleabane brackish pond* c

Key to Abundance

va - very abundant
a - abundant
la - less abundant
c - common
Ic - less common
r - rare

Source of data on habitats:

*Habitat reported in Peta Mudie. Preliminary report of the vegetation of the Tijuana River Estuary.
Unpublished manuscript. No date.

No asterisk indicates habitat inferred from Phillip A. Munz and David A. Keck, A California
Flora and Supplement. University of California Press. 1968.

Source of data on abundance: Mudie, no date.

TABLE 3
Common Algae of Tijuana Estuary

Taxonomic Group Species/(Common Name) Abundance

Diatoms Trachyneis aspera Most common diatom

Denticula subtilis Second most common diatom
Nitzschia vermicularis 1 Diploneis smithilis 1
Nitzschia incrustans 1
Navicula ramosissima 1

Achnanthes sp. #1 1

Mastogloia exigua 1

Nitzschi subtilis 1

Amphora turgida 2

Gyrosigma, obliquum 2

Nitaschia obtusa v. nana 2

Sururella fastuosa 2

Diploneis interrupta 2

Navicula millos 2

Nitzschia longissima 3

Nitzschia punctata v. 3
coaractata

Achnanthes sp. #2 3

TABLE 3 (Con't)

Taxonomic Group Species/(Cotmon Name) Abundance

Nitzschia fonticola 3

Achnanthes brevipes 3

Nitzschia fonticola 3

Achnanthes brevipes 3

Nitzschia fasciculata 3

Caloneis westii 3

Amphora exigua 3

Navicula digito-radiata 3

Rhopalodia musculus 3

Nitzschia angularis 4

Amphora coffaeformis 4

Pinnularia ambigua 4

Nitzschia obtusa 4
v. scapellifomis

Diploneis bombus 4

Nitzschia acuminata 4

Diploneis lineata 4

TABLE 3 (Con't)

Taxonomic Group Species/(Common Name) Abundance

Bluegreen Algae Microcoleus lyngb@aceus 1

Schizothriz mexicana 2

Schizothrix arenaria 2

Schizothrix calcicola 2

Green Algae Rhizoclonium riparium 2

Enteromorpha clathrata v. 4
crinata

Ulva latissima Abundant

Cladophora M. Abundant

Enteromorpha sp. Abundant

Key to abundance

1. Among 10 most abundant species
2. Among 11th to 20th most abundant species
3. Among 21st to 30th most abundant species
4. Among 31st to 40th most abundant species

Source of data on abundance: Joy Zedler. Salt marsh algal mat composition: spatial and temporal
comparisons. Unpublished, San Diego State University. 1979; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1980

TABLE 4

Marine Invertebrates of Tijuana Estuary

Taxonomic Group Species Common Name

PHYLUM ANNELIDA

Capitellidae Notomastus tenuis Red mudworm

Chaetopteridae Chaetopterus variopelatus Parchment tubeworm

Glyceridae Glycera dibranchiata Bloodworm

Nephtyidae Nepthys punctata

Dioptara ornata Shell tubeworm

Onuphidae Diopatra splendidissima Shell tubeworm

Opheliidae Ophelia limocina

Maldanidae Axiothella rubrocincta Joint worm

Owneiidae Owenia fusiformis Sand tubeworm

Orbiniidae Haploscoloplos elongata

PHYLUM ARTHROPODA,

Brachyura Loxorhynchus crispat S Moss crab
Pachygrapsus crassipes Shore crab
Hemigrapsus oregonensis Mudflat crab
Cancer sp. Cancer crab
Sc eropFax granulata Pea crab
Pinnixa franciscana Pea crab
Portunus xantusi Swimming crab
'@peoc-arci-n-us--c-aTiforniensis Mudflat crab
Uca crenulata Fiddler crab

TABLE 4 (Con't)

Taxonomic Group Species Common Name

Anomura Callianassa californiensis Ghost shrimp
Emerita analoga Mole (sand) crab
Upogett a paettensis Blue mud shrimp

PHYLUM MOLLUSCA

Pelecypoda

Mytilidae Mytilus edulis Bay mussel

Ostreidae Ostrea lurida Native oyster

Cardiidae Laevicardium substriatum Egg cockle

Veneridae Protothaca staminea Common littleneck
Saxidomus nuttalli-_ Washington clam
Chione u@d`at_eTT_a_ Wavy chione

Cooperellidae Cooperella subdeaphana

Mactridae Tresus nuttali Gayper

Tellinidae Macoma nasuta Bent-nose clam
Ra-coma -secta White sand clam
Tellina. carpenteri
FTo-rif-m-efis obesa Yellow apolymetis
Apolymetis EEan:julata
Donax californicus Wedge clam

Psammobiidae Tag elus californianus California jackknife calm
Sanguinolaria nuttallii Purple clam

Solenidae Siliqua patula Northern razor clam

TABLE 4 (Con't)

Taxonomic Group speci-es Common Na

Myidae Cryptomya californica False mya

Gastropoda

Cerithiidae Cerithidae californica California ho

Calyptraeidae Crepidula onyx Slipper shell

Naticidae Polinices lewisi Lewis' moon s

Olividae Olivella biplicata Purple olivell
Olivella baetica Beatic olivell

Nassariidae Nassarius fossatus Channeled nassa
Nassarius tegula Mud nassa
Ellobiidae Melampus olivaceus Salt marsh snail

Bullaridae Bulla gouldiana Bubble snail

Actoecinidae Acteocina inculta

Aplysiidae Aplysia californica Sea hare
Aglajidae Navanax inermis Striped sea sl

TABLE 4 (Con't)

Taxonomic Group Species Common Name

PHYLUM SIPUNCULOIDEA

Sipunculus nudus Irridescent peanut wonn

PHYLUM ECHINODERMATA

Dendraster excentricus Sand dollar

Sources: Peterson, 1969; Ocean Scien6e and.Engineering, 1971; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
1980; Rehse, 1981.

TABLE 5
Fishes of Tijuana Estuary

Family & Species Common Name Status

Rhinobatidae
Rhinobatos productus Shovelnose guitar fish R

Myliobatididae
Myliobatis californica Bat ray R

Dasyatididae
Urolophus halleri Round stingray U

Engraulididae Anchoa compressa Deepbody anchovy C
Anchoa delicatissima Slough anchovy C

Batrachoididae
Porichtys myriaster Specklefin midshipman U

Cyprinodontidae
Fundulus parvipinnis California killifish A

Atherinidae
Atherinops affinis Topsmelt A

Syngnathidae
Syngnathus leptorhynchus Bay pipefish U
Syngnathus griseolineatus Bay pipefish

Cottidae
Leptocottus armatus Staghorn sculpin A

Serranidae
Paralabrax clathratus Kelp bass U
Paralabrax maculatofasciatus Spotted sand bass C
Paralabrax nebulifer Barred sand bass C

Scianenidae
Menticirrhus undulatus California corbina U
Genyonemus Tineatus Whitecroaker U

Girellidae
Girella nigricans Opaleye C

TABLE 6

Birds of Tijuana River Valley

Order & Species Common Name Abundance

PODICIPEDIFORMES

Aechmorphorus occidentalis Western Grebe R
Podilymbus podiceps Pied-billed grebe C
Podiceps nigricollis Eared grebe R

CICONIFORMES

Nycticorax nycticorax Black crowned night heron R
Phalacrocorax auritus Double vested cormant R
Ardea herodias Great blue heron R
Butorides virescens Green heron -
Bubulcus ibis Cattle egret -
Casmerodius albus Great egret R
Leucophoyx thula Snowy egret C

ANSERIFORMES

Bucephala albeola Bufflehead R
Mergus serrator Red Breasted merganser R
Melanitta perspicillata Surf Scoter R
Anas acuta Pintail R
Anas carolinensis Green-winged teal R
Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon teal R
Anas american American widgeon R
Anas clypeata Northern shoveler R
Oxyura jamaicensis Ruddy duck -
Aix sponsa Wood duck -
Aythya affinis Lesser scaup C

FALCONIFORMES

Cathartes aura Turkey vulture -
Elanus leucurs White-tailed kite -
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed hawk -
Buteo lineatus Red shouldered hawk -

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order & Species Common Names Abundance

Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk -
Buteo abonotatus Zone-tailed hawk -
Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk -
Parabuteo unicinctus Harris' hawk -
Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle R
Circus cyanues Marsh hawk R
Falco mixicanus Prairie falcon -
Falco peregrinus Peregrine falcon -
Falco columbarius Merlin -
Falco sparverius American kestrel R
Pandion haliaetus Osprey R

GALLIFORMES

Lophortyx californicus California quail -

GRUIFORMES

Rallus longirostris levipes Light Footed Clapper rail R
Rallus limicola Virginia rail -
Porzana carolina Sora -
Gallinula chloropus Common gallinule -
Fulica americana American coot -
Calidris alba Sanderling C
Arenaria interpres Ruddy turnstone R

CHARADRIIFORMES

Recurvirostra americana American avocet R
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer C
Charadrius montanus Mountain plover -
Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated plover R
Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy plover R
Pluvialis dominica American golden plover -
Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied plover C

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order & Species Common Names Abundance

Capella gallinago Common snipe -
Numenius americanus Long-billed curlew R
Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel R
Actitis macularia Spotted sandpiper -
Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet A
Tringa solitaria Solitary sandpiper -
Tringa melanoleucus Greater yellowlegs R
Tringa flavipes Lesser yellowlegs R
Calidris canutus Red knot R
Calidris melanotos Pectoral sandpiper A
Calidris minutilla Least sandpiper A
Calidris mauri Western sandpiper A
Calidris alpina Dunlin A
Limnodromus griseus Short-billed dowitcher A
Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed dowitcher A
Limos fedoa Marbled gotwit A
Philomachus pugnax Ruff -
Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked stilt C
Larus glaucescens Glaucous-winged gull -
Larus delwarensis Ring-billed gull R
Larus occidentails Western gull R
Sterna albifrons Least tern R
Sterna forsteri Forster's tern R
Sterna caspia Caspian tern R

COLUMBIFORMES

Steganopus tricolor Western phalarope -
Lobiped Lobatus Northern phalarope -
Columba livia Rock dove -
Columbina passerina Ground dove -
Columbia fasciata Band-tailed pigeon -
Zenaida asiatica White-winged dove -
Zenaida macroura Mourning dove -

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order & Species Common Name Abundance

CACULIFORMES

Geococcyx californianus Roadrunner -

STRIGIFORMES

Tyto alba Barn owl -
Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing owl -
Asio flammeneus Short-eared owl -

APODIFORMES

Chaetura vauxi Vaux's swift -
Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated swift -
Arch i I ocFu_S_a_I_e_x_an_Tri Black-chinned hummingbird - 1.0
Calypte costae costa's hummingbird -
Calypte anna Anna's hummingbird -
Selasp orus rufus Rufous hummingbird -
Selasphorus sasin Allen's hummingbird -
Cynanthus latirostris Broad-billed hummingbird -

CORACHFORMES

Megaceryle alcyon Belted kingfish R

PICIFORMES

Colaptes aratus Common flicker
Sphyrapicus varius Yellow-bellied sapsucker
Dendrocopos scalaris Ladder-backed woodpecker
Dendrocopos nuttal7ii Nuttall's woodpecker

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order & Species Common Name Abundance

PASSERIFORMES

Tyrannus tyrannus Eastern kingbird -
Tyrannus melancholicus Tropical kingbird -
Tyrannus verticalis Western kingbird -
Tyrannus crassirostris Thick-billed kingfish -
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's kingfish -
Muscivora forficata Scissor-tailed flycatcher -
Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated flycatcher -
Sayornis phoebe Eastern phoebe -
Sayornia saya Say's phoebe -
Empidonax traillii Willow flycatcher -
Empidonax minimus Least flycatcher -
Empidonax hammondii Hammond's flycatcher -
Empidonax oberholseri Dusky flycatcher -
Empidonax wrighii Gray flycatcher -
Empidonax difficilis Western flycatcher -
Nuttallornis borealis Olive-sided flycatcher -
Pyrocephalus rubinus Vermilion flycatcher -
Eremophila alpestris Horned lark R
Tachycineta thalassina Violet-green swallow -
Tridoprocne bicolor Tree swallow -
Riparia riparaia Bank swallow -
Stelgidopteryx ruficollis Rough-winged swallow -
Hirundo rustica Barn swallow R
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff swallow C
Progne subis Purple martin -
Aphelocoma coerulescens Scrub jay -
Corvus corax Common raven -
Auriparius flavceps Verdin -

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order & Species Common Names Abundance

Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit -
Troglodytes aedon House wren -
Troglodytes troglodytes Winter wren -
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick's wren R
Telmatodytes palustris Long-billed marsh wren -
Mimus polyglottos Mockingbird -
Demetalla carolinensis Catbird -
Toxostoma bendirel Bendire's thrasher -
Toxxostoma ridivivum California thrasher -
Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher -
Turdus migratorium American robin -
Hylocichla mustelina Wood thrush -
Hylocichla ustulta Swainson's thrush -
Hylocichia guttata Hermit thrush -
Sialia currocoides Mountain bluebird -
Myadestes townsedni Townsend's solitaire -
Polioptila caerulea Blue-gray gnatcatcher -
Polioptila melanura Black-tailed gnatcatcher -
Regulus calendula Ruby-crowned kinglet -
Anthus spinoletta Water pipit R
Anthus cervinus Red-throated pipit -
Anthus sprangueii Sprague's pipit -
Bombycilla cedrorum Cedar waxwing -
Phainopepla nitens Phainopepla -
Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead shrike -
Sturnus vulgaris Starling -
Vireo bellii Bell's vireo -
Vireo solitarius Solitary vireo -
Vireo flavoviridis Yellow-green vireo -
Vireo olivaceus Red-eyed vireo -

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order & Species Common Names Abundance

Vireo philadelphicus Philadelphia viero -
Vireo gilvus Warbling vireo -
Mniotilta varia Black-and-white warbler -
Helmitheros vermivours Worm-eating-warbler -
Vermivora pinus Blue-winged warbler -
Vermivora peregrina Tennessee warbler -
Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler -
Vermovora ruficapila Nashville warbler -
Vermivora virginiae Virginia's warbler -
Vermivora luciae Lucy's warbler -
Parula americana Parula warbler -
Dendroica petechia Yellow warbler -
Dendroica magnolia Magnolia warbler -
Dendroica tigrina Cape may warbler -
Dendroica caerulescens Black-throated blue warbler -
Dendroica coronata Yellow-rumped warbler -
Dendrocia nigrescens Black-throated gray warbler -
Dendroica virens Black-throated green warbler -
Dendroica townsendi Townsend's warbler -
Dendroica occidentalis Hermit Warbler -
Dendroica fusca Blackburnian warbler -
Dendroica graciae Grace's warbler -
Dendroica pensylvanica Chestnut-sided warbler -
Dendroica castanea Bay-breasted warbler -
Dendroica pinus Pine warbler -
Dendroica discolor Prairie warbler -
Dendroica palmarum Palm warbler -
Seiurus aurocapillus Ovenbird -
Seiurus noveboracensis Northern waterthrush -
Oporornis agilis Connecticut warbler -
Oporornis tolmeiei MacGillivary's warbler -
Geothlypis trichas Common yellowthroat -
Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat -
Wilsonia pusilla Wilson's warbler -
Wilsonia canadensis Canada warbler -

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order & Species Common Name Abundance

Setaphaga ruticilla American redstart -
Setophaga picta Painted redstart -
Passer domesticus House sparrow -
Dolichonyx oryzivorus Bobolink -
Sturnella neglecta Western meadowlark -
Xanthocephalus xanthocephalis Yellow-headed blackbird -
Agelaius phoeniceus Red-winged blackbird -
Agelaius trider Tricolored blackbird -
Icterus spurius Orchard oriole -
Icterus cucvllatus Hooded oriole -
Icterus pustulatus Scarlet-headed oriole -
Icterus bullockii Bullock's oriole -
Icterus galbula Baltimore oriole -
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer's blackbird -
Molothrus ater Brown-headed cowbird -
Piranga Iudoviciana Western tanager -
Piranga rubra Summer tanager -
Pheucticus ludovicianus Rose-breasted grosbeak -
Pheucticus melanocephalus Black-headed grosbeak -
Guiraca caerulea Blue grosbeak -
Passerina cyanea Indigo bunting -
Passerina amoena Lazuli bunting -
Passerina ciris Painted bunting -
Spiza americana Dickcissel -
Carpodacus mexicanus House finch -
Spinus pinus Pine siskin -
Spinus tristis American goldfinch -
Spinus psaltria Lesser goldfinch -
Spinus lawrencei Lawrence's goldfinch -
Chlorura chorura Green-tailed towhee -
Pipilo erythrophthalmus Rufous-sided towhee -
Passerculus sandwichensis Beldings savannah sparrow C
Ammospiza caudacuta Sharp-tailed sparrow -
Pooecetes gramineus Vesper sparrow -

TABLE 6 (Con't)

Order of Species Common Name Abundance

Chondestes grammacus Lark sparrow -
Amphispiza bilineata Black-throated sparrow -
Amphispiza belli Sage sparrow -
Junco oreganus Oregon junco -
Junco caniceps Gray-headed junco -
Spizella passerina Chipping sparrow -
Spizella pallida Clay-colred sparrow -
Spizella breweri Brewer's sparrow -
Zonotrichia leucophrys White-crowned sparrow -
Zonotrichia querula Harris' sparrow -
Zonotrichia altricapilla Golden-crowned sparrow -
Zonotrichia albicollis White-throated sparrow -
Passerella iliaca Fox sparrow -
Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln's sparrow -
Melospiza melodia Song sparrow -
Calcarius mccownii McCown's longspur -
Calcarius lapponicus Lapland longspur -
Calcarius ornatus Chestnut-collared longspur -

Key to Abundance in the tidal portions of Tijuana Estuary: shore, sand and mud channels,
and salt marsh

A - Abundant: over 100 individuals likely to be present in sample
C - Common: between 10 and 100 individuals likely to be persent in sample
R - Rare: between 1 and 10 individuals
- Very rare.

Source of data on abundance: John Boland. San Diego University. Personal
Communication, March, 1981.

TABLE 7

Mammals of the Lower Tijuana River ValleY

Family Species Common Name

Didelphiidae Didelphis marsupialis Opposum

Procyonidae Procyon lotor Raccoon

Mustelidae Mustel frenata Long-tailed weasel
@@ t i -S-ng-ff-it i s Striped skunk
Taxidea taxus Badger

Canidae Urocyon cinereoargenteus Gray fox
Canis patrans Coyote

Felidae Lynx rufus Bobcat

Sciuridae Spermophilus beecheyl California ground squirrel

Geomyidae Thomomys bottae Valley pocket gopher

Heteromyidae Perognathus 10 .membris Little pocket mouse
Perognathim fallax San Diego pocket mouse

Cricetidae Peromyscus californicus California mouse
Peromyscus eremicus Cactus mouse
Peromyscus maniculatus
Microtus californicus

Leporidae Sylvilagus bachmain Brush rabbit
Sylvilagus audubonT Desert cottontail rabbit
Lepus californicus Blacktailed jackrabbit

Cervidae Odocoileus hemionus Mule deer

TABLE 8

Amphibian and Reptiles of the Lower Tijuana River Valley

Family Species Common Name

Hylidae Hyla regilla Pacific treefrog

Iguanidae Sce oporus orcutti Granite spiny lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis Great basin fence lizard
Uta qtanghimiana Side-blotched lizard
Phrynosoma coronatum Coast horned lizard

Anguidae Gerrhonotus multigarinatus Southern alligator lizard

Colubridae Pituophis melanoleucus Gopher snake

Viperidae Crotalus ruber Red diamond rattlesnake
Crotalus viridis Southern pacific rattlesnake

TABLE 9

Archaeological Sites Near Tijuana Estuary

Site Cultural Affiliation Artifacts Conditon

SDM-W-157/SDi-4281 San Dieguito II Manos, metates.
La Jolla II

SDM-W-158/SDi-4281 San Dieguito II and III Metates,
La Jollan II manos.

SDM-W-388 San Drieguito Quarry-workshop.

SDM-W-1243/SDi-4933 Unknown Lithic scatter: No depth
cores/ f I a kes Cores, flakes.

SDM-W-1369 San Dieguito Cores, flakes.

SDM-W-1371 Probably Cores, scraper.
San Dieguito

SDM-W-1372 Probably San Dieguito Lithic scatter:
cores and flakes.

SDM-W-1373 San Dieguito Quarry site: cores
and flakes, debritage.

SDM-W-1374 San Dieguito Quarry site: cores
cores and flakes.

SDM-W-1375 San Dieguito Workshop: cores, Has some depth
Scrapers, hamerstone
and flakes.

SDM-W-1376 Unknown Flake concentrations.

TABLE 9 (Con't)

Site Cultural Affiliation Artifacts Condition

SDM-W-2293 Early Man Single large core

SDM-W-2418 Possibly La Jolla Scraper, flake, core.-

SDi-2611 Pre-*San Dieguito Scrapers, choppers,
fluted cores

SDi-3627 San Dieguito Scrapers, choppers Damaged by
cores, hammerstones, looting.
flakes.

SDM-W-2899 Chopper, Distributed by road
primary flake. construction and
agriculture. 00
SDW-W-2900 Shell, flakes.

SDM-W-2901 Cores, scrapers, flakes. Entirely surficial .

SDM-W-2902 Moderate density Severely impacted
of shell and by a grading road
lithic tools. construction and
agricul ture.

SDM-W-2903 Skill cores, flakes, Little disturbance.
cobble chopper one,
single hammer.

SDM-W-2904 Two hammers and felsite No evidence of
scraper. depth. Limited
disturbance.

SDM-W-2905 Moderate density cores,
flakes, manos, scraper.

TABLE 9 (Con't)

Site Cultural Affiliations Artifacts Condition

SDM-W-2906 Small lithic workshop Disturbed by dirt
a rv i I , cores , hamme rs access road and land
flakes. form modification
but still one of the
most pristine.

SDW-W-2907 Large high density Disturbed by road
scatter. construction and
agriculture.

SDM-W-2908 San Dieguito III Quarry: numerous Largest site,
hammers and cores. comparatively deep.

SDM-W-2418 San Dieguito

SDM-W-388-B Erosional deposits; Extremely impacted.
hammerstone and cores

TABLE 10

Academic Research Conducted at Tijuana Estuary

Research Issue Researchers Funding Report Title and Date

Primary Productivity Zedler, Winfield, and Sea Grant Primary Productivity in Southern
Mauriello California estuary. Proceedings
Coastal Zone 78, 1978.

Primary Productivity Winfield Sea Grant, Joint Chapter on productivity in
Doctoral Assistance Ph.D. thesis.

Salt marsh Zelder, Winfield, Sea Grant Salt marsh productivity with
productivity Williams natural and altered tidal
circulation. Oecologia, 1980

Algal mat Zedler Sea Grant Algal mat productivity: comparisons
productivity in a salt marsh. Estuaries, 1980.
00
C)
Salt marsh community Zedler None Salt marsh community structure in
structure the Tijuana Estuary, California.
Estuarine and Coastal Marine
Science, 1977.

Algal mat composition Zedler Sea Grant Salt marsh algal mat composition:
spatial and temporal comparisons.
Unpublished report, 1979.

Nursery function of Nordby Sea Grant Larval fish use of Tijuana Estuary
the estuary Traineeship M.S. submittal, 1981.

Habitat preference Boland Sea Grant Seasonal abundances, habitat
of birds Traineeship utilization feeding, strategies and
interspecific competition within a
wintering shorebird community and
their possible relationships with
the latitudinal distribution of
shorebird species. San Diego State
University M.S. Thesis, 1981.

TABLE 10 (Con't)

Research Issue Researchers Funding Report Title and Date

Nutrient Mauriello and Sea Grant Nutrient exchange in the Tijuana
exchange Winfield Estuary. Proceedings of Coastal
Zone '78. 1978

Nutrient Wi.nfield Sea Grant Dynamics of carbon and nitrogen
exchange joint doctoral in a southern California salt marsh.
assistantship San Diego State University Ph.D.
Thesis, 1979.

Habitat Use
by Clapper Rails Jorgensen None Habitat preference of the light CO
footed clapper rail in Tijuana
Marsh, California San Diego State
University, M.S. Thesis, 1975.

Endangered species Zedler, Nordby, U.S. Fish and Clapper rail habitat: requirements
management Williams Wildlife Service and improvements, Unpublished
report, 1979.

Effects of disturbance Zedler, Williams, Sea Grant Coastal wetlands management:
on estuarine function Boland effects of disturbance on
estuarine functioning.
Coastal wetlands Zedler, Williams, Sea Grant Annual Report, 1979.
restoration Boland, Nordby,
Rehse

Invertebrate ecology Rehse Dept. of Fish Recovery of commercially
and Game harvestable clams and shrimp
following flooding in Tijuana
estuary. Study ongoing.

TABLE 10 (Con't)

Research Issue Researchers Funding Report Title and Date

Invertebrate ecology Williams Sea Grant Detritus utilization by
Traineeship Mytilus edulis. Estuarine
in-dCoastal Marine Science.
In press. San Diego State
University, M.S. Thesis, 1979.
Invertebrate ecology Homzi.ak, J. SDSU Teaching Substrate relationships an
Assistantship competition among three
species of callianassid
shrimp. San Diego State
University, M.A. Thesis, 1977.
00
SDSU Teaching Pelecypod - sediment relat
Invertebrate ecology Hosmer, S.. Assistantship ships at Tijuana estuary.
San Diego State University,
M.S. Thesis, 1977.
Invertebrate ecology Smith, S. SDSU Teaching The growth and mortality o
Assistantship littleneck clam, Protothaca
staminea Tia Juana slough,
Ca-lifornia San Diego State
University, M.S. Thesis,
1974.

TABLE I I

Summary of Educational Use of Tijuana Estuary

Number of Students Duration of Classes or
Organization Number of Classes Use Topics Comments

Southwestern College, Three field trips are Since 1966 Zoology, Natural History The only significant
Sweetwater Community taken each semester, Field Botany, Marine Biology coastal ecosystem within
College District, 25 students/trip. Field trips to observe convenient distance of
Chula Vista Total 150 students/year migratory birds, waterfowl, Southwestern College
marine organisms, and other (Otten 3-24-81)
flora and fawna 4-3-81 cr)
W
Grossmont College, 450 students/semester Since 1969 Marine Biology, General One instructor used
El Cajon or 900 students/year Biology, Environmental Tijuana Estuary since
Biology. Emphasis on 1960; estimates 1500
adaptions to estuarine students visit the
conditions. estuary in a given

U.C. Extension

Scripps 50 students/year Since 1975 Marine Biology for Teachers, Docent program and
Aquarium Marine Biology for students better management of
& parents, docent educational and research
San Dieguito training natural history use is desirable.
Adult High School (Moore, 3-30-81)

South Bay Union 300 students/year Since 1970 Identification of plants and District interested in
(Elementary) School animals, understanding of developing a field
District, Imperial open space values and plant- guide, similar to the
Beach soil relationships one prepared for South
San Diego Bay. Potential
(Doyle 3-19-81; 4-2-81)

TABLE 11 (continued)

Number of Students/ Duration of Classes/
Organization Number of Classes Use Topics Comments

Sweetwater Union District has 8 high Sweetwater Biology, Advanced Biology, Possible use as high
High School schools with an average High School Environmental Science as 1,500 students/
District, visitation of 2 classes began in 1957 semester once the word
per semester, of 480 gets out. (Doyle 4-6-81)
students/semester or
960 students/year

Coronado City Since 1977 Biology, Special Biology Interest in developing
Schools studies (Tijuana Estuary a mechanism to channel
as a breeding area) funds for educational
programs to schools
districts. (Watson
4-9-81)

San Diego State One or two Visits by Since 1975 Marine Invertebrate Zoology, A field guide is in 00
University a few dozen students Biological Oceanography preparation for
(graduate and under- Thesis Research the general public.
graduate) (Zedler 1-26-81)

40-50 students per year Since 1972 Geography of San Diego Special emphasis on
County, Land Use Planning hydrology and
watershed processes.

University of Since early Environmental Science
San Diego 1970s

University of California 1977-78 Invertebrate Zoology
at San Diego

Point Loma Interest in interpretive
College 1978-79 Marine Biology, Marine center and improved
Zoology, Field Biology management of
for leachers educational use.
(Lewis 3-15-81)

TABLE 11 (continued)

Numberof Students/ Classes/
Organization Number of Classes. Duraton of Use Topics Comments

Southwest Wetlands Field trips on 1980 to Bird Census Christmas Interpretation
Interpretive monthly or bimonthly present Counts
Association basis with 25-75
members. or 600 users/year

San Diego County
Ornithological
Club
or,
U1
Sierra Club Infrequent walks Since 1970s General ecology
up to 100 people

Operation
Wildlife Since 1970s Professionals concerned
about Coast-wide
wetlands issue, Tijuana
example
California Native Small groups 10-15 Since 1970s Native plants, rsp. Interpretation 2nd
Plant Society times per year rare and endangered low level research
plants

TABLE 12

Soil Attributes in the Tijuana Valley and Vicinity

Abr. Location Soil Type Erod. Factor Responsible Hydro Av Ct Tr T F1

CbB Border Highlands Carlsbad gravelly loamy Severe Surface layer texture C - F G - F
sand, 2 to 5 percent slope
CfB Spooners Mesa Chesterton fine sandy
loam, 2 to 5 percent slope Severe Depth to hard rock D - - G F G
Cha Basin east of Chino fine sandy loam Severe Grade of structure C - G G G G
Border Highlands 0 to 2 percent slope in surface layer
CKA Floodplain Chino fine sandy loam Severe Surface layer A Not considered
saline texture arable

Cr Coastal Beaches Coastal Beaches Severe Surface layer A Not considered
texture arable

HrC2 Eastern Border Huerhuero loam, 5-9 Severe Surface layer D F G F
Highlands, north percent slope, texture
side of floodplain eroded
HrDZ2 N. side of Huerhuero loam, 9-15 per Severe Depth to hard rock D
00
floodplain percent slope CY)
Mic Border below Marina loamy course Severe Surface layer texture A G F G F G
State Park sand, 2-9 percent slope

OhC Lower slopes, Oliventrain cobbly loam, Severe Surface layer texture; D - F - - -
eastern Border 2-9 ercent slope Grade of structur in
Highlands surface layer

OhE Eastern Border Oliventrain cobby loam, Severe Grade of structure in D - F - - -
9 - 30 percent slope surface layer

OhF Eastern Border Oliventrain cobby loam, Severe Slope D Not considered
Highlands 30 - 50 percent slope arable

TABLE 12 (Con't)

Abr. Location Soil Type Erod. Factor Responsible Hydro Av Ct Tr T F1

RaB East of Naval Ramona sandy loam, Severe Grade of structure in C - F F F G
Air Station 2 to 5 percent slope surface layer
Rm Smugglers Gulch/ Riverwash Severe Surface layer texture A Not considered arable
Goat Canyon

TeF Spooners, Mesa Terrace escarpments Severe Slope D Not considered arable
Tf Estuarine system Tidal flats Severe Surface layer texture Not considered arable
TuB Floodplain Tujunga sand Severe Surface layer texture A G - F - G

YaA N. side floodplain Visalia sanda loam, Severe Grade of texture in 6 G G G F G
above Tijunga sand surface layer
YbB Valley adjacent Visalia gravelly Severe 8 G G G F G
to eastern loam
Border Highlands

Notes: Erod: Erodability

00
Crop Suitability

Av: Avocadoes
Ct: Citrus
Tr: Truck crops
T : Tomatoes
Fl: Flowers
G : Good
F : Fair
- Not suitable

188

TABLE 13

Proposed Framework for a Research and Education Program1

1. Create a mechanism to enable research findings to be used by the
Sanctuary Management Authority and agencies responsible for managing
resources in the lower Tijuana Valley and watershed. Provide opportunities
for resource managers to investigate research issues, and for researchers,
through analysis of research efforts to provide the results of research
projects and consultation to goverment agencies and the private sector.

3. Invite scientists and advanced students investigating and region
wetlands in Mexico to participate in drawing up a long-term cooperative
research agenda.

4. Assess the feasibility of forming non-profit foundations, with
authority to apply for, accept, and disburse funds for research in Tijuana
Sanctuary.

5. Foster the development of a newsletter to communicate research
findings and important management questions to other groupscharged with
managing estuaries and similar resource areas throughout the State and Mexico.

6. Foster the interaction of scientists and members of the local community.
Invite researchers to discuss the relevance of their work to management of
the estuary, and invite citizens to pose questions about estuarine ecology.

7. Assess the feasibility of creating a single information clearing-
house for Tijuana Estuary, to serve as a depository of all published and
mpublished reports about the system.

8. Work towards a coherent program of monitoring of land use changes,
discharge sedimentation, extent of marsh communities, and water quality
parameters. Pursue interagency agreements and private sources of funds
to make possible an ongoing monitoring program.

9. Prepare guidelines for ensuring that research efforts will be
compatible with long-term resource protection in Tijuana Estuary. New
research proposals should be subject to review consistent with the
guidelines.

1Portions of this table appear in Part II of the FEIS.

189

10. Develop interpretive facilities for Tijuana Estuary, to include
a space for storing experimental equipment, carrying out small experiments,
and briefing visitors.

Research Objectives

Tijuana Estuary is both a representative of other California estuarine
system and a unique subject of research in its own right. For this reason,
a research agenda drawn from both statewide needs and from interests of
scientists familiar with Tijuana Estuary is appropriate.

Statewide Research Objectives

1. Develop a thorough understanding of general estuarine dynamics.

2. Develop an understanding of the role and need for freshwater inflow.

3. Develop sound management schemes for modified estuaries to achieve
the best possible ecological balance over the long term.

(Source: Felix Smith, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Personal
communication, July 28, 1977.)

4. Develop and test methodologies for coastal wetland restoration.

S. Characterize desirable physical conditions for wetlands, including
the extent of tidal prism, nutrient flux, and water quality.

6. Assess the tolerance of marsh plants to salinity changes.

7. Determine expected sedimentation rates under various strategies
for managing the watershed and correlate these rates with disturbance
in the watershed.

8. Assess the tolerance of important benthic species such as ghost
shrimp and clams to overharvesting.

9. Assess the tolerance of wetland wildlife to humans and domestic
animals.

10. Evaluate the compatibility of aquaculture with long-term estuarine
protection and utilization.

11. Evaluate the habitat requirements of wetland wildlife species.

(Source: Bruce Browning, Department of Fish and Game, personal
communication, July 28, 1977; E. C. Fullerton, Department of Fish and
Game, Personal communicatich, July-17,1981.

12. Develop and test methodologies of wetland restoration.

190

Research Needs Identified Specifically for Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary

A fundamental premise in developing a research agenda is that both
long-term study of the salt marsh and examination of the entire wetland
system are essential in understanding estuarine structure and function.
A second'concern is that special emphasis should be placed on research
that will explain the relationships between land use management in the
watershed and the components of the estuary. In support of the goals of
the sanctuary program, studies that test the effectiveness of sanctuary
status as a tool for resource management and open space preservation
should also have high priority. The outline below presents specific
research issues that should be addressed at Tijuana Estuary.

Community Structure and Primary Productivity

1. Given that freshwater inflow is largely responsible for controlling
the structure and function of wetlands in Southern California,, what is the
threshold of freshwater release and restriction that maintain the wetland?

2. Community dynamics are related to primary productivity, which is
in turn related to the physiography of an estuary. How does the food web
change in response to shifts in the relative abundance of flowering plants
and algae in the estuary?

Habitat'Management and Enhancement

3. The relative abundance of important inhabitants of the estuary
(birds, fish, shellfish, selected species) is related to habitat
composition. For a series of management alternatives that favor different
species, what is the optimal mix of habitat types?

Management to Maintain and Enhance Populations of Endangered Species

4. What degree of disturbance can be tolerated by the endangered
birds at Tijuana Estuary: Least tern, Beldings savannah sparrow, and the
Light footed clapper rail?

5. What is the critical size of the Spartina. patch necessary to
attract the Light footed clapper rail? Given the ability to transplant
some area of Spartina, should one establish a few large patches or many
small"patches?

6. When do larger animals (mammals and birds) begin to use new
Spartina patches?

7. What changes in algal mat and invertebrate communities occur on
mudflats as Spartina. foliosa becomes established?

Estuary - Watershed Relationships

8. What important impacts does watershed development have on wetlands
ecosystems? What are the present risks to the Tijuana River for sedimentation,
heavy metals, toxins and pathogens?

191

9. How effective are the erosion control measures in effect for
the lower Tijuana Valley?

10. How do different watershed management practices affect the
rates of sedimentation in the wetlands? What are the strengths and
weaknesses of a program to define state boundaries between riparian
habitat and agricultural land for low flow situations?

11. What are the ecological interactions between the wetland and
upland ecosystems, in terms of the use of habitats by shorebirds, water-
fowl and perching birds, birds of prey, reptiles and mammals?

12. What is the role of.predators in determining the composition of
plant and animal communities?

13. How do various patterns of rainfall and groundwater use affect
groundwater levels and salt water intrusion in the lower Tijuana Valley?

14. What is the long-term effect of upstream dams on the lower basin,
the estuary, and the beach?

Role of Tijuana Estuary in a Larger Ecological Settings

15. What role does Tijuana Estuary play in supporting marine
foodchains through the nursery functions and spawning areas it offers?

16. Current research suggests that food limits Pacific shor'eb ird
populations, and that intertidal habitats are supplemented by river and
pool habitats in providing bird foods. What is the role of the river and
pool habitats in the Tijuana Valley in supporting shorebirds?

17. What is the role of Tijuana Estuary in supporting migratory birds,
as part of the network of wetland systems along the Pacific Coast of
North and South America?

18. What role do insects play in the food web of the salt marsh?
What is the impact of mosquito control on salt marsh structure and
function? What is the most appropriate method of mosquito and gnat
control in the estuary and lower valley?

Nutrient Cycling

19. To what extent does the estuary act as a nutrient sink for
materials borne by fresh or tidal water?

Framework for an Education.Program at Tijuana Estuarine Sanctuary

1. Recognize the different needs of between class visits and tours
by members of the general public, and develop materials and presentations
appropriate for each group.

192

3. Design, install, and maintain a series of interpretive signs
for the wetland environment. Such an interpretive program should confine
the use of signs to a limited area within the wetland ecosystem, and
involve wetlands ecologists in the design process.

4. Design a trail system to protect sensitive habitats and species
while allowing observation of representative portions of the estuarine
environment. Borrowing on the experience of other public access programs
for wetlands, consider a network of wood boardwalks to confine access and
minimize trampling of vegetation.

S. Continue to develop the docent programs, designed to train lay
people as guides to the wetland environment, building on those already
offered by Scripps Aquarium and the Southwest wetland interpretive
Association. Encourage participation of residents of Imperial Beach
and South San,Diego.

6. Prepare illustrated field guides and other written materials,
and print the text and captions in both English and Spanish.

7. Design and develop a site plan for a museum and interpretive
center. Prepare asite plan for an upland area adjacent to the wetlands
considered able to tolerate limited development. Consider siting the
facility in a way that complements other visitor-serving facilities in
Imperial Beach, including a program of urban waterfront restoration.

8. Limit the nature and extent of field exercises that require
collection of samples of vegetation or wildlife to selected advanced
classes.

9. Restrict activities incompatible with education, especially
within portions of the estuarine sys tem best suited to class learning
and field trips.

10. Encourage the participation of the communities of Imperial Beach
and South San Diego, including the local news media, iri all aspects of
the education program.

11. Create a Research and Education subcommittee drawn from local
school districts, community colleges, universities, and envirormental
groups. Develop a mechanism such as a newsletter to communicate with
non-local education.

12. Investigate the feasibility of establishing a non-profit
organization, able to apply for, receive, and disburse grant funds to
foster educational programs at Tijuana River Estuarine Sanctuary.
Seek funding from state programs, such as the environmental license
plate program (environmental protection program) and from private
sources to develop the interpretive facility and trail system.

193

Educational Objectives

Specific educational objectives have been articulated for various

levels of students as follows:

Elementary Level

1. Familiarize students with common plants and animals of the salt

marsh, and enable students to identify the bird species and animals that

inhabit the marsh.

2. Study how certain groups of plants and animals live together

in a common environment, and enable students to understand the role of

plants in protecting soil from erosion, emphasizing that man and animals

depend on the soil.

3. Enable students to understand the values of open space.

4. Study the history and culture of Native Americans who used

the Tijuana River area, including the Oneonb and San Dieguito cultures.

Secondary Level

1. Explain and understand the physiological adaptations for

estuarine life.

2. Study the importance of Tijuana Estuary as a breeding area for

birds, fish, and shellfish.

3. Study the distribution of plants and wildlife in relation to

physical conditions in the estuary.

4. Study the variation of bird and wildlife use of the estuary as a

function of the season.

General Public

1. Explain floodplain management.

2. Explain the effect of urbanization on watersheds adjacent to

marshlands and in marshlands themselves.

3. Explain how natural evolutionary processes effect marshlands.

194

4. Emphasize the relationship between marshland resources and

oceanographic resources.

5. Emphasize the importance of keeping a continuity of healthy

coastal marshland resources in southern California, in the western hemisphere,

and around the world.

6. Provide an understanding of the subtle gradation of plant

comunities and their importance in maintaining ecological stability

in marshlands.

Although extensive use of specific areas of the proposed sanctuary

by elementary and secondary school systems has existed in the past, this

is not assurance that this valuable research area will be available in

future years. Therefore, the only fail-safe mechanism to assure permanent

utilization and protection for public research and educational efforts is

through direct public ownership and management.

195

Appendix C

Estuarine Sanctuary Advisory Committee

Introduction

In developing this sanctuary proposal , the California Coastal Commission
invited representatives of private and public interests to participate in
an Advisory Committee. The main responsibility of this group involved
reviewing alternative proposals for the boundary and management structure
and recommending the alternative that best serves the goals of the groups
represented and the sanctuary program. Membership includes proposed
sanctuary boundaries, agricultural interests, elected officials, local
planning directors, an estuarine ecologist, a representative of local
environmental groups, and several agency staff. The proposed action
described in this DEIS draws heavily on the recommendations of the Sanctuary
Advisory Committee.

Mr. Grant Aldonas Dr. Mike McCoy
Vice Consul Southwest Wetland Interpretive
American Consulate General Association
P.O. Box 1358 c/o 538 12th Street
San Ysidro, CA 92073 Imperial Beach, CA 92032

Honorable Brian Bilbray Mr.. Jim Neal
Mayor, City of Imperial Beach Dept. of Parks and Recreation
City Hall Area Manager, Fontera District
Imperial Beach, CA 92032 Office
2725 Congress St. - Suite 2K
Mr. Larry Dean San Diego, CA 92110
Refuge Manager, Salton Sea
Wildlife Refuge Mr. Jack Van Cleeve
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Chief Planner
Calipatria, CA 92233 Dept. of City Planning
202 C
Ms. Sandra Woodhouse San Diego, CA 92101
San Diego Gas and Electric
P. 0. Box 1831 Mr. Randy West
San Diego, CA 92112 827 Cinnamon Court
Mr. Jan Larsen Chula Vista, CA 92010
Code 1-B, Building 3 Dr. Joy Zedler
NAS North Island Dept. of Biology
San Diego, CA 92135 San Diego State University
San Di ego, CA 92182
Mr. Matt Marshall
Sea Breeze Farm Mr. Paul Zucker, Chief Planner
Hollister Street County Planning Dept.
San Diego, CA 92112 Civic Center
1600 Pacific Coast Hwy.
San Diego, CA 92101

APPENDIX D
196

OWNERSHIP

Lower Tijuana River Valley

Assessor's
Symbol Parcel Number Owner Acres

A. 632-040-03 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

B. 632-040-04 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

C. U.S. Navy, leased to State Dept.
of Parks and Recreation 263.00

D. 635-20-14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 5.21

E. 635-020-10 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 72.72

F. 635-020-04 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 44.28

G. 635-020-16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 33.03

H. 635-020-16 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 15.94

1. 636-101-15 U.S. Government 120.00

J. 636- 01-10 Hollis Peaey .79
1695 19th St., Nestor, CA

K. 636-02-59 Gaylen Watts 10.00
636-02-54/636-02-56 1645 19th Street, Nestor, CA 1.74/1.74

L. 636-02-65 H.M. Davidson
5755 Amarillo, La Mesa, CA 1.17

L. 636-020-60 Carl W. and Shirley Harry 2.31
5918 Wheatstock, Bonita, CA

M. 636-020-66 Clara M. Davidson 2.50
1531 Reoullus Dr., San Diego, CA

N. 636-020-63 Robert Egger Trust 1 .'83
1701 Sauterne Boulevard
San Diego, California 92154

0. 636-020-31 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 20.00

P. 636-020-20 California Leasing Corporation 20.00
11362 Western Avenue
Stanton, California 90680

Total acreage for all U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service holdings: 505 acres.

197

Assessor's
Symbol Parcel Number Owner Acres

Q. 636-020-19 L.M. Trout 7.5)

R. 636-020-48 General Telephone 26.30

S. 636-010-14 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 10.13

T. 662-010-03 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 75.24

U. 662-020-01 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 61.54

V. 662-020-02 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 20.00

W. 662-020-03 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 40.53

X. 662-020-04 City of San Diego 40.41

Y. 663-010-01 City of San Diego 40.00

Z. 663-010-02 City of San Diego 14.77

AA. 663-010-03 City of San Diego 24.62

BB. State Department of Parks and 396.00
Recreation

CC. 662-020-09 Leonard and Ursula Horwin
121 S. Beverly Drive
Beverly Hills, CA (79.00)

DD. 662-020-21 Cesco Development Corp. 9.00
110 West C Street, Suite 1220
San Diego, CA.

EE. 662-020-22 Donald Kenedy, James Vernetti, 70.73
Robert Brandt, et al,
c/o Coronado Realty
1307 Orange Ave
Coronado, CA 9ii18

FF. 662-020-16 Conde Investment Corp. 1.60
111 Elm Street, San Diego, CA

GG. 662-020-13 Randolph and Amelia West, Jr. .60
271 Eucalyptus Court
Chula Vista, CA 92010

HH. 662-020-05 Randolph and Amelia West, Jr. 30.30
271 Eucalyptus Court
Chula Vista, CA 92010

198

Assessor's
Symbol Parcel Number Owner Acres

662-020-06 Randolph and Amelia West, Jr. 10.10
271 Eucalyptus Court
Chula Vista, CA 92010

11. 662-020-12 Ross Spooner, c/o Fern, G.D.N. 39.83
4322 Hortensia Street
San Diego, CA 92103

KK. 663-020-11 79.39

LL. 662-020-23 San Diego Gas and Electric 122.16
101 Ash, San Diego, CA 92101

MM. 662-020-24 Japatul Corp 79.01
P.O. Box 849: San Diego, CA
92101

NN. 662-020-19 Japatul Corp. 2.43
P.O. Box 849, San Diego, CA
92101

.00. 662-020-20 H.G. Chaffee Company 11.40
Bessie Knox & Francis Harris,.
845 Bangor Street, San Diegoj CA

PP. 662-020-14 H.G. Fenton Material Company 32.88
P.O. Box 64, San Diego, CA 92112

QQ- 663-020-12 Raymond A. Hagen 25.00
17067 Marina Bay Drive
Huntington Beach, CA

RR. 663-020-11 H.'G. Chaffee Co., 15.71
Bessie Knox and Francis Harris,
845 Bangor Street, San Diego, CA

SS. 663-020-02 Wirt G. Bowman and J. L. Jaffee 14.30
c/o Tom Lichty, Spreckles Bldg.
Ste. 535, 121 Broadway,
San Diego, CA

TT. 663-020-09 H.G. Chaffee Company 3.63
c/o Bessie Knox and Francis Harris
845 Bangor Street, San Diego, CA

UU. 663-020-10 H.G. Chaffee Company 53.62
c/o Bessie Knox and Francis Harris
845 Bangor Street, San Diego, CA

VV. 663-020-14 State Park 22.40

199

Assessdr's
Symbol Parcel Number Owner Acres

WW. 663-020-04 H. G. Fenton Material Company 2.34
P.O. Box 64, San Diego, CA 92112

XX. 663-020-05 H. G. Fenton Material Company .81
P.O. Box 64, San Diego, CA 92112

YY. 663-020-06 H. G. Fenton Material Company 16.09
P.O. Box 64, San Diego, CA 92112

zz. 663-020-07 H. G. Fenton Material Company .76
P.O. Box 64, San Diego, CA 92112
AAA. 663-020-13 U.S. Military 1.09

200

Ownership

TIJUANA RIVER VALLEY
CORONADO AVE LZGZ-

1st

..........

. ...........
............
............
............
............

...........
E K

.............. P R
...... ..........

.............

x y
0 A A
0 19th ST

.... ........... HH
................... III K K
cc
FF
E E

.... .... ..
GG
M M D D
X: LL
1b
MONUMENTIAVE
PP

00 WW
..... xx
TT
..... 00 STA1
y
UNn ED
UU
R R
MF)(jCO
4P Z Z AAA
.............. J@Wwl
. .............
@N 0 1000 20 00 50 00
Note Proposed boundaries do not encompass FEET
L developed land seaward of 1st St.
Estuarine Sanctuary Preaquisition Study SOURCE:S an Diego County
California Coastal Commission Assessor's Records,
U.S. Navy

201

PART VIII: BIBLIOGRAPHY

Boland, John. Seasonal Abundances, Habitat Utilization, Feeding Strategies,
and Interspecific Competition Within A Wintering Shorebird Community and
Their Possible Relationships With the Latitudinal Distribution of Shorebird
Species, San Diego State University M.S. Thesis, 1981.

Bradshaw, J.S. and P.J Mudie. Some aspects of pollution in San Diego
County lagoons. Cal. Mar. Res. Comm., CalCOFI Report 16: 84-94. 1972.

Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife-California Department of Fish and
Game. Acquisition priorities for coastal wetlands of California.
April 1974.

California Coastal Commission. Staff Recommendation: Tia Juana River
Valley Plan. 1979.

California Department of Parks and Recreation. Resource management plan
and general development plan for Border Field State Park. 1974.

California Least Tern Recovery Team. California Least Tern Census and
nesting survey. U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 1976.

Carpelan, L.H. Physical characteristics of Southern California coastal
lagoons. Lagunas Costeras, Un Simp6sio. Mem. Simp. Intern. Legunas
Costeras, UNAM-UNESCO, Nov, 28-30, 1967, Mexico. D.F.: 319-334. 1969.

City of San Diego, Tia Juana River Valley Land Use and Flood Control
Alternatives. San Diego City Planning Department. May 1973.

City of San Diego Study. Tia Juano River Valley Plan and Environmental
Impact Report, San Diego City Planning Department. January, 1976.

City of San Diego Planning Department. Tia Juana River Valley Plan.
March, 1977.

County of San Diego. Agricultural Crop Report. 1977.

Dexter, D.M. Biological baseline studies of the Imperial Beach
erosion control project area. Final report for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers on Project DAC09-76-M-1323. 160pp. 1977.

Dexter, D.M. The infauna of a subtidal sand-bottom community at Imperial
Beach, California. California Fish & Game 64(4): 268-279. 1978.

Everett, W.T. The California Least Tern. Sterna albifrons browni at
Mission Bay San Diego, California. For H-ub-Us---"!@e-a-Wo-rTTTes-ea-r-c'F
Institute. 1979.

Henrickson, J. Ecology of southern California coastal salt marshes.
In: Plant Communities of Southern California: Symposium Proceedings.
California Native Plant Soc., Special Pub. No. 2. pp. 49-64. 1976.

International Boundary and Water Commission, map entitled, "Detailed Sub-
division of Drainage Areas", dated January 8, 1953.

202

Interna'Cional Boundary and Water Commission, Flow of the Colorado River
and Other Western Boundary Streams and RelJ-ed Data, I.B.W.C., 1972.

International Boundary and Water Commission, Information Brochure,
Tijuana River Flood Control Project, I.B.W.C. United States Section),
Ta-rch1976.

International Boundary and Water Commission, Final Environmental Statement,
Tijuana River Flood Control Project, I.B.W.C. (United States Section),
May 1976.

Intersea Research Corporation, "Nearshore Processes along the Silver Strand
Littoral Cell", prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1974.

Jorgensen, P., Habitat preference of the light-footed clapper rail in
Tijuana Estuary marsh, California. M.S. thesis, San Diego State
University. 115 pp., 1975.

Kennedy, Michael P. and Sean Siang Tan. Map showing character and recency of
faulting in the San Diego area, California. State of California Resources
Agency, Division of Mines and Geology, 1975.

Kennedy, Michael P., Sean S. Tan, Roger H. Chapman, and Gordon W. Chase.
Character and recency of faulting, San Diego Metropolitan Area, California.
State of California Resources Agency, Division of Mines and Geology.
Special Report 123, 1975

Kennedy, Michael P. and E. E. Welday. Recency and character of faulting
offshore metropolitan San Diego, California. State of California
Resources Agency, Division of Mines and Geology, 1977.

LaForce, J.C., "Appraisal of Agricultural Use of the Tia Juana Valley,
San Diego County, California", report prepared for the City of San Diego,
1973.

Beach Leighton & Associates, and Woodward- Gizienski & Associates, Seismic
Safety Study for the City of San Diego, May 17, 1974.

Massey, B.W. The Belding's Savannah Sparrow. For: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Los Angeles District. 1979.

Mauriello, David, and Ted Winfield. Nutrient exchange in the Tijuana
Estuary. Coastal Zone 78, Vol. 111: 2221-2238. Am. Soc. of Civil
Engineers, New York, 1978.

McIlwee, W. San Diego County Coastal Wetlands Inventory. For: California
Fish and Game. 1970.

McIntyre, M. Bruce. The biotic and physical effects of trampling salt
marsh (Salicornia virginica L.) M.S. Thesis, San Diego State
Univers-ity, 97 pp., 1977

Mudie, Peta, Preliminary Report on the Vegetation of the Tijuana River
Estuary. 1971.

New Horizons Planning Consultants, Inc. Border Highlands Sand and Gravel
Resource Extraction Master Plan. Prepared for Conrock Co., Nelson &
Sloan, and H.G. Fenton Material Company. November, 1980.

203

Nordby, Chris, Joy Zedler, Phil Williams, John Boland. Coastal Wetlands
Restoration and Enhancement. Final Report to the Wildlife and Natural
Resource Office, Staff Civil Engineer, U.S. Navy. November, 1980.

Ocean Science and Engineering, "Environmental Inventory of the Lower
Tijuana River Valley", prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1971.

Ocean Science and Engineering. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for
the Proposed Tijuana River Flood Control Channel. Prepared for the Los
Angeles District Corps of Engineers, 1971.

Petersen, C.H. Stability of species and of community for the benthos of
two Southern California lagoons. Ecology Vol. 56: 958-966.

Polan et. al. An Archaeological Reconnaissance of Border Highlands.
Heritage Environmental Services, 1981.

Prestegaard, Karen A. Stream and Lagoon Channels of the Los Penasquitos
Watershed, California with an Evaluation of Possible Effects of Proposed
Urbanization. California Coastal Commission Special Study Series, 1979.

Purer, E. A. Studies of certain coastal sand dune plants of southern
California. Ecol. Monogr. 6: 1-88, 1936.

Purer, E.A. Plant ecology of the coastal salt marshlands of San Diego County,
California. Ecol. Monogr. 12: 81-111, 1942.

Pryde, Philip R., "Examination of the Meteorological Assumptions Underlying
the Derivation of the Standard Project Flood for the San Diego River",
San Diego County Floodplain Technical Committee, October 1972.

Pryde, Phillip R. International approaches to flood control on the Tijuana
River. Unpublished manuscript, 1976

State of California, Department of Fish and Game, At the Crossroads A
Report on California's Endangered and Rare Fish and Wildlife,
January 1972.

State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation. Resource
Management Plan and General Development Plan for Border Field State Park,
1974.

State of California, San Diego County Investigation, Bulletin No. 48,
California Division of Water Resources, pp. 128-130. 1935.

State of California, Water Quality Control Policy for Tijuana River Basin
-in California, San Oiego Regional Water Quality Control Board, 1967.

Stevenson, M. (California Coastal Commission). San Diego County regional
coastal wetlands workshop. Draft working paper-Tijuana Estuary, 1978.

Stewart, J.G. and J.R. Stewart. Evaluation of Tijuana River estuarine
salt marsh, San Diego County, California. For: eligibility for registered
Natural Landmark Designation. For: U.S. Nat. Parks Service, 1972.

204

Tan, Sian S. and Michael P. Kennedy. Geology of National City, Imperial
Beach, and Otay Mesa Quadrangles, southern San Diego Metropolitan Area,
California. State of California Resources Agency, Division of Mines and
Geology. 1977.

White, G.F., "Flood Damage Prevention Policies", Nature and Resources,
Vol. XI, No. 1 (Jan-Mar, 1975), pp.2-7.

Williams, Phil. Detritus util.ization by Mytilus edulis. Estuarine and
Coastal Marine Science, 1981.

Winfield, T.P. and J.B. Zedler. Comparative productivity of salt marsh
vegetation in the Tijuana Estuary (Southern California). Western
Society of Naturalists' meeting presentation (unpub.)

Winfield, Ted. Dynamics of carbon and nitrogen in a southern
California salt marsh. Ph.D. Thesis, San Diego State University and the
University of California, Riverside, 1979.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Survey for Flood Control, Tia Juana River,
California, U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, October 1941.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Report on Flood Control, Tijuana River
Basin, Calif., U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, May 1964.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Soil
Interpretation Study Maps, San Diego Soil Survey Area, JLfly 1970.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey,
San Diego Area, California, 1970.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Threatened
Wildlife of the United States, 1973.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Wayne S. White,
author preliminary Fish and Wildlife Resources of Tijuana Estuary,
California, June 1977.-

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental
assessment: Proposed land acquisition, Tijuana Estuary, San Diego County,
California, 1979.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Proposed land
acquisition: California light-footed clapper rail, 1980.

United States Section, International Boundary and Water Commission, U.S.
Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif., Draft Environmental
Statement, Tijuana River Flood Control Project, San Diego County,
California, 0-74.

U.S. Section, International Boundary and Water Commission. Information
brochure: Tijuana River flood control project San Diego County, California,
1976.

205

United States Section International Boundary and Water Commission. Draft
Environmental Statement. Tijuana River Flood Control Project, San Diego
County, California, January, 1974.

Yamagata, Larry M., Tia Juana River Valley: A Conflict in Change, Master's
Thesis, January 1973.

Zedler, Joy B. Salt marsh community structure in the Tijuana Estuary,
California. Estuarine and Coastal Marine Science, Vol. 5, pp. 39-53, 1977.

Zedler, Joy B. Salt marsh algal mat composition: spatial and temporal
comparisons. Unpublished, S.D. State University, September, 1979.

Zedler, Joy B. Algal mat productivity: comparisons in a salt marsh.
Estuaries, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 122-131, June 1980.

Zedler, Joy B., Chris Nordby, and Phil Williams. Clapper Rail Habitat:
Requirements and Improvement. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Department of the Interior, December, 1979.

Zedler, Joy B., Phil Williams, John Boland. Coastal Wetlands Management:
effects of disturbance on estuarine functioning. Project Report to NOAA
Sea Grant Program, November, 1979.

Zedler, Joy B., Phil Williams, John Boland, Chris Nordby. Coastal wetlands
management: restoration and establishment. Progress Report to NOAA Sea
Grant Program, November, 1980.

Zedler, Joy B., Ted Winfield, and David Mauriello. Primary productivity
in a Southern California Estuary. Coastal Zone '78, Vol. 11: 649-662.

Zedler, Joy B., Ted Winfield, and Phil Williams. Salt marsh productivity
with natural and altered tidal conditions. Oecologia Vol. 44,
pp. 236-240 , 1980.

Zullo, J.M. Lower Tijuana River Valley. A geographical account. Student
Report, San Diego State University, Geography Department, For: Drs. P.R.
Pryde and B.R. O'Brien, 1974.

SUpplemental List of Birds of San Diego County, California.
Trans. San Diego Soc. Nat. Hist. 14(12): 157-168, 1966.

U- S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1981 352-670/8647

W
t .

DATE DUE

I
I
I

GAYLORD No. 2333 PRJUED M U S A
F--

3 6668 14108 0749 @