[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 N. @N 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 \j 41 AX 0.1., - @,f At fit, UA 'Joe- [email protected] 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 i 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. 2 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. 3 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. 5 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 7 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] '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 [email protected] S it YD e Xf, pt. of rk. by I'a a7d t Nz Xy d_ @@[email protected] (Re I t I - X-B A )ry ]tee OC7 7NM st FIGURE 2 9 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. 10 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. 11 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. 12 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. 13 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 14 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. 15 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 0 7 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 17 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 18 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, 19 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. 20 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. 21 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. 22 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, 23 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. 24 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. [email protected] 25 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 [email protected] ONOMA ARIN '@N FRANCISCO AN MATEO SANTA CRUZ %x 7- MONTEREY .L -:IC-SAN LUIS OSISPIO ANTA aARBARA VENTURA OS ANGELES 411461 TiZ. 10 >,4QFIANGE sab D I p. i [email protected],SiN DIEGO vo P Mrsqwd PA m In, 0 .,A U- 4,[email protected]"[email protected] La 'S N QIEGO' [email protected] 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 7 F P I A 1, B F A C A A L 1 2 A T 10 N 34 z I in P11HATE "'Hill [email protected]__"_' Tel 5 3 ,11.4 8 DEld FIFLD ()R N AfAl. 9 0 1000 2000 Soo FEET Source: USGS 7.5' topographic q 28 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. 29 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, 30 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 ;[email protected] WOW "Z* p - 0 R AP % Nzz [email protected] y 0 1-0 0q. ,olo @X IR ;0 V, .0 R 0.0 0. - [email protected] i6r. 0,00 imperial [email protected] .0 -f,NavalAh P 0 10 te(%t P V. i [@'P: :(J 07.0 @5ri 0 t, [email protected]_ 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 W 33 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 36 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) 39 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 [email protected] Suaeda are Cheno-po-dTa-cea; Monanthocloe and Distichlis are Graminae. 40 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. 41 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 [email protected]'-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. 43 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 [email protected]_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. 44 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 45 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. 47 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. 48 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 49 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. 51 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. 52 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. 53 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. 54 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. 55 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. 56 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 57 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 58 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. 59 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. 60 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. 61 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. ............... [email protected] ...................... .. ........ ..... . 40 . ....... :M ........ .. Zt ........... ...... 7=* fl J .77 ........... A. -4 9 alL Al ........... T1 .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 63 (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. 64 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. 65 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. 66 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. 67 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. 69 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 I 70 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 71 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 72 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. 73 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. 74 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. 75 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. 76 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. 77 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. 78 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 [email protected], -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. 79 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. 80 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. 81 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. 82 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. 83 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. 84 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. 85 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 86 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- [email protected] 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 87 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 88 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. 89 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. 90 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 [email protected] 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. 91 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. 92 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. 93 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. 94 37. Michael Bixler Resident, Imperial Beach .Comment: Lives adjacent to wetlands. Discussed the problems associated '@[email protected] 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) . 95 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. 96 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. 97 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. 99 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" 2 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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'[email protected] 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:[email protected] 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 [email protected] 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-. [email protected], 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 [email protected][email protected] 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 [email protected], 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] PH N/1 ECOS C.7 1 Abronia umbellata PH N Pm.7, i.,Rm Lotus sp. [email protected],,111 [email protected] H or PH :V I ECOS [email protected] Lupinus sp. Hor PH N ECOS C,- ONAGRACEAE H [email protected] . :COS [email protected], 7'. Mlelilotus albus Camissonia cheirar-thifolia H P1.15 Melilotus indicus H ECOS F RMS, P!., C:@ I [email protected] @5a, T Camissonia cheiranthifolia PH N Prosopis pubescens T/S N R14B ssp. suffruticosa ECOS E6a [email protected] 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 [email protected], 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. 29 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 [email protected]^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 [email protected]'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 4 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- [email protected] 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 [email protected] [email protected]> 4.1 P. Cd x Cd -4 41 -4 @O @4 co =1 cd F. 4. cd 940 [email protected] a)>a, a) to 41 vru P, ;4 14olu cavm4. v0 MU4) [email protected] o S.CU) [email protected] [email protected] w 0V) 41u F. ewc: Q, woV [email protected] 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 [email protected] F-I0 oD [email protected] r-ZC 40). [email protected] 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 [email protected] q4) 4-p r-I [email protected], 4 4, coV 14 o [email protected] 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 [email protected] ca :3 o ZF. c,o 4 [email protected] :> 4- [email protected] @4-0 @ cd 4-0 [email protected] Zul 0 $4Zo F-.wv0w m [email protected] > 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 [email protected] > 94 0 C [email protected] 0 [email protected] [email protected] r. n4- -Hoo-I'd r. 10o H Wcd r. sd [email protected] 4) A.vmi 0, co c N @q cu 0 '1 4 H [email protected] :1o cr\ [email protected] cd cc, @c 4.) Cd 41 Hw0;@ 4 q... =1 Cd CYN [email protected] r. fo -4 ot,9r (a :3 -4 -4 [email protected] [email protected] 14 [email protected] @c 4 @4 qO Pw @q0 c\) cy t,P to " El [email protected];. 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 [email protected] co 0 > [email protected] QIH [email protected] E. I 1,41 1 1r c; Cd . @40"1 [email protected] -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. [email protected] .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. [email protected] 4) 3: [email protected] 0 o4-1 o r-I 14 4rQc4 4 w to $, o HQ. r-I 43 [email protected] 0 [email protected] [email protected] ca a, to V 1:4 D0C) CO LrN @4 02 41 c:v S4 -4 o E! F- [email protected] V cd vi Acd o [email protected] =1 Htio o=1 00 EZ V a) tu [email protected] 4) [email protected] W 4.1 Oa '1 -4 ;. [email protected] Cd >.'o a) W > f.. Lr\ @i [email protected] =%uCM $4 aj w o.4, v sml w [email protected] 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) [email protected] 4. CIJ @ 43 ooj 14 a) Z., w P. P 0 00 [email protected] 43 -0 Ch -H -H 0. r-4 a)o 03 10 P, " 0 @.' N ;. [email protected] 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 [email protected] $4 0 0 p j'. bD 0X [email protected] C4 H F4 lu r- 19 ow Cd Id z o w a o bo o w [email protected] 4) U3 -H [email protected] 'A Cd a 14 [email protected] :1 [email protected] 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 [email protected] o cd td4edW 0:1, @1! 4) 0 4.) -4 @A 0 [email protected] 'A -4 'n o ca Oo r 0 $4 r. Z0 [email protected] > [email protected] CLO 10 v) r-I :3 0 r. -H 'M o Q.Ao-4- Oo r- oca Cba to >,I o w cu z -H 14 crD " cp\ S cd 94 44 @W [email protected] 9 @q m F. a) o Id vc S u w 14 4) ;4 W4) 114,v0:3 c: 0 oSw0 @4 @q to [email protected] 'i %I v W M43 ca V3 [email protected] IR :! 4.1 CU @@ jCEr.>Oll 0 @.0 F4 3: [email protected] 1 0. ::1 @.l c D Lr\ .j Cd :3 4- E- 0 14 @ 4 4 -1 11 [email protected] o -H I ul [email protected] 0 41 Z o _; clj 4- @ or= Wr- 4. 4, pP. cu :3 ul :5 o = u o mw (o o H cov 4-.4-w-4 cd a 4. v W c- ;.. -4 cd cd 0 w m :% :5 A-4 c: j .'I Fj Cd 43 r-I W CO 4-1 U r-I V Q W -4 [email protected] 41 w r-I 0 A w 43 cu c.1-4 ca r.o ccoW cc @l [email protected] :3 r-0 0 ca P, E4 ca :s c) ca 43tctl Q, -4 '1 'o 4) Go -1 > r-Io c: r= o > ca o 0 .0W 14 ca 04) =1P>v [email protected] 14 @4 41 [email protected] [email protected], CO >@ 10 [email protected] 0 C 4., bo - c6 o 3: @l 0 @lo ca ID to [email protected] 'o 4) cts cd > w o w w cu (d _--c S r_ 4- 4-- -H 4D :3vc: _4 C414) 10 o 4.1 @4 0 co 4) P 4- w 41 0 r= [email protected] -HE S MW M 10 [email protected] ,@ @ 14 4) W W W 0 oCdQo (a to 4A o 4. [email protected] 4) cd 4) [email protected] 00 z to u,\ r-4 r 44 0 ca 4 r Cd :3 @c rA [email protected] >@ @D o -i r_ Ifo @ a) oo r. a Ca o 'o Cr CW41 (V [email protected] 4. oca IJ-4.1 vu Io o lu 4. 4. Ctj ca r z 4, [email protected] W 14co cD c:Q 4) [email protected]@or, @ .(6 bo .2 rl [email protected] to F, 34) 14 (d P 4) 14 '6 p [email protected] 00 C\J 0 W 0 wwz 4oo14c 4)jW 10 41 r4 Z W WO Z [email protected] N: " .a mF. E [email protected] @q a) vc 14 @l c: a,woc: -4 Cd oc lu C: 43 cu M 0 4. r [email protected] [email protected] 4, '10 '0 Q) ::' mp Cd W 16 1 >,,-I V) 41 lo oo wal C: >. c$. t. 'o r-o Wo @ I..v :3 4 m c: IIv 1-1 P> .. o, :5pr= F40co " cd Id0CU [email protected] o o cL " :j 14 b4 C: [email protected] -H 'i [email protected] a :@oI @Ao r-4 , wF4 [email protected] 10 14 -4 0 Z 4) M CdWo > W [email protected] =1 :5 [email protected] 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 [email protected] $4 P P [email protected] 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.,[email protected] 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 [email protected] [email protected] 0 o -H Ca -rA 'D P a\ 0 bO a) @1: r 1z) El mW4 r.cd)0P r'0 @r E- [email protected] 0 W A 3: [email protected], wc 0 F3 $4 0,4 c:u -H CtJ CO40W j:: L.21 (oo a) Cd -4 c> @c r. [email protected] $- -4 0-.. > -14 -4 E o W 4.. cD w . . cd co r: [email protected], [email protected] 4) rA ;@ W o - I. - aI.. m ca a) a)[email protected] CM r_ ;4 cu C ;4 cd a) ca -:4 0 [email protected]: m [email protected] @ EP() @ @CO a\ [email protected] '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 [email protected]/ 4-a ,2 0.2- 3 S' [email protected] + [email protected] d-UA-1 [email protected]@-./ Design Consultant Consultant 57a,, 50 a c,[email protected] rAp 'n AN 4W a-1 -2 a4-zlic; [email protected]@4& a- /@2 .0 Cla /7 a, U.,A-ej Ul 6-Ah 440 4 -Iyj //77 ao 7 Ta6 74eA'[email protected] [email protected] @@tr - 1A O-at AZA&el,@[email protected] "z"""a. [email protected] V"g lo-5-51s 1-7 ISS-e Sa4aeljW ('4,V [email protected]@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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 is 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, [email protected] 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. [email protected] This would, in turn, provide a thorough understanding of [email protected] @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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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) [email protected]@4- LO M 0 0; sz C 03: ;z d c CO (1) 9 3: 3: 0 [email protected] 0, 0Et L) co -D @4 0 P, E 0, [email protected] 11 [email protected] [email protected] C.)S rn W.0 0 r co 10 Cd 0 Cc - +1 [email protected] - V 0) [email protected] 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 [email protected] r. ctS AC041- 41 -H CD :5 Cd s:; p r- w =S cs --i --I (z 31 < oo>;@ -4 Cd a) iD,.H [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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! [email protected] @4 4' Z C) 4- [email protected] 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 [email protected] p 4- Q) E W @4 a r- 0) 0 C) -4 [email protected]! a)0 tv C) [email protected] W M Cd ;4 Cd Q) [email protected] .A P -H M.0 .c [email protected] @Q .0 cd cd tkD M 4) -,q W 4) :1 p," -4 0bL 4- @o Z 0 N 10 4 4- -0 [email protected] a) 4.4oa) @. '0 @40 c: -a ccl G).,q r= H g [email protected] 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 [email protected]) 4-10 m [email protected] cd q -H [email protected] 0 9 S r- cCs [email protected]= 0 0 Cd [email protected] .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 [email protected] a) "[email protected] C,) :5 a H -- Cd V) Cd a) 4- iZ ED 4-4 [email protected] -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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 0 4- 4- [email protected] > 0 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] LO 4, rx, :3 H mj-.H ;4 u a) t%D J"- E @4 -4 @-l P4 [email protected] .0 [email protected] 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 [email protected] r- - W V)@o m [email protected] .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 [email protected] [email protected] 4-1 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 0 E >, -,@ 41 :3 L) .. ac a) [email protected] co -H &0 m 0 @. [email protected] 0,41 [email protected] >1 ;-, 0Z- C3 CS [email protected] cr u Q) -14 [email protected]'.' CP [email protected] M 0 - Cd Cd Cd 0 k U(ri 0 o C, [email protected] 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 $. :3 to m E- 0. "Z 0 41.0 c IH 4-4 Cd 0 Cd E0 a) a) Cd 0 T :3 4. [email protected] G @4 a V V 0 Cd r rc 0 C) a) 0 0 0 W 0L's C) 0 k s.> bD [email protected] -H M 0. 0 a C: Lf, bb 41 [email protected] - 0 " L*J Cd U) 010 L. z [email protected] .1 C. [email protected] 0 0 Q CL bo [email protected] c E'" = Go u a)0 =1 "= Cd E0 E. C) v V, cr 41 < > 0CL - 41 0 0 a) 0) u0 cd Cd w a a w Cd Cd 0 a4l M 41 "0 0CL [email protected] Cc X a) z [email protected] z 0 bD c 0 =1 - 0 a) 04, cr bD 0 C 41 W 1. 00 0 Cd - U,' 41 r- Cd @ W tr @ @c e bD cn @ a)a Cd C (D bo -j 0 r 0) 5: u w z 0 Cd .. " c u m > U r 'o M 0.- C) Cd C) W a a) bc cd LC C; +1 Q) = 41 -Z CS0 C) -0 L. a, c @o Er S. @-4 [email protected] Q) C. a) -C cd G) E 0 0 w M0 = 'Z- 0 n 0) > w C; 0 (n cd m c E Iz V) r.Q -j L) a) -+. cd om G) m 0 cd .4 T$ 0 E co Q)z I-) a) W d - E 0 0 a) U) V) com rd $. a; a) C: Bt @[email protected] tr, .= V'@,-H 0 bD a- Q.- E-1Qc c C0 Cc (1) w $.0 E- - .. 1. [email protected] 41 -) 0 @.. >, Vi cl 0. r 0 [email protected] o ;. x, m , ;@ 0 >1 6 0 Q) 0 [email protected] 0 0. " .0 [email protected], > 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-, ([email protected]!e 1-0'ttr ?T2 /,o Avg 5 3.w J,;ej 0, CA bx2 L-Q D 00 'OL,_ -ttAl CA-) 4L 3. all RD qL [email protected] ail [email protected] 01-i OAI P-A \[email protected]) [email protected] [email protected]@ -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 I 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 - [email protected] @ 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, ,; [email protected] , 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 [email protected] d 0. W v c 4.1c, gal 40 0 4; 09 ar bow QZ [email protected] 06E.4.4oN Mario ut a aso a 00 W10 Ncv E_ LIE 610, 61 A 2 .L:2 Ih 66 [email protected] -h 66 66 M_ [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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_ [email protected] C 11 `6 -r.E Ed buc '0m zed wo== 0 do$- [email protected] 75 = 0, 4 aTo .0v WA cd'f 0 [email protected]@ 0 0 0 v w v 4,1 6 1- a 4, c 30 .0. .0-2 c omBow itwo- [email protected]&.Q. 224 W w- [email protected] 0 C, do Ja_ 'WO a =4.-.! [email protected] [email protected] Z dw -E C, z gcl=-v d2fst- N 39: E.-S 4) PA E 'Zp6Z Z= 3-c z L4 4; :@.9 'a 'a S E .0 a,, v @cv 6. 0 U0 - 4) uv lfcv, =6 2.0 0 x 1. 560.2 c c -c wo z0 VA.C 40M.J.- a 0 A-PIOMWEeiv 'a" 'Su -C5 Wc 0 w ;11 , zd 0 [email protected] OM'a W [email protected] , el Cd [email protected]'zd I. O's [email protected] it -1. ;.1 a 1. 1.:5 c cc cvv .0 0 94 bi CF 9g W 6 z 092w 0 Id 2 @ bow W'.R 0.a 0 C, w s 72 C, W1 Mct_-z.H t6 0 0 E N 2 is cd d.9- do r ZW L. '. E V Oa [email protected] rv- All a .2 -0 1=0 .00, -90 @P. w 6. 40 V vMg :; cdr 0 A I.: .d 0 E 6.5.6 4E -v C-N 6= M*O [email protected] v 601.2 IOU Cc OV b, 5Em E=: v -41 .2 1 E .0 0 I.S4=2=4 Cg , 2L a .8t = 5 v Iva IS" -_ N i, ;h Q z c-w 0 's 206 VS V-- [email protected] 2 a.Q oua2.ov W [email protected] 2 lt, _AS E10 dwo a M d.0 ca --r. , 2EQM 0 -dS E'Co U10 2 r-= -..5 EM. -0 C6 -,% ed .0 C P;M.0 Cd -0 @t tj d dSA-A 20 =M W -9 0 0 N. -2 0 as E @4; -g at d M ag s- w- 0 W'D 0 as, Hot .0 NO 0 [email protected] 0 c I ag0E z C-04 - M we 0,9 E r . .0 r zz . M 'i v d, C20 'M WO E E E E .2s 0 w 04- v 0 S0X882 Lq .2B .1 9'.t [email protected] =.so.% ".0.20 "B= k W C 5; 2 TJ 5 t j; C- ;.S 64 CL) 2 QGj W 5 E z N CA 0M01 cj -Wu g.0 02- W C, E. -17C c;.c .2W ms 0, C4 w 0 c i,W 06 0; C, JzF 14 W 9 '.05 0 W 'Ed W H= W-02 04) WWa vow @ - [email protected] @ FW:h 0 tka -.6 -a Evz- - E E j- L) d- 0 cc e0, r. @ am E- C:5.tjW..Q W0c E 0 2: c 8 1Z; -, R.,Oi I VA VO-3 U=a o Rt,F at S 0 - da N'B it 0 w 0=10, Sto .0 - 0, it =; a C Or- ;. 0- R= 1 2- I.a.C.R w 0.0115 .,1*, [email protected] a .0.82 o 'a W C 04 1"- W as .0 E10-0 01 0 8 `.Z E t 'U'o-Ewl" 0 [email protected] A .0 OP E W, c "57: >W C p g - - Q C IN .0 .0 sw a 'N 4, -C [email protected] ie wm-d>. _S a s rh XZo = M 0 0 . W C W w w Cc$ 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]@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 [email protected]_ 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected], 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 ,[email protected] 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 '4 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected] 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 [email protected]`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. 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. 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 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, 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 .............. [email protected] . ............. @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---"[email protected]'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 0 I t W t . I DATE DUE I I I GAYLORD No. 2333 PRJUED M U S A F-- -- 3 6668 14108 0749 @