TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 3

MARINE RESOURCES MONITORING...... 4

LIST OF REPORTS

 3DJH

ROCKY INTERTIDAL MONITORING REPORT ...... RI-1

SHALLOW SUBTIDAL MONITORING REPORT ...... SS-1

KELP FOREST MONITORING REPORT...... KF-1

LOBSTER MONITORING REPORT...... LB-1

Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The purpose of the Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP) was to dredge up to two million cubic yards (cy) of sand from up to six offshore borrow sites and replenish 12 beaches along the coast of San Diego County from Oceanside to the north to Imperial Beach to the south. Construction started on April 6, 2001 and was completed on September 23, 2001.

During the environmental review process, sediment transport modeling was conducted to determine the eventual fate of the sand to avoid any potential impacts to marine resources. These resources include rocky intertidal platforms, shallow subtidal reefs, and beds. Despite the results of the modeling, concern from commercial fisherman and the resources agencies required that SANDAG prepare a monitoring plan to ensure that there would be no impacts on these resources, and that if significant impacts did result, that appropriate mitigation measures be implemented. This plan was approved by the agencies and its implementation was considered a permit condition. SANDAG is currently implementing the monitoring program to find out how the sand moves from the initial 12 beaches and spreads out along the region's entire 60-mile coastline, and the potential effect on the marine environment.

The location of monitoring sites was determined by the model-predicted sedimentation patterns where partial sedimentation could occur to hard substrate with indicator . Monitoring locations were also established in areas of concern to commercial fisherman. Results from the second year of the four-year monitoring program indicate that there was a fair amount of variability in substrate type and biota between monitoring locations. Also apparent at some locations were annual changes such as seasonal sand transport and increases in several kelp species.

Since implementation of the RBSP, intertidal surveys conducted during Year 2 revealed exceptionally high sand levels at Cardiff Reef, but similarly high sand levels also occurred at the control area (Scripps Reef). Peak sand levels at Cardiff Reef affected a narrow zone of intertidal life that was buried or perhaps scoured (including low-lying , barnacles, anemones, turf , and surfgrass). Sand levels were low at Cardiff the following spring.

Several monitoring locations in the shallow subtidal area have experienced changes in sand cover. Most of these changes were similar to levels observed prior to construction suggesting no impact from the beach replenishment program (i.e., natural sand transport). However, sand levels increased above levels observed prior to construction at one monitoring location at Solana Beach and Batiquitos. Small portions of reef were buried along with several kelp species. Further surveys will document the change in sand cover and attempt to determine if the increase is due to nourishment operations. The largest changes in sand cover were observed at control locations further suggesting there is a great deal of seasonal sand transport in the region, and observations suggest that the majority of the sand has migrated downcoast along the shoreline from the receiver site.

Page 1 This report summarizes the results from the second year of a four-year monitoring program. Therefore, the results are preliminary. Subsequent monitoring will further document the variability associated with each site, and since other beach replenishment projects are being proposed, these data will provide a baseline to document any potential effects.

Page 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The purpose of the Regional Beach Sand Project (RBSP) was to dredge up to two million cubic yards (cy) of sand from up to six offshore borrow sites and replenish 12 beaches along the coast of San Diego County from Oceanside to the north to Imperial Beach to the south. Construction started on April 6, 2001 and was completed on September 23, 2001. Table 1 lists the receiver site, construction schedule, the borrow site used for replenishment material, and the quantities deposited at each receiver site.

Table 1. Regional Beach Sand Project Construction Schedule

Receiver Site Construction Dates Borrow Site Quantity (cy)

Torrey Pines State Beach April 6 - April 26 SO-5 245,000 Del Mar April 27 - May 9 SO-5 183,000 Mission Beach, San Diego May 10 - May 21 MB-1 151,000 Imperial Beach May 22 - June 4 MB-1 120,000 Leucadia June 5 - June 14 SO-7 132,000 Fletcher Cove, Solana Beach June 15 - June 24 SO-5 146,000 South June 25 - July 5 SO-7 158,000 North Carlsbad July 6 - August 1 SO-5/SO-7 225,000 , Encinitas August 2 - August 10 SO-6 101,000 , Encinitas August 11 - August 16 SO-6/SO-7 105,000 Batiquitos August 17 - August 23 SO-7 117,000 Oceanside August 24 - September 23 SO-7 421,000

Total 2,104,000

A joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment (EIR/EA) was prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and the U.S. Navy (Navy) in accordance with the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to address the potential environmental consequences of the dredging and nourishment project. The Draft EIR/EA was released for a 45-day public review period in March 2000 and the SANDAG Board of Directors certified the Final EIR/EA in June 2000. The Navy served as the NEPA lead for the document

Page 3 because they were providing funding for the project. Navy funding resulted from actions associated with the previously permitted USS Stennis Homeporting project. As part of that project, the Navy proposed to use dredged material from San Diego Bay to nourish various San Diego region beaches with 5.5 million cy of sand. After approximately 284,000 cy were placed near Oceanside, Del Mar, and Mission Beach, munitions were found in the dredged material and for safety reasons the material was instead disposed in an approved offshore location (LA-5). However, the Navy still had to fulfill a commitment for beach nourishment and monies were federally appropriated and provided to SANDAG to implement beach nourishment using another sand source.

Based on the Coastal Monitoring Plan prepared by the Navy for sand replenishment associated with the Homeporting project, and approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in October 1997, the EIR/EA provided a framework for monitoring and mitigation for the RBSP. The Final Operations Procedures, Mitigation Monitoring and Contingency Measures Plan for the San Diego Regional Beach Sand Project (Monitoring Plan) identified and outlined the required monitoring prior to, during, and post-construction to meet the conditions of various permits, agreements, and variances including:

• 404 Permit No. 1999-15076-RLK by the USACE; • 401 Water Quality Certification 00C-063 by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB); • Coastal Development Permit No. 6-00-38 by the California Coastal Commission; • Biological Opinion FWS Log. No. 1-6-01-F-1046 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); and • Settlement Agreement between the California Lobster and Trap Fishermen’s Association (CLTFA) and SANDAG.

Pre-construction and construction monitoring efforts were identified to verify that known site-specific resources would not be adversely affected (e.g., water quality, subtidal reefs, and grunion). Post-construction monitoring would document the long-term ramifications of the project and verify no long-term, adverse effect to marine resources, and mitigation was identified in conceptual terms, to be implemented if an impact was identified during the monitoring program.

MARINE RESOURCES MONITORING

The RBSP was the first project of its kind in the San Diego region; however, surveys conducted from previous beach replenishment efforts identified marine resources in the vicinity of several of the receiver sites. These resources included rocky intertidal platforms, shallow subtidal reefs, and kelp beds. During the environmental review process, sediment transport modeling was conducted to determine the eventual fate of the sand to avoid any potential impacts to these resources. Although modeling suggested there would be no impact on these resources, concern from commercial fisherman and the resources agencies required that SANDAG implement a monitoring program to ensure

Page 4 that there would be no impacts. SANDAG is currently implementing the monitoring program to find out how the sand moves from the initial 12 beaches and spreads out along the region's entire 60-mile coastline, and the potential affects on the marine environment.

This report presents results from post-construction monitoring surveys for marine biological resources conducted since implementation of the RBSP. Marine biological monitoring locations were established prior to the implementation of the RBSP to document the condition and state of marine resources. Several of these monitoring locations were established in 1997 for the Navy's beach replenishment efforts, and provide a long-term data set as to the natural variability in the nearshore region. The location of monitoring test and control sites was driven by the model-predicted sedimentation patterns and locations where partial sedimentation could occur to hard substrate with indicator species. The monitoring locations and methodology have also been established based on coordination with the commercial lobster fishermen as represented by Mr. John Guth of the CLTFA.

This report contains four sections pertaining to specific marine resources identified during the environmental review process, and includes the rocky intertidal , shallow subtidal habitat, kelp forest habitat, and lobster monitoring.

Page 5

ROCKY INTERTIDAL MONITORING REPORT

ROCKY INTERTIDAL RESOURCE DYNAMICS

IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY:

CARDIFF, , AND POINT LOMA,

SIXTH YEAR REPORT (2002/2003)

AMEC EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE

Barry Snyder AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. 5510 Morehouse Drive San Diego, CA 92121

U.S. NAVY REPRESENTATIVE

Mitch Perdue, Soil Conservationist U.S. Navy, Natural Resources Management Branch Code 5731 MP, Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 93106

ROCKY INTERTIDAL RESOURCE DYNAMICS

IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY:

CARDIFF, LA JOLLA, AND POINT LOMA,

SIXTH YEAR REPORT (2002/2003)

Authored by:

John M. Engle Stevie L. Adams

Submitted by:

Marine Science Institute Santa Barbara, CA 93106

For:

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. U.S. Navy 5510 Morehouse Drive Southwest Division San Diego, CA 92121 Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1220 Pacific Highway San Diego, CA 93106

Cooperative Agreement Subcontract No. N68711-97-LT-70034 No. 01-32s-71160

August 2003 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES...... 2

LIST OF FIGURES...... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5

2. METHODS...... 6

2.1 RESOURCE MONITORING SITES ...... 6 2.2 TARGET SPECIES ASSEMBLAGES...... 9 2.3 SURVEY PROCEDURES ...... 10 3. RESULTS...... 12

3.1 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND OBSERVATIONS ...... 12 3.2 KEY SPECIES SURVEY DATA...... 15 4. DISCUSSION...... 21

5. CONCLUSIONS...... 27

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...... 29

7. REFERENCES ...... 30 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Key Species Monitored at the Four San Diego County Sites.....……...... 33 Table 2. Rocky Intertidal Survey Plots and Plot Identification Codes...... ……...... ……...... 34 Table 3. Field Activities for the San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Project...... ……...... 35 Table 4. Personnel Participating in San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Surveys...... ……...... 35 Table 5. Fall 2002 Species Abundances in Photoplots....…………………………....……...... 36 Table 6. Spring 2003 Species Abundances in Photoplots…………………………....……...... 37 Table 7. Photoplot Species Summary Data by Site..………………………………………….. 38 Table 8. Photoplot Key Species Summary Data by Quadrat...... …...... 39 Table 9. Fall 2002 Owl Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Cardiff and Scripps…... 40 Table 10. Fall 2002 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Navy North and South.. 41 Table 11. Spring 2003 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Cardiff and Scripps.. 42 Table 12. Spring 2003 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Navy North and South 43 Table 13. Owl Limpet Density and Size Summary Data by Site.....…...... ….…...... ….... 44 Table 14. Owl Limpet Density and Size Data by Plot…………………………………………... 45 Table 15. Fall 2002 Species Abundances along Point-Intercept Transects……………………… 46 Table 16. Spring 2003 Species Abundances along Point-Intercept Transects…………….……... 47 Table 17. Line/Point Transect Species Summary Data by Site……………………………..……. 48 Table 18. Line/Point Transect Key Species Summary Data by Transect………....…………….… 49 Table 19. Black and Ochre Seastar Summary Data…………………………………….. 50 Table 20. Major Temporal Trends in Key Species Abundances …………………………………. 51

2 List of Figures Figure 1. San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Sites..…...... …...... 52 Figure 2. Point Loma Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Sites……………….…………………..….. 53 Figure 3. Cardiff Reef Map……………………………………………………….……………. 54 Figure 4. Scripps Reef Map………….…………………………………………………………. 55 Figure 5. Point Loma Navy North Map: Overview, Area R1, Area R2....…………...... 56 Figure 6. Point Loma Navy North Map: Area R3...... …...... …………...... …...... 57 Figure 7. Point Loma Navy South Map: Overview, Area R1, Area R2.…...……...... …...... 58 Figure 8. Point Loma Navy South Map: Area R3, Area R4...... …………...... …...... 59 Figure 9. Species Abundances in Rockweed Plots at 3 San Diego County Sites………………. 60 Figure 10. Species Abundances in Barnacle Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites…….….….……. 61 Figure 11. Species Abundances in Goose Barnacle Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites……..….. 62 Figure 12. Species Abundances in Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites…………..….…... 63 Figure 13. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Cardiff Reef………………………...... 64 Figure 14. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Scripps Reef…………………………...... 65 Figure 15. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy North…..…………….………..………….. 66 Figure 16. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy South……………………………………… 67 Figure 17. Owl Limpet Abundances at 4 San Diego County Sites……………..……………….. 68 Figure 18. Owl Limpet Sizes from 5 Plots (combined) at 4 San Diego County Sites…………… 69 Figure 19. Species Abundances in Turf Transects at 4 San Diego County Sites………………... 70 Figure 20. Species Abundances in Surfgrass Transects at 4 San Diego County Sites……..……. 71 Figure 21. NOAA Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies: 1993-2003…..…………...... 72

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This annual report provides the results of baseline monitoring surveys conducted during Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 at 4 rocky intertidal sites in San Diego County and compares key species abundance patterns for the 6-year project period. The primary objective is to increase understanding of species dynamics to help assess and reduce human impacts, especially possible effects of the Navy (now SANDAG) Beach Replenishment Project. Cardiff Reef (potential impact site) and Scripps Reef (control site) were established in Fall 1997. Navy North and Navy South on Point Loma (established in 1995) provide additional regional baseline data. Abundances of 14 index species or higher taxa were monitored biannually in fixed plots. Survey data were supplemented by habitat characterizations, species observations, photographs, and videotapes. A section of Cardiff State Beach upcoast of Cardiff Reef received 101,000 cubic yards of offshore sand during August 2001. It was not known if replenished sand reached Cardiff Reef and there was no evidence of sand burial or scour effects on intertidal life at Cardiff Reef in Fall 2001 or Spring 2002, except for a few buried mussels along the offshore reef in Spring 2002. Year 6 sampling, 15-19 months after the sand deposition, revealed exceptionally high sand levels in F02 at Cardiff Reef, but similarly high sand levels also occurred at Scripps Reef, which had not been near any beach enhancement activities. Peak sand levels at Cardiff Reef affected a narrow zone of intertidal life that was buried or perhaps scoured (including low-lying mussels, barnacles, anemones, turf algae, and surfgrass). In S03 sand levels were low at Cardiff and low-moderate at Scripps. Of 14 key species monitored at the San Diego County sites since Fall 1997, 1 species (black abalone) was never found and 4 species (boa kelp, sargassum weed, aggregating anemone, and sand castle worm) were relatively uncommon. Other key species abundances varied little or considerably by plot, site, season, and year. Of the 4 sites, Cardiff Reef, isolated by extensive sand and gravel beaches, experienced the greatest disturbance from storm swells and sand/gravel scour over the 6-year monitoring period. Major trends in key species abundances at Cardiff Reef from Year 5 to Year 6 were decreases in acorn barnacles, owl , and surfgrass. These decreases might be associated with higher sand levels in F02; however, other factors cannot be ruled out. Despite considerable smaller-scale variability, there were no major species abundance differences between Year 1 and Year 6. The other 3 sites also showed smaller-scale variability, but relatively few major trends over Years 5-6. Year 1 to Year 6 comparisons revealed increased rockweed and decreased mussels at the 3 sites, increased acorn barnacles, red turf, and seastars at Scripps, increased owl limpets at Scripps and NN (but decreased at NS), and decreased sand castle worms at Scripps. Seasonal cycles of abundance were apparent over the 6-year period for rockweed, red turf, and surfgrass, with lower cover and poor condition in Spring apparently associated with “weathering” from winter storms. Other storm affects on key species included sand/gravel scour (e.g., in barnacle plots at Cardiff), mussel dislodgement (e.g., at Cardiff and Scripps), and bedrock breakouts (at all sites). Storm effects were patchy and recovery rates variable. Seasonal and annual variability in species abundances at the 4 sites occurred within a larger-scale oceanographic context over the 6-year monitoring period as sea conditions shifted from a long-term warming trend (culminating in the severe 1997/98 El Niño) to a cooler trend characterized by a prolonged La Niña and continued cool or near normal conditions through S03. The cooling trend, coupled with fewer severe storms, apparently benefited some key species, including rockweed, mussels, and seastars.

4 1. Introduction

Bedrock intertidal reefs comprise 14% of the coastline of San Diego County, with the remaining 86% consisting of sand, gravel, or cobble beaches (Smith et al. 1976). Most rocky intertidal shores in the county occur on the Point Loma and La Jolla peninsulas, with relatively few isolated reefs farther north. Intertidal reefs contain rich communities of plants and worthy of preservation. However, tidepools and bench are subject to influences from a multitude of human activities including nearshore shipping, wastewater runoff and outfalls, onshore development, and direct disturbance or game collecting by beach explorers. Effective management of increasingly-valued intertidal resources requires dynamic baseline surveys to determine what is there and to understand how key components of this land/water interface ecosystem respond to natural environmental variations and human impacts.

In July 1997, the U.S. Navy entered into an agreement with the University of California at Santa Barbara (UCSB) to conduct rocky intertidal monitoring for the Navy on the San Diego County shoreline for a period of 5 years, with an option to extend the monitoring for an additional 5 years. In October 2001, the option to extend the monitoring was exercised for a period of 3 years for 2 sites, Navy North and Navy South. Funding to continue the surveys at Cardiff and La Jolla (Scripps) for 3 years was awarded in a separate subcontract to UCSB by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc., under contract to the San Diego Association of Governments. The objectives of these projects are as follows: • To establish/maintain permanent monitoring sites at Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma in order to help assess and reduce human impacts and to document long-term climatic changes. • To assist the Navy in determining effects in condition and (beneficial or detrimental) in relationship to the Navy Beach Replenishment Project. • To identify, quantify, and determine the condition and trend over time of key rocky intertidal resources at Cardiff reef that may be affected by the Navy Beach Replenishment Project and compare finding to three control sites at La Jolla and Point Loma. • To increase understanding of population dynamics of important rocky intertidal species by comparing key species abundance changes among plots, seasons, years, and sites (to the extent possible) throughout central and . • To provide relevant information to resource agencies that will lead to more effective management of rocky intertidal ecosystems.

Assessing ecological conditions is a complex and often expensive undertaking. During the 1980’s, Channel Islands National Park developed a cost-effective intertidal monitoring

5 program that has become a model for rocky shore surveys throughout the Southern California Bight (Richards & Davis 1988; Davis & Engle 1991; Ambrose et al. 1995; Engle et al. 1994a,b; Engle & Davis 1996a,b,c; Dunaway et al. 1997; Engle et al. 1997; Engle et al. 1998a,b; Raimondi et al. 1999). Instead of detailed surveys of all species at many sites, ecological conditions at representative locations are evaluated by concentrating on selected key species assemblages that are monitored seasonally in fixed plots. Qualitative reconnaissance surveys and, where feasible, one-time comprehensive surveys yield inventory data and provide ecosystem perspective for the key species monitoring. The baseline surveys for this study utilized the same key species monitoring approach, thus ensuring compatibility with ongoing studies in southern and central California. Following a workshop five years ago (Engle et al. 1997), a Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Network was established to coordinate related projects at over 50 sites ranging from San Luis Obispo County to the Mexican Border (Dunaway et al. 1997).

This annual report is a joint report for the mutual benefit of AMEC Earth and Environmental. Inc. (for SANDAG) and the U.S. Navy that continues the series of annual reports for the 4 rocky intertidal sites in San Diego County. The Year 6 report provides the results of surveys conducted during Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 and compares species abundance dynamics for the initial 6-year period of the project. The sites at Cardiff and Scripps reefs were established in Fall 1997 to provide baselines for the Navy Beach Replenishment Project (see First through Fourth Year Reports: Engle et al. 1998b; Engle & Farrar 1999; Engle 2000, 2001, 2002). The sites on Point Loma (Navy North and Navy South) had been setup for the Navy in Spring 1995 (Engle & Davis 1996c), with monitoring continued by this study. Three additional sites at the southern tip of Point Loma have been monitored separately for the Cabrillo National Monument and Minerals Management Service since Spring 1990. Data from the Cabrillo National Monument sites are reported elsewhere (Davis & Engle 1991; Engle & Davis 1996b; Engle et al. 1999).

In 2000, the Navy Beach Replenishment Project was converted to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Sand Beach Project. Two million cubic yards of sand were pumped from offshore sites to twelve San Diego County beaches during April to September 2001. The Cardiff State Beach site, located approximately 3,400-4,200 feet upcoast of Cardiff Reef, received 101,000 cubic yards of sand during August 2-10, 2001. This Year 6 (Fall 2002-Spring 2003) Report of rocky intertidal monitoring surveys at Cardiff Reef characterizes biological conditions 15-19 months after the nearby sand beach replenishment.

2. Methods 2.1 Resource monitoring sites Locations of the two rocky intertidal key species monitoring sites established in Fall 1997 to evaluate possible effects of the Navy (later SANDAG) Beach Replenishment Project are 6 shown in Figure 1. Cardiff Reef was near beaches targeted for sand deposition. Scripps Reef was similarly surrounded by extensive sand/gravel beaches, but was not near sand enhancement beaches. Other conditions evaluated in choosing the 2 survey sites included reasonable and safe access, regional representation of stable (bedrock or large boulder) habitats, sufficient abundances of the same key species monitored elsewhere in San Diego County, and adequate bedrock surfaces for establishing fixed plots. The previously established sites on Point Loma, Navy North (NN) and Navy South (NS), also served as baselines for regional key species dynamics (Figs 1,2). General physical and biological characteristics of the 4 San Diego County rocky intertidal monitoring sites are described below. Further descriptions of the NN and NS sites can be found in Engle and Davis (1996c).

Cardiff Reef Cardiff Reef (33.000 N Lat, 117.279 W Lon), locally known as “Tabletop Reef”, is located at the southernmost end of Cardiff State Beach, approximately 100 m south of the parking lot. The relatively small, mostly flat, rocky intertidal benches just offshore of a high seawall are isolated by extensive sand and gravel beaches upcoast and downcoast. The reef is composed of hard sedimentary rock, with the inshore portion overlain with fossilized shells. The site is exposed to oceanic swells (popular with surfers), with parts influenced by sand/gravel movements. It receives heavy visitation; trampling and collecting disturbances are evident.

The innermost portion of Cardiff reef is relatively free of life, apparently due to sand/gravel scour. The upcoast inshore reef edge has a small but dense zone of white acorn barnacles, below which is a larger expanse dominated by slippery films of green and brown slimes. Small to medium-sized clumps of goose barnacles occur along the upcoast exposed reef edge. Just below and offshore is a zone dominated by mostly small mussels in a patchy single layer, many of which are fouled with slimy algae or barnacles. A few relatively small owl limpets are scattered in open patches in the inshore mussel reef. Solitary and clonal aggregating anemones become more common in the lower mussel zone. The next lower reef flat offshore is dominated by thin sand-embedded turf, with clumps of red coralline algal turf, aggregating anemone clones, and surfgrass on the outermost reef margins. Larger bladed algae are notably rare or absent. The isolated mid-tidal reef just downcoast is dominated by mussels, larger and denser than the inshore mussels.

Scripps Reef Scripps Reef (32.872 N Lat, 117.253 W Lon), in the vicinity of “Dike Rock”, is located approximately midway between the Scripps Pier and Black’s Canyon in La Jolla. The reef is part of the Scripps Coastal Reserve. Like Cardiff Reef, Scripps Reef is isolated by extensive sand beaches upcoast and downcoast, and backed by highly erodable bluffs. However, Scripps Reef is

7 larger and more structurally diverse, with medium to high relief boulders and ridges separated by wet channels and pools. The site also is exposed to swells, but inshore portions are partially protected by outer reef. Scripps Reef receives moderate visitation; people have to hike from Scripps Institution or from Blacks Canyon. Visitor impacts may be less here than at Cardiff because of its proximity to Scripps Institution and designation as a reserve.

The larger reef and physical habitat diversity at Scripps Reef support a greater diversity of plants, invertebrates, and fishes than at Cardiff Reef. The prominent inshore bench is dominated by dense cover of white acorn barnacles in the upper intertidal, below which are narrow, often broken, bands of goose barnacles and mussels. Small to medium-sized owl limpets are nestled amidst the mussels and goose barnacles. The lower boulder zone has good cover of encrusting and erect coralline algae, slippery algal films and filaments, and aggregating anemone clones. A few boulder tops are covered with rockweed. The numerous pools contain lush coralline turf, solitary anemones, low bladed algae, sargassum weed, and small fishes. Larger offshore boulders have prominent cover of medium-large mussels, many of which are coated with slimy algae or barnacles. In the low intertidal zone below the outer mussel rocks are various coralline algae, bladed algae, sea palms, and surfgrass.

Navy North The Navy North site (32.693 N Lat, 117.253 W Lon) encompasses approximately 300 m of rocky shore along the base of sheer 25-30 m high sedimentary cliffs in the central portion of the Fort Rosecrans Military Reservation on Point Loma. Navy North and South sites were established in 1995 under a contract with the Navy for baseline surveys. A prominent landmark for this site is the centrally-located pinnacle rock (10 m high; 30 m in diameter). This chimney rock is about 20 m offshore from the main promontory such that it is surrounded by water at high tide. The NN site extends from roughly 200 m upcoast of the chimney rock to 100 m downcoast. The rocky intertidal zone at this site consists primarily of broad, gently-sloping wave-cut benches composed of many horizontal layers of poorly-consolidated sandstone. There are numerous crevices, channels, and pools on the mostly low-medium relief features. There is little sand on this headland shore. The gradual beach slope at NN creates extensive intertidal reef area, extending 30-100 m offshore. The site is fully exposed to swells, but the outer reef margin dissipates some of the wave energy, especially at low tide.

The extensive reef system at NN, with a range of wave exposures and a variety of microhabitats, supports diverse assemblages of intertidal plants and animals. Turf and surfgrass habitats are extensive here, but goose barnacles and mussels are rare. Pink barnacles are more prominent than white barnacles. A full description of this site can be found in Engle and Davis (1996c). Access to this site requires hiking about 1 km upcoast from the shore trail at Navy South.

8 Navy South The Navy South site (32.683 N Lat, 117.250 W Lon) encompasses approximately 250 m of rocky shore along the base of 25 m high cliffs at the southern end of the Fort Rosecrans Military Reservation, 0.25 km north of the northern boundary of the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Facility. A prominent landmark for this site is the narrow promontory separating the broad cove to the south from the narrow access inlet to the north. The NS site extends from about 100 m upcoast of the promontory tip to about 150 m downcoast. Like NN, NS intertidal shore consists primarily of wave-cut benches composed of many horizontal layers of poorly- consolidated sandstone. However, NS has a more irregular shoreline, resulting in greater diversity of physical habitats, and narrower intertidal reefs (5-20 m wide, except for the southern cove where rockweed plots are located), resulting in greater wave shock for benches not protected by headlands.

Overall, the biological character of the reef system at NS is quite similar to that of NN. The same key species assemblages are found at both sites. Like NN, turf and surfgrass predominate, while mussels and goose barnacles are rare. Rockweed is less common at Navy South compared to Navy North, apparently because the inshore habitats are more exposed at NS. A complete description of this site can be found in Engle and Davis (1996c).

2.2 Target species assemblages Ideally one would like to monitor the abundances of all species in an area; however, limited resources require that a subset of the resident species be targeted. Intertidal zonation is frequently characterized by distributions of dominant attached plants and sessile animals (Ricketts et al. 1985). Therefore, a representative group of important taxa (species or species groups), also referred to as “target” or “key” species assemblages, can provide an accurate index of ecological conditions (see Ambrose et al. 1995 and Murray et al. 2002 for discussion). Thirteen index taxa have been monitored at the 3 Cabrillo National Monument (CABR) sites on Point Loma since 1990 (Davis & Engle 1991; Engle & Davis 1996a,b). The same species and species groups monitored at CABR were utilized in this study wherever possible in order to maximize data compatibility. Criteria used for selecting these target species assemblages include the following: • Species ecologically important in structuring intertidal communities • Species characteristic of discrete intertidal heights • Species that have been well-studied • Species especially vulnerable to human impacts • Species practical for long-term monitoring

The index taxa surveyed at the Cardiff, Scripps, NN, and NS intertidal sites are listed in Table 1. In addition to the key species, broad categories (other plants, other animals, other biota)

9 are scored, as well as the amount of tar and bare substrate (rock or sand). The natural history and ecology for each of the key species are summarized in Engle and Davis (1996b).

2.3 Survey procedures The sampling techniques used to survey Cardiff, Scripps, NN, and NS sites were similar to those employed at CABR and elsewhere in southern California to ensure optimum compatibility among studies (Davis & Engle 1991; Engle & Davis 1996a,b,c.) These include qualitative species inventories combined with quantitative cover (for sessile species) or count (for mobile species) data for the index taxa within fixed plots or along fixed transects (see Ambrose et al. 1995 and Murray et al. 2002 for discussion of advantages and limitations of fixed plot sampling). Each site is sampled in Spring and Fall to evaluate seasonal population changes during the periods when maximum differences were expected. Table 1 summarizes the sampling techniques and number of replicate fixed plots for each key species at the 4 monitoring sites. Thirty-one fixed plots and transects have been surveyed at Cardiff and Scripps Reefs since Fall 1997. Thirty-three fixed plots and transects at Navy North and Navy South have been monitored since Spring 1995. Figures 3-8 are site maps that indicate the locations of fixed plots and transects at the survey sites. Plot identification codes are explained in Table 2.

The thirty-one fixed plots and transects at Cardiff and Scripps Reefs were established during October 1997 (Tables 1-2; Figs. 3-4). These permanent sample locations were marked with 3/8 in stainless steel bolts fixed into the bedrock with epoxy. Specific bolts were marked with notches to identify the plot's number (Table 2). In addition, 4 large (1/2 in) reference bolts (also notched) were located throughout each site. These strategically-placed bolts were used as standards for measurements to plots for mapping and efficient relocation, and also as video and photo reference markers. Navy personnel C. Berdzar and E. Steenblock used a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) to acquire latitude and longitude coordinate values for plots, transects, and reference bolts. Distances and bearings were recorded from each notched plot and transect bolt to one or more reference bolts; other measurements were taken between nearby plots and transects. These measurements were used in conjunction with the GPS data and sketches of physical features at each location to produce site maps (Figs. 3-4). Quadrats and transects were drawn onto each site map, with notched marker bolt positions indicated. The 33 fixed plots and transects that continue to be monitored at Navy North and Navy South originally were setup in Spring 1995 (Tables 1-2; Figs. 5-8).

Reconnaissance surveys were conducted during the Fall and Spring surveys whenever possible after key species monitoring was completed. Physical conditions were characterized at each site, including weather conditions, sea conditions, substrate types, presence of tar, and other

10 unusual occurrences such as debris or pollutants. Biological features were noted, including habitat types and zonation, distribution and abundance of species, condition of individuals and populations (e.g., size-structure, color pattern, epiphyte load), and behavior. The presence and activities of birds, marine mammals, and humans were recorded. Representative habitats and microhabitats (e.g., crevices, tidepools, under-rock, under-plant) were explored and species composition noted. Relative abundances (rare, present, common, abundant) for plant, invertebrate, and fish species encountered were estimated wherever possible; these estimates were based on the maximum potential abundance for each species in southern California. Overview photos and/or videos were taken as necessary to document site-wide physical and biological conditions. In Spring 2002, comprehensive marine life surveys were conducted at Scripps Reef by a team from the University of California Santa Cruz as part of a project for the Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Network to compare representative regional sites along the West Coast. The results of these surveys, not yet available, will provide valuable site-wide data on intertidal assemblages at Scripps Reef that will be incorporated in future reports.

Rectangular (50 x 75 cm; 0.375 m²) photoquadrats were used to monitor the population dynamics of 5 relatively small, densely-spaced target species, rockweed (Silvetia compressa, formerly Pelvetia fastigiata), acorn barnacles (Chthamalus spp.), pink-thatched barnacles (Tetraclita rubescens), mussels (Mytilus californianus), and goose barnacles (Pollicipes polymerus) (Table 1). Bolts mark 3 of the 4 corners of each plot (upper left, lower left, upper right). Still photos were taken during each seasonal survey using a quadripod apparatus, which holds a camera and strobe in a fixed orientation over each quadrat. Five replicate photoquadrats were surveyed for each target species (except for goose barnacles at NN and NS; these have 6 replicates for consistency with the Cabrillo National Monument sites on Point Loma (at which 3 band transects were converted to photoplots, with 2 plots per transect)). Species abundance was scored from the slides in the laboratory as percentage cover by the point contact method. The slide was projected onto a grid of 100 uniformly-distributed points. The number of points occupied by key species, higher taxa, tar, and bare substrate were recorded to determine percentage cover of each taxon. After testing in Fall 2002, a digital camera system was used to take all photos starting Spring 2003. The digital photos were scored by superimposing a grid of 100 uniformly-distributed points onto each image on a computer monitor.

The number and size distribution of owl limpets (Lottia gigantea) were monitored within permanent circular plots at all 4 intertidal sites. There are 5 replicate plots at Cardiff and Scripps, and 6 replicate plots at NN and NS (for consistency with the Cabrillo National Monument sites on Point Loma where 3 plots were located on boulders and 3 on cliff faces). Plots were marked with a center bolt, notched to indicate the plot number. All limpets ≥15 mm found within a 1 m (1.5 m at Cardiff) radius circle (3.14 m² area) around each bolt were counted and measured (maximum length in millimeters).

11 Red algal turf (Corallina spp. and other tufted algae), surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp), boa kelp (Egregia menziezii), sargassum weed (Sargassum muticum), aggregating anemones ( elegantissima/sola), and sand castle worms (Phragmatopoma californica) were sampled by line-intercepts (later point-intercepts) along 10 m long permanent transects. Six replicate transects were used at each site. At Cardiff and Scripps, 3 transects represented the middle intertidal zone dominated by red algal turf, and 3 others the low intertidal zone dominated by surfgrass. At NN and NS, 2 transects each were employed for red algal turf and surfgrass, plus 2 additional transects represented the lower half of the low zone, also dominated by surfgrass (at Cabrillo National Monument this lowest zone was previously dominated by boa kelp). In Spring 2002, a third red turf transect was added at NN and NS. Each transect was marked at both ends and the center with stainless steel bolts. From Fall 1997 through Spring 2000, the abundance and distribution of the key species, other biota, tar, and bare substrate were recorded as distances (to the nearest centimeter) along the edge of a meter tape laid out between the bolts. Starting in Fall 2000, this line-intercept method was modified to a point intercept method for consistency with other regional monitoring in the Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Network. Cover of the same list of biota as above was determined by scoring what was found under each of 100 points stratified along the 10 meter tape at 10 cm intervals. A comparison of line-intercept and point-intercept protocols determined that there was no significant difference in results obtained by these two methods (Pete Raimondi, personal communication).

Historically, ochre sea stars (Pisaster ochraceus) and black abalone () were important components of San Diego County intertidal shores (Zedler 1976, 1978). However, these key species have been rare or absent here in recent years. Timed searches (30 person minutes) of likely habitats throughout each survey site were conducted during each sampling period in order to document possible occurrences of species of abalone or sea stars.

During 2002/2003, the Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Network standardized protocols and developed a centralized data management system. This process resulted in slight modifications to the San Diego County sampling that, along with a unified Microsoft Access database, will make it easier to compare key species monitoring data in a regional context.

3. Results 3.1 Field Activities and Observations for Year Five Field activities and observations for Years 1-5 can be found in prior annual reports (Engle et al. 1998b; Engle & Farrar 1999; Engle 2000, 2001, 2002). Table 3 lists the schedule of field activities for rocky intertidal baseline surveys at the 4 San Diego County sites during the sixth year of this study. The surveys were conducted during periods in Fall 2002 (November 2-4) and Spring 2003 (March 14-17) when good low tides occurred during midday hours. Biologists and assistants worked about 6 hr each day (low tide ±3 hr) in the field (Table 4). An additional 4

12 hr each day was spent preparing for field work in the morning and organizing data and notes in the evening. Results from Spring and Fall reconnaissance and key species surveys at the 4 sites are reported below. For ease of presentation, the sampling seasons are abbreviated as, for example, F02 for Fall 2002 and S03 for Spring 2003. Sites are abbreviated as Cardiff (Cardiff Reef), Scripps (Scripps Reef), NN (Navy North, Point Loma), and NS (Navy South, Point Loma).

During each visit to the San Diego County sites, qualitative physical and biological observations were recorded on Field Log data sheets and with photographs. The F97 and S98 monitoring described in the First Year Report (Engle et al. 1998b) occurred during a major El Niño event that included above normal water temperatures, heavy rainfall, and large storm swells. El Niño conditions lessened during the period S98 to F98, though water temperatures remained above the long-term mean. Since F98, temperatures have dropped to lower levels as a result of a switch to La Niña ocean climate that persisted through all of 1999, slowly degraded through 2000-2001, then gradually shifted to a weak El Niño that had little or no warming influence on southern California waters. As a result, the past 4 years have been characterized by cooler or relatively normal seawater temperatures. Storms generally have been few and mild, and rainfall mostly below normal. The 2002/2003 rainfall was normal in amount but abnormal in distribution, with substantial rains in December and February-April, but essentially none in January.

F02 surveys took place during a period of relatively mild sea conditions. There was little evidence of prior storm disturbance (i.e., cleared or overturned rocks, rock break-outs, scour disturbances, patches of opportunistic algae, patches of mussel byssal threads or torn goose barnacle stalks, broken mussel shells, and algal wrack on upper beaches) at the survey sites. At Cardiff, no evidence of storm effects was observed. At Scripps moderate numbers of mussel shells, none obviously fresh, were found in low areas, and occasional small patches of torn-out mussel were noted. At NN one limpet plot bolt was missing and an undercut ledge at the north end of a surfgrass transect broke off. At NS patchy small bedrock break-out spots in owl limpet and surfgrass zones and occasional overturned small rocks were noted.

Sand levels at Cardiff reef in F02 were the highest observed since monitoring began. Table Top projection (with goose barnacle plots 2 and 3) was only 0.5 m above the substrate, compared to 1.1 m in S02, 1.4 m in F01, 1.6 m in S01 and 1.2 m in F00. The roadcut was completely filled in with sand (no obvious gravel or cobble), which was continuous across the reef south of the roadcut. Sand covered the ledge and base of the high-beach seawall. There was light sanding of low spots of barnacle, limpet, mussel, turf, and surfgrass zones on inshore reef, but sand levels were not unusually high on the offshore mussel reef (offshore edge sand levels less than in S02). There was considerable sand cover on inshore reef immediately downcoast of the limpet plots and between the inshore and offshore reefs, but not outside of the offshore reef.

13 The lowest 0.1-0.3 m (vertical) of the mussel zone along the upcoast edge of the inshore reef was buried by sand, with only byssal threads remaining on buried portions. Some sea anemones (live Anthopleura) and barnacles (dead Balanus glandula) were buried as well along the reef edge and in several low portions of the inshore reef flats. Despite the unusually high sand levels at Cardiff, there was little evidence of scour. Many plots in all zones were lightly “dusted” with sand. Turf transects had more sanded turf and reduced cover of surfgrass on transects was replaced by increased cover of sanded turf.

Exceptionally high sand levels also were discovered at Scripps Reef in F02. Not only were the sand levels on the beach downcoast to Scripps Pier the highest since monitoring began (with few exposed rocks evident), but considerable sand occurred in all low areas of the reef. The reef appeared smaller due to sand covering low rocks at the upcoast and downcoast margins. Approximately 0.1 m (vertical) of the lower mussel zone was buried (some live mussels, but mostly byssal threads) at the downcoast edge of the reef, and on larger rocks between the reef and pier. Some lower barnacles and anemones were buried in these areas as well, with a few owl limpets nearly buried. Sand cover was substantially increased on turf and surfgrass transects. Sand burial did not affect higher rocky reef species. Scour effects were not evident. At NN, sand levels were moderately high on nearby beaches, but there was relatively little sand influence on the rocky reef. Lower spots and pools contained more sand and additional sand was evident in the turf zone, but no obvious burial effects were observed. At NS sand levels were relatively low on cove beaches and there was little sand evident on the intertidal reefs.

The S03 surveys occurred after a winter with scattered storms and moderate rainfall, particularly in December and February. A rainstorm occurred during the S03 sampling, with winds and moderate-high surf at 3 of the 4 sites. However, evidence of storm damage since F02 was relatively minimal at all sites. At Cardiff Reef, no significant rock break-outs, scoured surfaces, or other obvious indications of storm disturbance were evident. The bedrock slabs from the breakout discovered in S02 had moved a bit inshore and downcoast. Moderate amounts of fresh drift kelp were present, mostly downcoast of the site. At Scripps Reef there was scattered evidence of storm disturbance. Several small torn-out mussel patches were noted (with fresh byssal threads), and moderate numbers of opened but not fresh mussel shells were found in low areas. A few overturned rocks were found. At NN the only evidence of storm disturbance was a few overturned rocks. At NS several overturned rocks and a few small break-outs in turf and surfgrass zones were noted.

Sand levels were generally low at all sites except moderate levels were noted on the reef at Scripps. There was relatively little sand at Cardiff. Table Top projection was 1.5 m above the unconsolidated substrate, compared to 0.5 m in F02, 1.1 m in S02, 1.4 m in F01, 1.6 m in S01, and 1.2 m in F00. The roadcut contained little sand, and sand levels along the seawall were low, with the ledge fully exposed. Cobble and gravel were scarce at the site. At Scripps sand levels

14 were low on the beach downcoast to the pier, with numerous rocks exposed. Remnant mussel byssal threads were evident along the lower portions of some rocks where some mussels (relatively few) had been buried last fall. At the reef there was moderate sand in the low areas between rocks, but notably less (~0.2-0.7 m less) than the high levels encountered last fall. Occasional turf rocks, sargassum weed, and surfgrass were partially buried. At NN sand levels were low-moderate on nearby beaches, with little sand influence on the reef. At NS sand levels were relatively low in the coves, with no obvious sanding of the reefs.

Visitors were common at Cardiff and Scripps during both seasonal surveys, but only 4 people were seen at NN (3 fishermen in F02 and 1 beachcomber in S03), and none were seen at NS. Often 10-40 people (plus occasional dogs at Cardiff) were present on the reefs at any one time during the low tide surveys at Cardiff and Scripps. Most visitor activities involved walking over the reef, turning over rocks, and picking up shells or animals, but at Cardiff some people collect mussels for bait when they fish from the reef. Also, Cardiff is popular with surfers, with some surfing directly over the reef at high tide. Lifeguards occasionally drive jeeps over the upper shore portion of Cardiff Reef. Heavy construction equipment has been known to cross upper Cardiff Reef, en route to downcoast sites where cliffs were shored up to reduce bluff loss. A few spots of weathered tar were seen at the San Diego sites, but no major concentrations or fresh material.

3.2 Key Species Survey Data The results of monitoring rocky intertidal species assemblages in fixed plots/transects at the 4 San Diego County sites in Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 are presented below, with summary data compared to previous years for each key species (see Engle et al. 1998b; Engle & Farrar 1999; Engle 2000, 2001, 2002 for raw data tables for prior years). Changes in percent cover are presented as differences between seasonal samplings, not as percent of change from a particular season’s values.

Rockweed (Silvetia compressa) Plots emphasizing rockweed were monitored at all sites except Cardiff Reef where Silvetia is absent (Tables 5-8; Fig. 9). At Scripps in F02, rockweed cover increased to the highest value since monitoring began; however, cover declined by S03 to levels similar the previous year. In the 6 years from F97/S98 to F02/S03, rockweed abundance increased from 27% to 65% overall. 3 of the 5 plots showed obvious increases, with the other 2 plots only minimally changed since monitoring began. Rockweed cover at NN and NS was slightly higher than previous year levels (from 76% to 84% at NN and 55% to 62% at NS. Plot 5 at NN has now recovered from losses that occurred after S97. Over the past 6 years, Silvetia cover increased from 42% to 84% cover at NN and from 39% to 62% cover at NS. At all three sites, rockweed cover during the four recent cool-water years (F99-S03) was notably higher than that of the earlier warm-water

15 years (F97-S99). Rockweed did not occur in barnacle or mussel key species plots, except for minor (but increasing) amounts in several thatched barnacle plots at NN. Rockweed exhibited a slight pattern of lower abundance in spring compared to fall. This seasonal pattern is not consistent for all years and is less apparent at NS.

Acorn Barnacle (Chthamalus spp.) Plots targeting the small acorn barnacles were monitored only at Cardiff and Scripps; these barnacles also occurred in low abundance within thatched barnacle plots at NN and NS, and in goose barnacle, mussel, and rockweed plots at all 4 sites (Tables 5-8; Fig. 10). From F01/S02 to F02/S03, Chthamalus cover at Cardiff decreased from a monitoring peak of 62% to 40% cover. Trends were consistent in all 5 plots. At Scripps, where sand scour/burial is unlikely on the high barnacle ridge, acorn barnacles remained at high levels of cover in F01/S02. Declines in the first year of monitoring associated with El Niño storms were less severe, with rapid recovery (<1 year) at Scripps compared to Cardiff (3 years to recovery). Acorn barnacle cover in rockweed, goose barnacle and mussel plots at Cardiff and Scripps was generally low and similar to the previous year. Chthamalus cover in thatched and goose barnacle plots at NN and NS remained at typical low values, and acorn barnacle cover in thatched barnacle plots at NN dropped from higher values last year to near-zero levels.

Pink Thatched Barnacle (Tetraclita rubescens) Plots targeting the relatively large thatched barnacles were surveyed at NN and NS (Tables 5-8; Fig. 10). A few Tetraclita occurred on rock or on mussels in several mussel and goose barnacle plots at all 4 sites. None were found in the acorn barnacle plots at Cardiff and Scripps. At NN Tetraclita cover dropped from 41% last year to 31% now. This year, the pattern of fall declines followed by spring increases in thatched barnacle cover at NN was not evident. In some previous years, seasonal changes were associated with variations in turf algae cover, which covered some barnacles when lush in the fall season. Over the past 6 years, thatched barnacle cover at NN increased minimally from 26% to 31%. At NS, the already low Tetraclita cover dropped slightly from 12% in F01/S02 to 8% in F02/S03. Most of the cover in these plots was turf algae, which tended to fluctuate seasonally (high in fall, low in spring) with bare rock.

Goose Barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus) Goose barnacles were monitored at all 4 sites (Tables 5-8; Figs. 11-12). At NN and NS, 6 replicate plots were surveyed instead of 5 in order to maintain consistency at Point Loma with 3 sites in the Cabrillo National Monument. Pollicipes also were present in the mussel plots at NN and NS, but were rare in these plots at Scripps and Cardiff. Goose barnacle cover was similar or declined slightly at all sites in F02/S03 compared to F01/S02. At Cardiff, goose barnacles remained absent in Plot 2 (where a rock breakout removed the entire plot prior to S02). The other 4 plots were little changed. Plot 1 that had lost all cover from El Niño storm scour after S98, has only recovered one-sixth of its original cover in over 4 years. The losses in Plots 1 and 2 account

16 for the overall small declines that occurred over the 6-year period (from 28% to 18% cover). Goose barnacles are now nearly absent from the plots at NN (1% cover) since losses associated with rock breakouts and clump disappearance, presumably related to storm activity, have not been replaced via recruitment. NS showed declines over the past year from 20% to 13% cover, but Scripps goose barnacle cover remained similar to the previous year. Pollicipes abundance at Scripps changed little over the 6-year period since monitoring began; however, the other sites have shown slight declines from the already low initial plot cover (-10% at Cardiff, -13% at NN, -13% at NS). Goose barnacles in the mussel plots increased 7% at NN but decreased 7% at NS from F97/S98 to F02/S03.

Mussel (Mytilus californianus) Mussel assemblages were surveyed at all 4 sites (Tables 5-8; Figs. 11-12). A second set of mussel plots was monitored on an offshore reef at Cardiff. Mussel recruitment and growth at Cardiff and Scripps over time has caused overgrowth of many plot markers, such that a metal detector was needed to located plot corner bolts. Mussels also occurred in the goose barnacle plots at all sites, though in low numbers at NN and NS. At Cardiff, inshore mussels had declined by 30% and offshore mussels by 20% after El Niño storms between F97 and S98. Since then, the mussels have steadily improved to essentially full recovery by S01, except for inshore Plot 1 (which lost all mussels when a ledge broke out between F97 and S98). Inshore Plot 1 had returned to 62% cover by F02 (compared to 83% in F97), but dropped to 34% cover by S03. Overall inshore mussel cover decreased slightly from S01/F02 to S02/F03 (-4%), yet is similar to the cover 6 years ago when monitoring began. Mussels in the goose barnacle plots (inshore) at Cardiff have shown similar trends of 1997/1998 El Niño losses followed by gradual recovery (by F00 despite slow recovery in Plot 1) and relatively little change since. Offshore mussel plots at Cardiff showed similar patterns of decline after F97 El Niño storms, followed by gradual recovery (offshore Plot 5 which dropped from 83% cover in F97 to 35% cover in S98, now has 80% cover). However, offshore Plot 1 lost 2/3 of its cover after S00 and offshore Plot 3 lost half of its cover after F01, both losses apparently due to storm damage. Despite little recovery in Plots 1 and 3, F02/S03 offshore mussel cover is only 5% below F97/S98 levels. Mytilus plots at Scripps overall declined from 81% cover in F97 to 67% cover in S98 after El Niño storms, recovered to 85% and 93% cover by F99 and S00, then declined since to 47% cover in S02, with only slight increase to 53% cover in S03. The latter declines were due to patchy losses (presumably resulting from storms) in individual plots. Plot 1 lost essentially all mussels after S00 and has regained 24% cover after 3 years. Plot 5 dropped from 90% to 59% cover at the same time as Plot 1, then continued to decline over the past 3 years to the current level of 14% cover. Plots 3 and 4 recovered from El Niño losses by F99, continued to improve until mussel cover reached 100% in F01, then dropped to 35% cover (Plot3) and 73% cover (Plot 4) by S02. Since then, Plot 3 has increased to 59% cover and Plot 4 remains unchanged. Only

17 Plot 2 remained relatively stable over the 5-year period, ranging only between 86% and 100% cover. Mussels in the goose barnacle plots (located inshore) showed less variability that those in mussel plots along the offshore edge of the reef at Scripps. Cover declined gradually from 33% in F97 to 19% in F99, followed by a gradual increase to 29-38% cover since S00. Mussels were rare at NN and NS, with the plots representing some of the few spots with mussel cover. The relatively low mussel cover at NN and NS remained relatively stable from F97-S01 (ranging from 25% to 36% cover at NN and 17% to 23% at NS), then declined to 10% cover (NN) and 5% cover (NS) by S03, apparently due to storm disturbance without recovery. The remaining mussel cover at NS occurs primarily in a single plot (M1). In S03, this plot had 59% mussel cover, while the other 4 mussel plots ranged from 0-3% cover. The low Mytilus cover in goose barnacle plots at NN and NS also has declined in the past 6 years, with mussels completely absent from the Pollicipes plots since S02.

Owl Limpet (Lottia gigantea) Owl limpets ≥15 mm length were counted and measured in 5 plots each at Cardiff and Scripps and 6 plots each at NN and NS (Tables 9-14; Figs. 13-18). Total numbers of limpets reached peak highs in the period F98 to S00 at Cardiff (ranging from162-225), Scripps (433- 503), and NN (403-443), while NS numbers peaked over F98 to S01 (390-476). At Cardiff, declines in the past 3 years (to 75 limpets in F02/S03) were associated with encroachment of mussels into limpet plots. Although the proportion of large (≥ 30 mm) versus small (< 30 mm) limpets at Cardiff varied considerably over the past 6 years (from 30-77%), both size categories generally contributed to the increases and decreases during this period. At Scripps, limpet declines from F99/S00 to F00/S01 were reversed after S01, resulting in new peak numbers in F02/S03. Both small and large limpets have contributed to the fluctuating abundance patterns; however, larger limpets have steadily increased in number (from 89 to 246) and proportion (from 26-46%) throughout the 6 years of monitoring). At NN, limpet counts generally declined from F01 to S03 (both large and small limpets), apparently due to storm damage at various times to several of the plots. At NS, owl limpet abundances declined from F01 through S03. The declines occurred in 4 of the 6 plots and were associated with apparent wave weathering (scour) of the substrate in patches. Both small and large limpets contributed to the recent declines. Overall, owl limpet densities remain above initial F97/S98 levels at Scripps and NN, below initial values at Cardiff, and no net change at NS. From F97/S98 to F02/S03, mean sizes changed from 36 to 32 mm at Cardiff, from 26 to 30 mm at Scripps, from 32 to 36 mm at NN, and was unchanged at 36 mm at NS. During the past 6 years, all sites had limpets as small as 15 mm, with the largest limpets found at NN and NS (61-73 mm), followed by Scripps (43-59 mm), and Cardiff (44-54 mm).

18 Red Algal Turf (Corallina spp, et al.) Red turf is a mixed species assemblage of low-growing algae that carpets the middle intertidal zones of low-relief reefs. In San Diego County this turf can contain as many as 67 types of plants, but often 2 species of erect coralline algae (Corallina vancouveriensis and C. pinnatifolia) dominate (Stewart & Myers 1980; Stewart 1982; Stewart 1989a,b). Turf cover was measured in line-intercept (F97-S00) or point-intercept (F00-S03) transects at all 4 sites (3 replicates each at Cardiff and Scripps; 2 replicates each at NN and NS) (Tables 15-18; Figs. 19- 20). In S02, a third transect was established at both NN and NS to conform to the 3-replicate standard set for point-transects by the Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Network. Red algal turf also was common in the surfgrass transects at Cardiff and Scripps, but was overlain with grass to such an extent at NN and NS that it received low primary cover scores there. During the past 6 years, red turf cover varied relatively little at Cardiff (65-83%), NN (92-100%), and NS (89- 99%), but Scripps was more variable (27-76%). The turf transects at Cardiff, NN, and NS are located on homogeneous, flat bedrock, while transects at Scripps are in a more heterogeneous habitat consisting of mixed boulders and pools. The Scripps transects originally were set up to also monitor sand tube worm mounds (Phragmatopoma californica), but these disappeared after F97/S98, and have been absent or rare since. Since the sand tube worm mounds were lost, variability in turf cover has been less, with more bare rock during periods of lower turf abundance, possibly associated with storm disturbances and sand levels. Lower turf cover in F02 at Cardiff and Scripps was due to sand burial. Also at Cardiff and Scripps, sand turf (a thin layer of algal filaments mixed with sand) occurred as a component of the more erect red turf. Sand turf was scored as a separate category until F01 when it was dropped because there were too many inconsistencies in scoring it separately from erect red turf. There was a tendency for elevated levels of erect red turf cover in fall to alternate with higher levels of sand turf in spring; when both types of turf were combined, most seasonal and annual variability disappeared. It is likely that winter storms erode the red turf down to the form called “sand turf”, which can regrow when sea conditions are more benign.

Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) Surfgrass was targeted at all 4 sites, with 3 line-intercept transects each at Cardiff and Scripps, and 2 inshore and 2 offshore transects each at NN and NS (Tables 15-18; Fig. 20). It also occurred to a minor extent in the turf transects at all sites. During the past 6 years, Phyllospadix cover varied relatively little at NN (79-100%) and NS (82-100%), but was more variable at Cardiff (38-96%) and Scripps (14-52%). The transects at NN and NS are located on flat benches with dense surfgrass cover. Those at the other sites are on flat (Cardiff) or irregular (Scripps) reef edge habitats where surfgrass is patchy. Surfgrass cover decreased from F01/S02 to F02/S03 at Cardiff (from 74% to 43%), increased slightly at Scripps (from 18% to 25%) and NN (from 89% to 94%), and remained unchanged at NS (96%). The surfgrass at Cardiff has steadily declined over the past 2 years to the lowest cover since monitoring began (2 of the 3

19 transects accounted for nearly all the declines). Remaining grass often appeared thinned out, tattered, bleached, or covered with epiphytes. The cover losses included disappearance of rhizomes, precluding rapid regrowth of leaves from rhizome mats. Surfgrass cover at Scripps tended to show a seasonal pattern in cover (higher in fall and lower in spring). Aspects of this seasonality also can be seen in part at Cardiff and to a lesser degree at NN and NS (where grass beds often appeared thinner in spring, yet still covered nearly all the substrate). Some seasonal losses apparently resulted from storm damage; others may have been associated with aerial exposure to midday low tides during winter months. Phyllospadix decreases were generally matched by increases in understory red algal turf cover.

Other Transect Species Boa Kelp (Egregia menziezii), once common in low intertidal transects at the Cabrillo National Monument, was not encountered in transects at Cardiff, NN, or NS, and only occurred as 3% cover in 1 transect at Scripps in F01 (Tables 15-17). Sargassum weed (Sargassum muticum) occurred only in minor amounts (1-3%, except 5-7% at Scripps during F00-F01) in a few turf transects at Scripps and NS (Tables 15-17). Aggregating anemones (Anthopleura elegantissima/sola) were sampled mainly at Cardiff, where they covered 2-11% of the turf transects since F97 (Tables 15-17). Sand castle worms (Phragmatopoma californica) occupied 46% of the turf transects at Scripps in F97, but dropped to 0% thereafter, except for 1-2% cover during F00/F01 (Tables 15-17; Fig. 19).

Black Abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) and Ochre Seastar (Pisaster ochraceus) Black abalone and ochre seastars once were common in San Diego County, but now are absent or rare, to the extent that it was not possible to survey for them in fixed plots. Instead, haphazard timed searches at each site were carried out to document their absence/rarity or possible recovery. No black abalone or ochre seastars were found at NN or NS since monitoring began in S95, nor at Cardiff or Scripps during F97-F98 (Table 19). From F99 to S03 at Cardiff Reef, ochre stars counts varied from 7 to 31 individuals (except for F00 and S03 when 0 and 1 stars were found because poor sea conditions made searching low intertidal crevices difficult). From S99 to S03 at Scripps Reef, ochre stars counts varied from 4 to 26 individuals (except for S01 when no stars were found because strong surf made searching crevices along the outer reef difficult), with generally lower numbers each spring. Although the seastar counts are imprecise due to the large area searched, difficulty in searching crevices, and varying accessibility to the low intertidal zone, ochre seastars have been documented since S99/F99 at the 2 sites with good mussel beds, which the seastars prey upon. The seastars may migrate relatively short distances seasonally, moving a bit farther inshore during calmer summer/fall, then offshore during more stormy winter/spring.

20 4. Discussion

This section synthesizes information acquired during the San Diego County rocky intertidal monitoring surveys with respect to the temporal variability of index species populations and effects of human activities. The natural history and ecology of the index species are summarized in Engle and Davis (1996b). It is important to note that determination of the cause for any abundance change is a difficult process. Much can be inferred from the data and observations during the monitoring, combined with knowledge gained from previous intertidal ecology and impact studies; nevertheless, carefully designed experiments would be necessary to attribute specific causality with confidence. There now are 6 samples from each season during the period F97-S03 at Cardiff and Scripps Reefs. At Navy North and Navy South, there are 8 samples from each season from S95 to S03 (no sample was taken in S96). Navy data from 1995 are discussed in Engle and Davis (1996c). Data from 1996-2002 are discussed in Engle et al. (1999), the First Year Report (Engle et al. 1998b), Second Year Report (Engle & Farrar 1999), Third Year Report (Engle 2000), Fourth Year Report (Engle 2001), and Fifth Year Report (Engle 2002).

During the initial four years of surveys, there was no activity from the Navy/San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Beach Replenishment Project. Therefore any key species changes during that period were due to natural environmental variations or to impacts from other human activities. In 2000, the Navy Beach Replenishment Project was converted to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Sand Beach Project. Two million cubic yards of sand were pumped from offshore sites to 12 San Diego County beaches from Oceanside to the north to Imperial Beach to the south during April to September 2001. The Cardiff State Beach receiver site, located approximately 3,400-4,200 feet upcoast of Cardiff Reef (south of the San Elijo Lagoon mouth and also south of Restaurant Row along Coast Highway 101), received 101,000 cubic yards of sand during August 2-10, 2001. Therefore, the Year 6 (Fall 2002-Spring 2003) rocky intertidal monitoring surveys at Cardiff Reef characterize biological conditions 15-19 months after the nearby sand beach replenishment was accomplished. None of the other 3 sites were near beach replenishment areas (see SANDAG 2000).

The composition and abundance of plants and animals on rocky intertidal reefs can be affected by sand dynamics. Where sand beaches occur near rocky reefs, a typical seasonal cycle of sand movement consists of offshore movement during the winter (due to storm waves) followed by onshore movement during the summer (when storms are less frequent). Alongshore sand movement dynamics are complex, depending on shoreline features and ocean swells and currents (see SANDAG 2000). Sand influence on intertidal reefs includes turbidity, scouring, and burial effects (Daly & Mathieson 1977; Seapy & Littler 1982; Taylor & Littler 1982; Littler et al. 1983, 1991; Murray & Bray 1993). Three types of organisms often dominate intertidal

21 reefs heavily influenced by sand: 1) opportunistic species that are able to quickly establish populations on disturbed rocks, 2) resistant species that can tolerate sand scour and burial, and 3) “sand-loving” species that for various reasons thrive on sanded reefs (Murray & Bray 1993). Opportunistic species include green sea lettuce types (Ulva spp. and Enteromorpha spp.), ephemeral filamentous , white acorn barnacles (Chthamalus spp.), and sand castle worms (Phragmatopoma californica). Resistant species include tough crusts, turfs of erect coralline algae, and aggregating anemones (Anthopleura elegantissima/sola). Sand-loving species include a variety of brown and red algae, as well as surfgrass (Littler et al. 1983). Lower- relief reefs are most affected by sand disturbance, while higher-relief reefs are more likely to remain above the sand and be dominated by longer-lived species such as mussels, owl limpets, and goose barnacles (Littler et al. 1983).

Changes in key species abundances at Cardiff Reef could indicate effects from beach replenishment if the added sand reached the reef, if other possible causes for the changes were unlikely, and if these changes were substantially different in direction or magnitude than any at Scripps or the 2 Point Loma sites. Separate studies by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for SANDAG will determine the likelihood of replenished sand having reached Cardiff Reef. Sand levels found during F01 and S02, approximately 3 and 7 months after the upcoast sand deposition, did not exceed maximum levels observed during previous biannual surveys. The F01 sand levels were only moderately high, well within the range typical levels for that time of year (e.g., F00 sand levels were higher than F01). Also, in July 2001, 1 month before upcoast beach replenishment, already high sand levels were photographed by Bonnie Becker (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). However, the sand levels at Cardiff in S02 were higher than expected. Typically, sand levels are low in spring (due to beach loss resulting from winter storms), but S02 levels were slightly higher than F01 and comparable to F00 levels despite the evidence that at least one storm had occurred (a couple of large rock slabs had broken off and moved, yet still contained live mussels and other organisms). None of the fixed plots or transects were buried in S02 and there was relatively little sand by the seawall. Sand levels along the offshore edge of the offshore mussel reef extended up to the lower edge of the mussel zone, with occasional mussels buried. Except for the few buried mussels, there was no obvious evidence of sand burial or scour on the marine life at Cardiff Reef. In fact, acorn barnacle cover doubled from Year 4 to Year 5, having now recovered from El Niño storm scour losses in late 1997/early 1998. The surfgrass at Cardiff in S02 appeared thinned out and tattered, with lower cover. This condition was typically observed, to varying degrees, in spring surveys, presumably caused by winter storms and/or sun exposure during particularly low midday tides.

Sand levels at Cardiff reef in F02 were the highest observed since monitoring began. The source of this sand is not known; however, exceptionally high sand levels also were discovered at Scripps Reef in F02. Since Scripps Reef is not near any previous sand deposition sites, the

22 most likely cause for the high sand levels at these 2 sites was unusually calm sea conditions that allowed sand to accumulate on shore. By S03, sand levels returned to expected seasonal low levels at Cardiff, but were only moderately low at Scripps. There is little sand in the vicinity of the extensive rocky reefs at NN and NS on Point Loma, so it is not surprising that sand influence is less of a factor at these sites.

The peak levels of sand on Cardiff and Scripps Reefs in F02 provided an opportunity to document sand burial effects. The presence of mussel byssal threads, and dead barnacle tests along the relatively few reef areas newly buried by sand indicated that sand burial can kill mussels and barnacles. Barnacles are capable of rapid recovery, but mussels can take many years to recover. Sand burial and scour can determine the lower limit of such species assemblages. Large swells in association with high sand levels would exacerbate deleterious effects due to increased sand scour, though swells would eventually move more sand offshore. Sand-adapted species such as some turf algae, aggregating anemones and surfgrass should be less affected by sand burial, especially if the burial is not prolonged. Low areas of the turf transects at Cardiff and Scripps were buried in F02, with turf cover reduced. These values largely rebounded by S03, except sand still covered some portions of transects at Scripps. Surfgrass cover declined notably at Cardiff in F02, but only in 2 of the 3 transects, both of which showed further declines by S03 while the third transect remained at high cover levels. Surfgrass transects at Scripps Reef had declined prior to F02, and actually increased in cover with the higher sand levels. It is possible, but not known that surfgrass losses at Cardiff in F02 were caused by higher sand levels or scour. In any case, it is not unusual for surfgrass growing at the upper fringe of its zone to fluctuate in cover as physical conditions vary.

Table 20 summarizes broad-scale temporal trends in key species abundances at the 4 San Diego County rocky intertidal sites with respect to Year 6 survey results. Data for Fall and Spring surveys were combined for a given year to remove seasonal fluctuations (this also averaged out some of the effect of the El Niño storms in Year 1). Major trends (increasing, decreasing, or no change) (“no change” was defined as changes in % cover ≤15 or changes in counts of ≤10 individuals/plot) are listed separately for Years 5-6 (F01/S02 to F02/S03), Years 4-6 (F00/S01 to F02/S03, and Years 1-6 (F97/S98 to F02/S03) to reflect patterns at annual and multi-year intervals. Of 14 key species monitored at the San Diego County sites since F97, 1 species (black abalone) was never found and 4 species (boa kelp, sargassum weed, aggregating anemone, and sand castle worms) were relatively uncommon. For 7 target species monitored at Cardiff Reef (rockweed and thatched barnacles were not targeted at Cardiff), major trends over the past year were as follows: 1) goose barnacles, mussels, and red turf did not show major changes in abundance from F01/S02 to F02/S03; 2) acorn barnacles, owl limpets, surfgrass, and ochre seastars decreased in abundance; and 3) no species increased substantially. The ochre seastar decline could be an artifact of the inability to adequately search appropriate habitats due

23 to heavy surf in S03. Though abundances of key species varied over the past 5 years at Cardiff, comparison of broad-scale Year 1 to Year 6 levels revealed that the populations of key species were relatively unchanged.

Scripps Reef, the next closest monitoring site to Cardiff, also bordered by sand beaches, and also open to public visitation, showed both similarities and differences in major species trends to Cardiff over the past year and the past 6 years (Table 20). Differences among sites are not unexpected due to the complex of physical and biological interactions that occur at each rocky intertidal location and the patchiness of some disturbance effects (e.g., storm damage). At Scripps broad-scale abundances changed relatively little over the past year for all common key species except for owl limpets which increased to the highest densities since monitoring began. However, over the 6-year monitoring period, 5 of the target species (rockweed, acorn barnacle, owl limpet, red turf, and ochre seastars) increased in abundances, while mussels and sand castle worms declined and goose barnacles and surfgrass levels were unchanged. Notable differences in trends between Cardiff and Scripps include acorn barnacles, owl limpets, and surfgrass, all of which have some differences in microhabitats between the 2 sites. The acorn barnacles on low relief reef at Cardiff are more susceptible to sand/gravel scour than those on the more stable, high relief ridge at Scripps. The low relief mussel zone habitat at Cardiff is marginal for owl limpets compared to the high relief, crevice-rich ridge at Scripps. The surfgrass zone is marginal at both sites, but the low relief surfgrass habitat at Cardiff is more susceptible to sand influence than the medium relief boulder habitat at Scripps. Sand castle worms, targeted only at Scripps, were decimated following the F97/S98 El Niño storms, and have shown little recovery 5 years later. Sand castle worms are capable of rapid recolonization if conditions permit. Sand castle worm mounds also are vulnerable to crushing via trampling by reef visitors (Zedler 1976, 1978). Scripps Reef is protected from collecting, but is a popular destination for beach explorers.

Navy North and Navy South sites, located on Point Loma where sandy beaches are fewer and less extensive, and where public visitation is rare, exhibited fewer major trends in key species abundances than Cardiff or Scripps (Table 20). At both sites, all of the broad-scale species levels remained relatively unchanged over the past year, except that owl limpets declined at NS, primarily due to major losses in 1 plot in S03. Both sites showed increases in rockweed and decreases in mussels over the 6-year monitoring period, and no major changes between Year 1 and Year 6 in thatched barnacles, goose barnacles, red turf, and surfgrass. The sole 6-year difference in trends between the 2 Point Loma sites was a decline in owl limpets at NS compared to no change at NN. Overall owl limpets are the most variable species monitored In addition to changes associated with rock breakouts that occasionally devastate particular plots, sampling variability is inherently greater for this species due to difficulties in locating and recognizing smaller individuals often hidden in crevices.

24 Along with the broad-scale trends exhibited by key species over the 6-year project period, considerable smaller-scale variability occurred among plots, sites, and sampling dates. Many differences were related to varying cycles of patchy disturbance and recovery from storm surf damage (with recovery typically more prolonged for bedrock break-out losses compared to losses only of biotic cover). El Niño storms likely caused many of the changes in key species populations during the 1997/98 period (see Engle et al. 1998b). Storms can thin out rockweed and surfgrass patches, scour barnacle zones, and tear out mussel clumps (Gunnill 1983; Stewart 1989a; Ambrose et al. 1995; Engle and Davis 1996b; Engle et al. 1998b). These effects occurred at all 4 monitoring sites, but were most evident at the north county locations, especially at Cardiff Reef. For example, most inshore mussel plots at Cardiff took about 3 years to recover from losses associated with El Niño storm disturbances that occurred after the initial F97 sampling, though 1 plot is not fully recovered after 5 years. Offshore mussels at Cardiff, less damaged by the El Niño storms, recovered in 2 years, but then experienced patchy losses in certain plots after S00 and F01. Mussels at Scripps were less affected by the El Niño storms and recovered in about 1 year; however, patchy losses in particular plots in S00 and F01have resulted in the lowest cover during the 5-year period by F02/S03. Other cycles of patchy losses presumably due to storms were documented for acorn barnacles at Cardiff and Scripps, for goose barnacles at Cardiff and NN, and for owl limpets and mussels at NN and NS.

Seasonal patterns of abundance were apparent in varying degrees for the following key species: rockweed, pink thatched barnacles, red turf, and surfgrass. These within-year variations were likely due to winter storms, which wore down or removed portions of plants that then regrew over the milder summers. Rockweed and surfgrass tended to cycle between higher cover in fall and lower in spring, with the extent of this pattern varying by site and year. Fall plants looked healthier, while spring plants often appeared partially bleached, thinned, and tattered. At Cardiff and Scripps, red turf cover tended to fluctuate between taller erect coralline algae in fall and short “sand turf” in the spring. The sand turf apparently represents a low form of red turf “weathered” by winter storms. The sand turf form was not evident much at NN and NS, where sand influence was minimal, but turf at these Point Loma sites often appeared to be shorter during the spring samples. In many years at NN and NS, thatched barnacle cover tended to be higher in spring and lower in fall, despite the fact that these barnacles are relatively large and long-lived. The changing cover of thatched barnacles is primarily associated with coralline turf seasonality. Taller coralline turf in the barnacle plots during fall samples often obscured the thatched barnacles, which were re-exposed in spring after winter storms weathered the turf.

The seasonal and annual variability in species abundances at the 4 San Diego County sites took place within a larger-scale oceanographic context over the 6-year period of this project as sea conditions shifted from a long-term warming trend (culminating in the severe 1997/98 El Niño) to a cooler trend initiated by a prolonged La Niña and continued relatively cool or near

25 normal conditions through S03. Figure 21 shows these seawater temperature patterns based on satellite sea surface thermal imagery (NOAA CoastWatch West Coast Regional Node website: http//coastwatch.pfel.noaa.gov/time_series.html). Long-term warming has been associated with northward shifts in the ranges of southern species (Barry et al. 1995) and with dramatic declines in the abundance of zooplankton (Roemmich & McGowan 1995) and kelp beds (Dayton et al. 1999) in southern California. The species assemblages monitored at the San Diego County sites through 1998 reflected the cumulative effects of this 22-year warming pattern.

This past 4 years, generally cooler or near normal temperatures, fewer severe storms, and often reduced rainfall apparently benefited some key species populations, such as rockweed, mussels, and seastars. Though patchy storm damage reduced abundances at some sites, there is a tendency of modestly higher abundances of these species during the cooler-water years. For example, rockweed cover was higher at all monitored sites in Year 6 versus Year 1. Mussels have not done well at the Point Loma sites, but have maintained or increased (from El Niño losses) dense populations at Cardiff and Scripps, as indicated by continued overgrowth of bolts and expansion into the owl limpet plots at Cardiff. Comparison of Year 6 and Year 1 results do not reflect the site-wide improvement of mussels during the cooler-water years because mussel plots were initially established in areas of high mussel cover and because chance storm (or collecting) disturbances impacted survey plots to a greater degree than was observed elsewhere at the sites. Prior to the past 4 years, ochre seastars were not found on the 4 San Diego reefs, except for 4 stars observed at Scripps in S99. Increased numbers of adult stars at Cardiff and Scripps in Years 4 and 5 may reflect migration inshore from the shallow subtidal to feed on increased abundances of mussels. Year 6 probably would have shown similarly increased counts if swell conditions had been more favorable for sampling. Cooler, nutrient-rich conditions promote the growth of marine plants. Invertebrate recruitment likely was enhanced by productive, cool-water conditions. Thriving populations can provide additional food for intertidal filter-feeders, such as barnacles and mussels. Expansion of mussel beds can, in turn, promote mussel predators such as seastars. Also, cooler water may stress organisms adapted to warm conditions, and expanding species may usurp the space previously occupied by less competitive taxa (e.g., mussels encroaching on owl limpet territories).

The rocky intertidal sites in San Diego County have experienced especially interesting environmental changes during the 6 years of this study. The monitoring has documented changes associated with the warm and stormy El Niño period followed by the cooler and milder La Niña period. The occasional and extremely patchy effects of storm swells, with variable recovery cycles were a major source of within- and between-site heterogeneity. Seasonal abundance patterns, related to winter storms, rainfall, aerial exposure, and other short-term environmental changes, were evident for particular key species. The long-term monitoring program has enabled enhanced understanding of these overlapping patterns of change through time, such that possible

26 impacts from human activities including the sand beach enhancement project are easier to detect and evaluate. In this context, possible effects from nearshore sand deposition would have been most likely during Year 5. However, sand levels at Cardiff Reef were not unusually high in F01 and though higher than expected in S02, not beyond the typical annual range. Overall, except for a few buried mussels on the offshore reef in S02, there were no changes in key species abundances between Years 4 and 5 that indicated obvious impacts from sand added upcoast of Cardiff Reef, if in fact the additional sand reached the reef. Year 6 sampling, 15-19 months after the sand deposition, revealed exceptionally high sand levels in F02 at Cardiff Reef, but similarly high sand levels also occurred at Scripps Reef, which had not been near any sand beach enhancement activities. These peak sand levels did affect the limited amount of intertidal life that was buried or perhaps scoured for an extended period, thus providing insight into potential impacts should beach enhancement increase sand levels along rocky reefs.

5. Conclusions

Based on the sixth-year results of rocky intertidal surveys in San Diego County, the following conclusions are presented:

1) Four rocky intertidal sites were monitored biannually from Fall 1997 through Spring 2003 for changes in abundances of 14 key species to evaluate possible effects from the Navy (later SANDAG) Beach Replenishment Project. Cardiff Reef (potential impact site) and Scripps Reef (control site) were established in 1997. Navy North and Navy South sites on Point Loma (established in 1995) provide additional regional baseline data.

2) A section of Cardiff State Beach, located approximately 3,400-4,200 feet upcoast of Cardiff Reef, received 101,000 cubic yards of offshore sand during August 2-10, 2001. At Cardiff and Scripps monitoring sites, reef edge sand levels 3 months after the sand deposition were within typical seasonal height ranges. Sand levels 7 months post-deposition were low- moderate at Scripps and atypically high (for spring surveys) at Cardiff. There was no evidence of sand burial or scour effects on the marine life at Cardiff Reef in F01 or S02, except for a few buried mussels on the offshore reef in S02.

3) Year 6 sampling, 15-19 months after the sand deposition, revealed exceptionally high sand levels in F02 at Cardiff Reef, but similarly high sand levels also occurred at Scripps Reef, which had not been near any sand beach enhancement activities. These peak sand levels affected a narrow zone of intertidal life that was buried or perhaps scoured for an extended period (including mussels, barnacles, anemones, turf algae, and surfgrass), thus providing insight into potential impacts should beach enhancement increase sand levels along rocky reefs. In S03 sand levels were low at Cardiff and low-moderate at Scripps.

27 4) Of 14 key species monitored at the San Diego County sites since F97, 1 species (black abalone) was never found and 4 species (boa kelp, sargassum weed, aggregating anemone, and sand castle worms) were relatively uncommon. Other key species abundances varied little or considerably by plot, site, season, and year. Of the 4 sites, Cardiff Reef experienced the most disturbances from storm swells and sand/gravel scour over the 6-year monitoring period. The ecosystem of this sedimentary rocky reef, isolated by extensive sand and gravel beaches, represents a mosaic of species assemblages created by patchy disturbance phenomena.

5) At Cardiff Reef, major trends (% cover changes >15 or count changes >10) in key species abundances from Year 5 to Year 6 were decreases in acorn barnacles, owl limpets, and surfgrass (seastars also decreased, but were not adequately sampled in S03). These decreases might be associated with the higher sand levels in F02; however, other factors cannot be ruled out. Despite considerable smaller-scale variability, there were no major trends between Year 1 and Year 6.

6) The other 3 sites also showed considerable smaller-scale variability, but relatively few major trends over Years 5-6 (owl limpets increased at Scripps, but decreased at NS). Year 1 to Year 6 comparisons revealed increased rockweed and decreased mussels at the 3 sites, increased acorn barnacles, red turf, and seastars at Scripps, increased owl limpets at Scripps and NN (but decreased at NS), and decreased sand castle worms at Scripps.

7) Seasonal cycles of abundance were apparent over the 6-year period in varying degrees for rockweed, red turf, and surfgrass, with lower cover in Spring apparently associated with “weathering” from winter storms. Other storm affects on various key species included sand/gravel/cobble scour (especially in barnacle plots at Cardiff), mussel dislodgement (particularly at Cardiff and Scripps), and bedrock breakouts (at all sites). Storm effects were patchy and recovery rates variable.

8) Seasonal and annual variability in species abundances at the 4 sites occurred within a larger-scale oceanographic context over the 6-year monitoring period as sea conditions shifted from a long-term warming trend (culminating in the severe 1997/98 El Niño) to a cooler trend characterized by a prolonged La Niña and continued relatively cool or near normal conditions through S03. This past 4 years, cooler/normal temperatures, fewer severe storms, and often reduced rainfall apparently benefited some key species, including rockweed, mussels, and seastars.

9) The long-term monitoring program has enabled enhanced understanding of seasonal, annual, and multi-year patterns of species abundance dynamics. These ecological perspectives are critical for evaluating possible impacts from human activities, including the sand beach enhancement project.

28

6. Acknowledgments

Special thanks to Mitch Perdue (U.S. Navy), Gary Davis (), and Samantha Weber (Cabrillo National Monument) for assistance in initiating and carrying out this project. Don Lydy, Gene Olaes, and Karl Maska (U.S. Navy) arranged access to the Fort Rosecrans Military Reservation. Valuable help in the field was provided by Neil Adams, Alvia Alamilla, Simon Allen, Jessica Altstatt, Alan Anzak, Mike Ball, Bonnie Becker, Mike Behrens, Cleave Berdzar, Josh Blakely, Anita Burkett, Corey Chan, Sarah Chaney, Andrea Compton, Sarah Corsbie, Erik Erikson, Robert Gladden, Richard Herrmann, David Hubbard, Jared Kneebone, Robin Lewis, Angela Lohse, Sarah Magee, Kim Makee-Lewis, Greg Morris, Dot Norris, Mark Novak, Krista Pease, Brendan Reed, Dan Richards, Debbie Schwartz, Jennifer Sheldon, Erik Steenblock, Cynthia Taylor, Alex Vejar, and David Young. I would especially like to thank Jessica Altstatt for scoring the photoplot slides. This research was funded by the U.S. Navy, Southwest Division, Naval Facilities Engineering Command.

29 7. References

Ambrose, R.F., J.M. Engle, P.T. Raimondi, M. Wilson and J. Altstatt. 1995. Rocky intertidal and subtidal resources: Santa Barbara County mainland. Final Report, OCS Study MMS 95- 0067, U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 172 p.

Barry, J.P., C.H. Baxter, R.D. Sagarin and S.E. Gilman. 1995. Climate-related, long-term faunal changes in a California rocky intertidal community. Science 267:672-675.

Daly, M.A. and A.C. Mathieson. 1977. The effects of sand movement on intertidal seaweeds and selected invertebrates at Bound Rock, New Hampshire, USA. Mar. Biol. 43:45-55.

Davis, G.E. and J.M. Engle. 1991. Ecological condition and public use of the Cabrillo National Monument, San Diego, California. National Park Service Tech. Rep. NPS/WRUC/NRTR 92/45. 33 p.

Dayton, P.K., M.J. Tegner, P.B. Edwards, and K.L. Riser. 1999. Temporal and spatial scales of kelp demography: The role of oceanographic climate. Ecological Monographs 69:219-250.

Dunaway, M.E., R.A. Ambrose, J. Campbell, J.M. Engle, M. Hill, Z. Hymanson, and D. Richards. 1997. Establishing a Southern California rocky intertidal monitoring network. In: California and the world ocean ’97 (O.T. Magoon, H. Converse, B. Baird, & M. Miller-Henson, eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, Virginia, pp. 1278-1294.

Engle, J.M. 2000. Rocky intertidal resource dynamics in San Diego County: Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma. Third Year Report (1999/2000). U.S. Navy, San Diego. 60p.

Engle, J.M. 2001. Rocky intertidal resource dynamics in San Diego County: Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma. Fourth Year Report (2000/2001). U.S. Navy, San Diego. 60p.

Engle, J.M and G.E. Davis. 1996a. A handbook for monitoring ecological conditions and public use in the intertidal zone of Cabrillo National Monument, San Diego, California. National Biological Service, Ventura CA.

Engle, J.M and G.E. Davis. 1996b. Rocky intertidal ecological monitoring at Cabrillo National Monument, San Diego, California: 1990-1995. National Biological Service, Ventura CA.

Engle, J.M. and G.E. Davis. 1996c. Baseline surveys of rocky intertidal ecological resources at Point Loma, San Diego. National Biological Service Report, Ventura, CA. 112p.

Engle, J.M. and D. Farrar. 1999. Rocky intertidal resource dynamics in San Diego County: Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma. Second Year Report (1998/1999). U.S. Navy, San Diego. 59p.

Engle, J.M., J.M. Altstatt, P.T. Raimondi and R.F. Ambrose. 1994a. Rocky intertidal monitoring handbook for inventory of intertidal resources in Santa Barbara County. Report to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 92 p.

30 Engle, J.M., L. Gorodezky, K.D. Lafferty, R.F. Ambrose and P.T. Raimondi. 1994b. First year study plan for inventory of coastal ecological resources of the northern Channel Islands and Ventura/Los Angeles Counties. Report to the California Coastal Commission. 31 p.

Engle, J.M., R.F. Ambrose and P.T. Raimondi. 1997. Synopsis of the Interagency Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Network Workshop. Final Report, OCS Study MMS 97-0012, U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 18p.

Engle, J.M., R.F. Ambrose, P.T. Raimondi, S.N. Murray, M. Wilson, and S. Sapper. 1998a. Rocky intertidal resources in San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Orange Counties. 1997 Annual Report. OCS Study, MMS 98-0011, U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 73p.

Engle, J.M., D.L. Martin, D. Hubbard, and D. Farrar. 1998b. Rocky intertidal resource dynamics in San Diego County: Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma. First Year Report (1997/1998). U.S. Navy, San Diego. 66p.

Engle, J.M., D.L. Martin, D. Hubbard, and D. Farrar. 1999. Rocky intertidal resource dynamics at Point Loma, San Diego County. 1996-1998 Report. U.S. Minerals Management Service. 83p.

Gunnill, F.C. 1983. Seasonal variations in the invertebrate faunas of Pelvetia fastigiata (Fucaceae): effects of plant size and distribution. Mar. Biol. 73:115-130.

Littler, M.M., D.R. Martz, and D.S. Littler. 1983. Effects of recurrent sand deposition on rocky intertidal organisms: Importance of substrate heterogeneity in a fluctuating environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 11:129-140.

Littler, M.M., D.S. Littler, S.N. Murray, and R.R. Seapy. 1991. Southern California intertidal ecosystems. In: A.C. Mathieson and P. Nienhuis, eds. Ecosystems of the Worlf. Vol. 24. Intertidal and Littoral Ecosystems. Elsevier Scientific Publ., B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands pp. 273-296.

Murray, S.N. and R.N. Bray. 1993. Benthic macrophytes. In: M.D. Dailey, D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson, eds. Ecology of the Southern California Bight. Univ. California Press, Los Angeles pp. 304-368.

Murray, S.N., R.F. Ambrose, and M.N. Dethier. 2002. Methods for performing monitoring, impact, and ecological studies on rocky shores. OCS Study MMS 01-070, U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region.

Raimondi, P.T., R.F. Ambrose, J.M. Engle, S.N. Murray and M. Wilson. 1999. Monitoring of rocky intertidal resources along the central and southern California mainland. 3-Year Report for San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Orange Counties (Fall 1995-Spring 1998). OCS Study, MMS 99-0032, U.S. Minerals Management Service, Pacific OCS Region. 142p.

31 Richards, D.V. and G.E. Davis. 1988. Rocky intertidal communities monitoring handbook, Channel Islands National Park, California. National Park Service, Ventura, CA. 15 p.

Ricketts, E.G., J. Calvin, J. Hedgepeth and D.W. Phillips. 1985. Between Pacific tides, 5th ed., revised by J. Hedgpeth. Stanford University Press, Palo Alto, California. 652 p.

Roemmich, D. and J. McGowan. 1995. Climatic warming and the decline of zooplankton in the California Current. Science 267:1324-1326.

San Diego Association of Governments and U.S. Department of the Navy. 2000. Final environmental impact report/review environmental assessment for the San Diego regional beach sand project.

Seapy, R.R. and M.M. Littler. 1982. Population and species diversity fluctuations in a rocky intertidal community relative to severe aerial exposure and sediment burial. Mar. Biol. 71:87-96.

Smith, E.J., D.H. Fry, H.W. Fry, J. Speth, A. Rutsch and L. Fisk. 1976. Coastal County fish and wildlife resources and their utilization. Calif. Dept. Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Stewart, J.G. and B. Myers. 1980. Assemblages of algae and invertebrates in Southern California Phyllospadix-dominated intertidal habitats. Aquatic Botany 9:73-94.

Stewart, J.G. 1982. Anchor species and epiphytes in intertidal algal turf. Pacific Sci. 36(1): 45-59.

Stewart, J.G. 1989a. Maintenance of a balanced, shifting boundary between the seagrass Phyllospadix and algal turf. Aquatic Botany 33: 223-41.

Stewart, J.G. 1989b. Establishment, persistence and dominance of Corallina (Rhodophyta) in algal turf. J. Phycol. 25: 436-46.

Talyor, P.R. and M.M. Littler. 1982. The roles of compensatory mortality, physical disturbance, and substrate retention in the development and organization of a sand-influenced, rocky- intertidal community. Ecology. 63:135-146.

Zedler, J.B. 1976. Ecological resource inventory of the Cabrillo National Monument intertidal zone. Biol. Dept. San Diego State Univ. Proj. Rpt. USDI, National Park Service. 69 p.

Zedler, J.B. 1978. Public use effects in the Cabrillo National Monument Intertidal Zone. Biol. Dept. San Diego State University proj. rep. for U. S. Dept. Interior, National Park Service. 52 p.

32

Table 1. Summary of Key Species Assemblages Monitored at the Four San Diego County Sites. In addition to the targeted key species (indicated by bullets), other species or higher taxa sampled within plots/transects are listed. Black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii), though not currently present at the sites, are searched for in case they reappear.

Technique/Taxa Cardiff Scripps Navy Navy Total Reef Reef North South Sites

Photoplot Dimensions (50 X 75 cm) • Rockweed (Silvetia compressa) 5 5 5 3 • Acorn Barnacle (Chthamalus spp.) 5 5 2 • Pink Thatched Barnacle (Tetraclita rubescens) 5 5 2 • (Mytilus californianus) Inshore 5 5 5 5 4 • California Mussel (Mytilus californianus) Offshore 5 1 • Goose Barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus) 5 5 6 6 4 Other Plants Other Animals Tar Bare Substrate Circular Plot Dimensions (1 m radius)* • Owl Limpet (Lottia gigantea) 5 5 6 6 4 Point Transect Dimensions (10 m) • Red Algal Turf (Corallina spp. et al.) 3 3 2 2 4 • Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) Inshore 3 3 2 2 4 • Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) Offshore 2 2 2 Boa Kelp (Egregia menziesii) Sargassum Weed (Sargassum muticum) Aggregating Anemone (Anthopleura elegantissima/sola) Sand Castle Worm (Phragmatopoma californica) California Mussel (Mytilus californianus) Other Biota Tar Bare Substrate Timed Search Dimensions (30 person-minutes) • Black Abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) 1 1 1 1 4 • Ochre Sea Star (Pisaster ochraceus) 1 1 1 1 4 Total Key Species Per Site 8 9 9 9 * except at Cardiff, circular plots are 1.5 m radius.

33

34

Table 3. Field Activities for the San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Project.

Season Date Site Activity Fall 2002 November 2 Cardiff Reef Rocky intertidal fall sampling November 3 Scripps Reef Rocky intertidal fall sampling November 4 Navy North, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal fall sampling November 5 Navy South, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal fall sampling Spring 2003 March 17 Cardiff Reef Rocky intertidal spring sampling March 16 Scripps Reef Rocky intertidal spring sampling March 14 Navy North, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal spring sampling March 15 Navy South, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal spring sampling

Table 4. Personnel Participating in San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Surveys.

Participants Affiliation Status Fall 02 Spring 03 Jack Engle University of California, Santa Barbara Employee X X Jessie Altstatt University of California, Santa Barbara Employee X Stevie DeJong University of California, Santa Barbara Employee X X Bob Gladden Private Volunteer X X David Young University of California, San Diego Volunteer X X Sarah Magee University of California, Santa Barbara Volunteer X Sarah Corsbie University of California, Santa Barbara Volunteer X Bruce Bealer South. Calif. Coastal Water Research Project Volunteer X Mike Ball Rancho Bernardo High School Volunteer X Alvia Alamilla Private Volunteer X X Debbie Schwartz Private Volunteer X Brendan Reed San Diego State University Volunteer X Alex Vejar CA Department of Fish and Game Volunteer X Robin Lewis CA Department of Fish and Game, OSPR Volunteer X Bonnie Becker Cabrillo National Monument Volunteer X Dorothy Norris San Francisco Waste Water Treatment Volunteer X

35 Table 5. Fall 2002 Species Abundances in Photoplots.

CARDIFF REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) INSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) OFFSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE OM1 OM2 OM3 OM4 OM5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE364039533040400030110000000463022119 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000200000084220001000 ROCKWEED 0000000000000000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 88 89 90 100 87 5 29 99 56 76 83 69 12 1 0 33 68 42 29 13 GOOSE BARNACLE00000008920042000000040371727177 OTHER PLANTS 00000003000011540234116100100210 OTHER ANIMALS 00000002001010702412520100100 BARE SUBSTRATE64606147706041939 4 0 7 31011980 8 349953012264214

SCRIPPS REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE9998989699981000041146000099633131583 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000000010000000000000 ROCKWEED 00000009534619682741200000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12 100 46 76 19 51 17 26 40 38 37 30 34 3 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000000000002734241124244 OTHER PLANTS 0000000540204916718045102119730124852 OTHER ANIMALS 0000000000000010103110020000 BARE SUBSTRATE 1 2 2 4 1 2 1 0 26190 5 105 220 8 145720103823213523284

NAVY NORTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE00000000000000002000002004321 THATCHED BARNACLE55212729243160000000000000000003110 ROCKWEED 0014163112695969799398512000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL00000000000000111712509300000000 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000021342801620620000000 OTHER PLANTS 34 72 55 42 43 49 7 0 0 3 1 61 13 12 42 18 20 61 50 38 8 52 30 53 44 57 59 49 4 OTHER ANIMALS 02200100000000010642123000011 BARE SUBSTRATE 115 2 132 7 2 5 4 0 0 0 2 1 2630382830302 446547563637485

NAVY SOUTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M0 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE30000110000000000000000000000 THATCHED BARNACLE16312171040000000005001100500111 ROCKWEED 00000006337727570637000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL00000000000000260013653151561682 GOOSE BARNACLE00000000000000010120322414139518143 OTHER PLANTS 7572737392774 3763282129367 4668846284697 275352588162567 OTHER ANIMALS 112001000000001900165421012010 BARE SUBSTRATE 5 24246 1 125 0 0 0 4 1 1 1 9 3111247 165 441715261113215

36 Table 6. Spring 2003 Species Abundances in Photoplots.

CARDIFF REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) INSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) OFFSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE OM1 OM2 OM3 OM4 OM5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE43403941364011000000201001036610097 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000000000023110002000 ROCKWEED 0000000000000000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL0 0 0 0 0 0 0 348794921008112329651778067112 0 3670312813 GOOSE BARNACLE000000071103042000000060381731187 OTHER PLANTS 0 0 010135 31900 0 0 4 456113161510182142 2 9 4 OTHER ANIMALS 000000010000002171211721100110 BARE SUBSTRATE 57 60 61 49 51 56 2 38 2 6 5 0 10 7 8 2 28 8 0 9 5 37 72 21 9 35 35 11

SCRIPPS REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE89888777878620000000220000445001731 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000000010000000000000 ROCKWEED 00000007717459249561300000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 249459731453152534353021293 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000000000002632301725263 OTHER PLANTS 0300011196020622259100251528165716161082 OTHER ANIMALS 0100000020000010006110000311 BARE SUBSTRATE 118 132313143 4 21352 29187 426 161252269 3733293634341

NAVY NORTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE01011100000000000200000201010 THATCHED BARNACLE42313224243130000000000000000000000 ROCKWEED 001313209496969995298314000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL000000000000001413166010300000000 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000019342601218630012011 OTHER PLANTS 31 44 35 25 35 34 3 2 2 0 5 70 16 14 38 22 13 48 44 33 7 35 37 44 38 41 27 37 2 OTHER ANIMALS 12201101000000123112021031010 BARE SUBSTRATE 2622183719243 1 2 1 0 1 1 0 2829424343373 606254585573603

NAVY SOUTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M0 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE11100100000000000020001040311 THATCHED BARNACLE80089520000000100201001411011 ROCKWEED 00000006345788342628000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL0000000000000032000254510824561 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000010007211613911419122 OTHER PLANTS 6360447582657 3755201456369 6254478456616 354939244421355 OTHER ANIMALS 021201000000001100023211132220 BARE SUBSTRATE 283754159 298 0 0 2 3 2 1 1 3216531431297 432539554550434

37

38

39 Table 9. Fall 2002 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Cardiff and Scripps.

LENGTH CARDIFF REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) SCRIPPS REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM)1 2345ALL%12345ALL% 15 0000000 11542132 16 0000000 12434143 17 0000000 0313292 18 0000000 11552143 19 0000000 1033292 20 0000000 11444143 21 0011134 21263143 22 0100011 11384173 23 0001011 01615132 24 1000011 15383204 25 0003034 15776265 26 0000000 25852224 27 0003034 199102316 28 0011023 141196316 29 0131168 47734255 30 1112057 03684214 31 2112068 14634183 32 1201046 24656234 33 1022057 30524143 34 1122068 02454153 35 1004168 17243173 36 1001023 15835224 37 0102146 03433132 38 1102046 30258183 39 1101034 24223132 40 0011023 51131112 41 0000000 33141122 42 1000011 7101092 43 0100011 2002261 44 0100011 1010241 45 0001011 1012151 46 0000000 2101041 47 0000000 1001020 48 0000000 3120061 49 0000000 2002041 50 0000000 3011051 51 0000000 0000000 52 0000000 0000000 53 0000000 0001010 54 0000000 1000010 55 0000000 2001031 56 0000000 0001010 57 0000000 0000000 58 0000000 0001010 59 0000000 0000000 60 0000000 0000000 61 0000000 0000000 62 0000000 0000000 63 0000000 0000000 64 0000000 0000000 65 0000000 0000000 66 0000000 0000000 67 0000000 0000000 68 0000000 0000000 69 0000000 0000000 70 0000000 0000000 71 0000000 0000000 72 0000000 0000000 73 0000000 0000000 74 0000000 0000000 75 0000000 0000000 TOTAL # 12 12 12 31 4 71 100 64 85 130 140 102 521 100 MIN SIZE 24 22 21 21 21 21 15 15 15 15 15 15 MAX SIZE 42 44 40 45 37 45 55 48 50 58 45 58 AVG SIZE 34 34 31 32 31 32 37 30 28 30 29 30 ST DEV5 65675 1077989 ST ERROR232232 533434

40

Table 10. Fall 2002 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Navy North and South.

LENGTH NAVY NORTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) NAVY SOUTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM)123456ALL%123456ALL% 1513110062200215104 162000103100000110 170113117320001031 180131207300110021 190000101001010021 200002013110011031 211001204100020352 22001262114 20101262 230001001010112162 241001215210021041 25021430104 01120483 260101204130010152 27300370135 220313114 28311321114 21011162 2910035093100633135 300003317311011152 3100022373050063145 3210134093131032104 331004229310000121 3400121152231212114 35111241104 220223114 3610151193211033104 3700021141010236124 3800134193230232124 391120004122012072 40105431145 03012393 410110024130211293 42332312145 00002462 43023114114 01104393 4411120273211232114 45423121135 20100141 46003331104 00203162 470100001010000121 483210006221120283 492211107310200362 503110207302000131 510000000003010262 520010012102011041 530000000001100131 540010001011002152 550010001030001152 560000000020001031 570010001000100121 580110013100000000 590000000000100010 600010001000000000 610000000000000110 620010001000000000 631000001000000000 640000000000000000 650000000000000000 660000000000000000 670000000000000000 680000000000000000 690100001000000000 700000000000000000 711010002100000000 720000000000000000 730000000000000000 740000000000000000 750000000000000000 TOTAL #362844676932276100474120415677282100 MIN SIZE 15 15 15 15 16 17 15 15 19 18 15 15 15 15 MAX SIZE 71 69 71 49 50 58 71 56 54 59 52 56 61 61 AVG SIZE 38 38 41 32 31 37 35 36 38 41 31 36 36 36 ST DEV1314138 9 9 11 129 12109 1111 ST ERROR5653345 5454454 41

Table 11. Spring 2003 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Cardiff and Scripps.

LENGTH CARDIFF REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) SCRIPPS REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM)1 2345ALL%12345ALL% 150 0000000211041 160 1100231110251 171 00001116434183 180 00000002433122 191 00102323622153 200 10102314773224 210 10102352443183 221 002034211271234 230 10203435423173 240 10102325653214 253 10004523752194 260 00112323795265 270 0010112121083357 281 00001106586255 290 10001144346214 301 00102342690214 310 12205622769265 320 2231810251187336 330 01203404632153 340 133079416410255 351 01002306307163 362 10216812154132 370 01304554321153 380 20103412133102 390 00112322223112 401 0000113112182 413 01004513431122 420 0000000103041 430 1000111002031 441 2000342010141 450 0100110001010 460 0000003000251 470 0000006012092 480 0000000100010 490 1000113001151 500 0000002000020 510 0000001000010 520 0000001000010 530 0000000000110 540 0000000000000 550 0000000001010 560 0000000000000 570 0000000000000 580 0000000000000 590 0000000000000 600 0000000000000 610 0000000000000 620 0000000000000 630 0000000000000 640 0000000000000 650 0000000000000 660 0000000000000 670 0000000000000 680 0000000000000 690 0000000000000 700 0000000000000 710 0000000000000 720 0000000000000 730 0000000000000 740 0000000000000 750 0000000000000 TOTAL # 16 18 13 28 4 79 100 71 95 134 125 99 524 100 MIN SIZE 17 16 16 19 26 16 16 15 15 15 16 15 MAX SIZE 44 49 45 39 39 49 52 48 47 55 53 55 AVG SIZE 32 32 33 30 33 32 34 28 27 29 30 29 ST DEV9 97668 1077888 ST ERROR443333 533334 42

Table 12. Spring 2003 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Navy North and South.

LENGTH NAVY NORTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) NAVY SOUTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM)123456ALL%123456ALL% 150000000000001010 160000000000010010 172001104101130162 181001035200020021 191100013102032072 202002026201022272 2144200111300101241 2230502010300122052 231102015200101131 241123007210022052 251011205201022052 260313119310221283 271112106210241193 2811125010320000131 2920155013400221052 301015108200131493 310014409301010131 3202166116501113283 3311044010302210272 3410034193231022103 35012255155121053124 36010622113033445196 3712114093023225145 38001623124021315124 390002215201100131 40413442185000452114 412103118211111052 42202314124122162145 431122208202102493 4420121393012242114 451213119310113283 461222119300004152 471121117221100152 480020103100200352 491020317211012162 5022021310302000241 512221108201201483 521101003111011262 531101014112010041 541110003111002152 550000011010101362 560110013101101141 570110002101200031 580110002101100131 590000000010000010 600000000000000110 610100001000000000 620000000000100010 630000000000000000 641020003100000000 650000000000000000 660000000000000000 670000000000000000 680000000000000000 690100001000000000 701000001000000000 710000000000000000 720010001000000000 730000000000000000 740000000000000000 750000000000000000 TOTAL #483947866942331100194042526773293100 MIN SIZE 17 19 21 17 17 18 17 24 17 17 16 15 17 15 MAX SIZE 70 69 72 53 51 56 72 59 58 62 53 56 60 62 AVG SIZE 36 39 40 35 35 37 37 41 40 39 31 37 39 37 ST DEV1313138 7 1111 11111110101011 ST ERROR6553344 5454444

43 Table 13. Owl Limpet Density and Size Summary Data by Site. Total number of limpets and shell length statistics at 4 sites.

CARDIFF REEF (5 plots at 3 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE F979424701553358 3 S98 114 26 88 15 53 36 9 4 F98 162 76 86 15 52 31 10 4 S99168118501551278 4 F99 225 98 127 16 54 30 7 3 S00 221 104 117 15 47 30 7 3 F00 158 66 92 15 44 29 7 3 S01 136 39 97 16 46 34 8 3 F01 123 61 62 15 45 29 7 3 S02 138 60 78 15 47 30 7 3 F027120512145325 2 S037926531649328 3

SCRIPPS REEF (5 plots at 2 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE F97311229821555267 3 S98398302961543256 3 F98 503 350 153 15 55 26 7 3 S99 458 310 148 15 46 26 7 3 F99 496 321 175 15 56 28 7 3 S00 433 267 166 15 50 28 7 3 F00 412 213 199 15 59 30 8 4 S01 369 165 204 15 57 31 7 3 F01 416 182 234 15 55 32 8 3 S02 505 258 247 15 59 31 8 4 F02 521 272 249 15 58 30 9 4 S03 524 281 243 15 55 29 8 4

NAVY NORTH (6 plots at 2 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE S95 187 41 146 15 54 36 8 3 F95 181 32 149 16 55 39 9 4 S96 F9618777110155833114 S97 213 101 112 15 64 33 11 5 F97 261 122 139 15 65 32 11 5 S98 259 127 132 15 69 31 10 4 F98 405 187 218 15 63 31 10 4 S99 403 219 184 15 64 30 10 4 F99 443 191 252 15 71 32 10 4 S00 424 115 309 15 69 35 9 4 F0035967292157339115 S0140296306157138125 F01 334 103 231 15 70 36 11 5 S0235293259157137114 F0227695181157135115 S0333194237177237114

NAVY SOUTH (6 plots at 2 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE S95 270 70 200 16 63 36 9 4 F9529048242156639114 S96 F96 350 125 225 15 64 35 12 5 S9733094236156538125 F97 361 111 250 15 68 36 12 5 S98 364 107 257 15 69 37 11 5 F98 390 123 267 15 68 37 12 5 S99 413 173 240 15 65 34 12 5 F99 399 152 247 15 63 34 11 4 S00 423 114 309 15 63 37 11 4 F00 456 112 344 15 66 38 12 5 S01 476 135 341 15 65 38 12 5 F01 376 111 265 15 62 37 11 5 S0234970279156238104 F0228285197156136114 S0329371222156237114 #S = # LIMPETS < 30 mm #L = # LIMPETS >= 30 mm

44

45 Table 15. Fall 2002 Species Abundances Along Point-Intercept Transects.

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS CARDIFF REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 1 2 3 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 50 70 75 65 8 12 56 61 43 16 SURF GRASS 9 1 0 3 3 81 33 30 48 17 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 6 0 7 4 2 0 0 3 1 1 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER BIOTA 0000043231 BARE SUBSTRATE 35 29 18 27 5 3 8 4 5 2

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS SCRIPPS REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 4 5 6 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SARGASSUM WEED 7 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 58 54 44 52 4 58 19 46 41 12 SURF GRASS 4 0 0 1 1 25 32 30 29 2 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 0 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 8 3 2 OTHER BIOTA 4 10 10 8 2 13 8 15 12 2 BARE SUBSTRATE 27 35 43 35 5 2 41 1 15 13

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY NORTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 3 6 AVG SE 4 5 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 96 98 98 97 1 0 1 1 0 7 12 10 2 SURF GRASS 3 0 0 1 1 100 99 100 0 93 87 90 2 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER BIOTA 0100000000000 BARE SUBSTRATE 1121000000110

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY SOUTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 5 6 AVG SE 3 4 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 94 96 91 94 1 5 2 4 1 10 0 5 4 SURF GRASS 5 4 2 4 1 95 98 97 1 89 100 95 4 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER BIOTA 1052200001010 BARE SUBSTRATE 0021100000000

46 Table 16. Spring 2003 Species Abundances Along Point-Intercept Transects.

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS CARDIFF REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 1 2 3 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 1 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 79 69 87 78 5 18 68 81 56 19 SURF GRASS 7 6 0 4 2 80 25 10 38 21 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 7 3 5 5 1 0 0 2 1 1 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER BIOTA 4001110421 BARE SUBSTRATE 3 22 8 11 6 1 4 3 3 1

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS SCRIPPS REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 4 5 6 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 SARGASSUM WEED 2 3 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 51 70 50 57 7 63 57 39 53 7 SURF GRASS 7 0 0 2 2 19 22 23 21 1 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 1 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9 4 3 OTHER BIOTA 13913121131122153 BARE SUBSTRATE 26 17 37 27 6 1 10 6 6 3

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY NORTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 3 6 AVG SE 4 5 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 95 89 96 93 2 1 3 2 1 7 17 12 4 SURF GRASS 4 0 0 1 2 99 96 98 1 93 83 88 4 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER BIOTA 1924301100000 BARE SUBSTRATE 0221100000000

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY SOUTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 5 6 AVG SE 3 4 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RED ALGAL TURF 98 95 93 95 1 3 4 4 0 3 0 2 1 SURF GRASS 2 5 4 4 1 97 95 96 1 97 99 98 1 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER BIOTA 0031000000110 BARE SUBSTRATE 0000001100000

47 48 Table 18. Line/Point-Intercept Transect Key Species Summary Data by Transect. Percent cover data for 2 index taxa (red algal turf and surf grass) at 4 sites.

CARDIFF REEF TURF GRASS DATE123123 F97799375588051 S98789161356851 F98698587759389 S99808584528888 F99726793909899 S00746685889997 F00676796959994 S01796794818671 F01755687977281 S02808384796153 F02507075813330 S03796987802510

SCRIPPS REEF TURF GRASS DATE123456 F97391521344044 S98481522272631 F98686070453939 S99665176412234 F99727580565050 S00666684363239 F00606857372925 S01605855291912 F01676441202624 S0274796115207 F02585444253230 S03517050192223

NAVY NORTH TURF INSHORE GRASS OFFSHORE GRASS DATE1273645 S95 96 97 100 91 94 87 F95 95 99 100 99 96 95 S96 F96 100 100 100 100 95 94 S97 100 99 100 99 93 92 F97 97 100 100 99 94 89 S989898 99938870 F989598 99989296 S99 96 98 100 98 93 90 F99 94 99 100 99 97 96 S009398 98999383 F00 95 97 100 97 94 89 S019599 99898977 F01 96 96 100 98 92 72 S02 96 99 97* 99 88 93 71 F02 96 98 98 100 99 93 87 S0395899699969383

NAVY SOUTH TURF INSHORE GRASS OFFSHORE GRASS DATE1275634 S959397 96958599 F95 95 100 97 98 100 100 S96 F96 97 100 99 99 96 100 S97 91 100 97 98 99 100 F97 90 99 100 99 99 100 S989090 96966797 F989998 99998999 S998998 999185100 F99 89 96 100 95 96 100 S008995 98929899 F008893 9698100100 S018893 95909399 F018494 999391100 S02 85 94 85* 95 92 92 100 F02949691959889100 S0398959397959799

49

Table 19. Black Abalone and Ochre Seastar Summary Data. Counts from 30 min. timed-searches at each of 4 sites.

CARDIFF REEF SCRIPPS REEF NAVY NORTH NAVY SOUTH BLACK OCHRE BLACK OCHRE BLACK OCHRE BLACK OCHRE DATE ABALONE SEASTAR ABALONE SEASTAR ABALONE SEASTAR ABALONE SEASTAR S95 0000 F95 0000 S96 F96 0000 S97 0000 F9700000000 S9800000000 F9800000000 S9900040000 F990100140 0 0 0 S00011050000 F00000260000 S0109000000 F010310190 0 0 0 S020170100 0 0 0 F020701201NDND S0301080000

50 Table 20. Major Temporal Trends in Key Species Abundances. 1-year (annual), 2-year (after sand deposition up-coast of Cardiff Reef), 6-year (since monitoring began at Cardiff and Scripps), and 8.5 year (since monitoring began at Navy North and South) comparison of major trends at the 4 Sand Diego County sites. Data for Fall and Spring surveys were combined to remove seasonal fluctuations.

Cardiff Scripps Navy North Navy South

Species 1 Year 2 Year 6 Year 1 Year 2 Year 6 Year 1 Year 2 Year 6 Year 8.5 Year 1 Year 2 Year 6 Year 8.5 Year RockweedAbsent NC KKNC NC K NC NC NC K NC Acorn Barnacle L NC NC NC NC K Uncommon Uncommon Pink Thatched BarnacleUncommon Uncommon NC L NC NC NC NC NC NC Goose Barnacle NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC L NC NC NC NC Mussel NCNCNCNC LLNC LLNC NC NC LL Owl Limpet LLNC KKKNC L NC KLLLNC Red Algal Turf NC NC NC NC NC K NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC Surf Grass LLNC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

Boa Kelp Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon

Sargassum Weed Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon

Aggregating Anemone Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon

Sand Castle WormUncommon NC NC L Uncommon Uncommon

Abalone Absent Absent Absent Absent

Seastar L NC NC NC NC K Absent Absent

K = Positive % cover change > 15 or counts > 10 individuals. 1 Year = comparison between F01/S02(Year 5) and F02/S03(Year 6). NC = No Change, % cover change < 15 or counts < 10 individuals. 2 Year = comparison between F00/S01(Year 4) and F02/S03(Year 6). L = negative % cover change > 15 or counts > 10 individuals. 6 Year = comparison between F97/S98(Year 1) and F02/S03(Year 6). 8.5 Year = comparison between S95/F95 and F02/S03(Year 6).

51

52

53

54

55

56 57

58

59 Rockweed

100 Cardiff 80

60 Rockweed Bare Rock Acorn Barnacle (not monitored) 40 Other Plants

20

100 Scripps 80

60

40

20

100

80 Navy North Percent Cover Percent 60

40

20

100 Navy South 80

60

40

20

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period

Fig. 9. Species Abundances in Rockweed Plots at 3 San Diego County Sites (n=5).

60 Barnacles 100 Cardiff 80

Acorn Barnacle 60 Bare Rock Thatched Barnacle 40 Other Plants

20

100 Scripps 80

60

40

20

100 Navy North 80 Percent Cover Percent 60

40

20

100 Navy South 80

60

40

20

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period

Fig. 10. Species Abundances in Barnacle Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites (n=5).

61 Goose Barnacles

100 Cardiff (n=5) 80

Goose Barnacle 60 Bare Rock Mussel 40 Other Plants

20

100 Scripps (n=5) 80

60

40

20

100 Navy North (n=6) 80 Percent Cover 60

40

20

100 Navy South (n=6) 80

60

40

20

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period

Fig. 11. Species Abundances in Goose Barnacle Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites.

62 Mussels 100

80 Cardiff (inshore)

60 Mussel Bare Rock 40 Goose Barnacle Other Plants 20

100

80 Cardiff (offshore)

60

40

20

100

80 Scripps

60

40

20

Percent Cover Percent 100

80 Navy North

60

40

20

100

80 Navy South

60

40

20

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period

Fig. 12. Species Abundances in Mussel Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites (n=5).

63 10 10 Fall 95 8 Spring 95 8 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 % Total Limpets 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 008 Fall 00 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 01 8 Fall 01 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 02 8 Fall 02 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 03 8 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Length (mm)

Figure 13. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Cardiff Reef.

64 10 10 8 Spring 95 8 Fall 95 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 % Total Limpets 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 00 10 Fall 00 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 01 8 Fall 01 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 02 8 Fall 02 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 8 Spring 03 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Length (mm)

Figure 14. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at ScrippsReef.

65 10 10 8 Spring 95 8 Fall 95 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 % Total Limpets 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 00 10 Fall 00 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 01 10 Fall 01 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 02 10 Fall 02 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 03 8 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Length (mm)

Figure 15. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy North.

66 10 10 8 Spring 95 8 Fall 95 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 % Total Limpets % Total 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 00 10 Fall 00 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 01 10 Fall 01 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 02 8 Fall 02 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 8 Spring 03 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Length (mm)

Figure 16. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy South.

67 Owl Limpets 120

100 Cardiff (5 plots @ 3 m dia)

80

60

40

20

120

100 Scripps (5 plots @ 2 m dia)

80

60

40

20

120

100 Navy North (6 plots @ 2 m dia)

80

Mean Number per Plot Mean 60

40

20

120

100 Navy South (6 plots @ 2 m dia)

80

60

40

20

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period

Fig. 17. Owl Limpet Abundances at 4 San Diego County Sites.

68 Owl Limpets 50 Cardiff 40

30

20

10

50 Scripps 40

30

20

10

50 Navy North 40

30

Mean Size per Site (mm) per Site Size Mean 20

10

50 Navy South 40

30

20

10

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period

Fig. 18. Owl Limpet Sizes from 5 Plots (combined) at 4 San Diego County Sites.

69 Turf

100 Cardiff 80

60 Red Turf Bare Substrate 40 Sand Tube Worm 20

100 Scripps 80

60

40

20

100 Navy North

Percent Cover 80

60

40

20

100 Navy South

80

60

40

20

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period

Fig. 19. Species Abundances in 3 Turf Transects (except Navy North and South S95-F01 n=2) at 4 San Diego County Sites.

70 Surfgrass

100 80 Cardiff (n=3) 60 Surfgrass Bare Substrate 40 Red Turf 20

100 80 Scripps (n=3) 60 40 20

100 Navy North - inshore (n=2) 80 60 40 20

100 Navy North - offshore (n=2) 80

Percent Cover Percent 60 40 20

100 Navy South - inshore (n=2) 80 60 40 20

100 Navy South - offshore (n=2) 80 60 40 20 0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 Sampling Period Fig. 20. Species Abundances in Surfgrass Transects at 4 San Diego County Sites.

71

72

SHALLOW SUBTIDAL MONITORING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION...... SS-1

METHODS ...... SS-1 STUDY SITES ...... SS-1 METHODS FOR BIOTA STUDIES ...... SS-2 DATA ANALYSIS ...... SS-4 FIELD MONITORING PERIODS...... SS-4

RESULTS...... SS-4 NORTH CARLSBAD ...... SS-4 SOUTH CARLSBAD ...... SS-6 BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA ...... SS-7 MOONLIGHT BEACH...... SS-9 SWAMIS (CONTROL)...... SS-10 CARDIFF...... SS-11 CARDIFF (CONTROL)...... SS-12 SOLANA BEACH ...... SS-13

DISCUSSION ...... SS-15

LITERATURE CITED...... SS-17

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Monitoring Locations at North Carlsbad ...... SS-19 2 Monitoring Locations at South Carlsbad and Batiquitos ...... SS-20 3 Monitoring Locations at Batiquitos and Leucadia ...... SS-21 4 Monitoring Locations at Moonlight Beach and Cardiff...... SS-22 5 Monitoring Locations at Cardiff and Solana Beach...... SS-23 6 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at North Carlsbad ...... SS-24 7 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at NC-SS-2 Since 1997 ...... SS-25 8 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at North Carlsbad ...... SS-25 9 Percent Cover of Surfgrass and Feather Boa Kelp at NC-SS-2 Since 1997 ...... SS-26 10 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at North Carlsbad...... SS-26 11 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at North Carlsbad ...... SS-27 12 Number of Sea Palms at North Carlsbad ...... SS-27 13 Number of Sea Palms and Sea Fans at NC-SS-2 Since 1997 ...... SS-28 14 Percent Cover of Sea Fans at North Carlsbad...... SS-28 15 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at South Carlsbad ...... SS-29

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-i 16 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at South Carlsbad ...... SS-29 17 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at South Carlsbad...... SS-30 18 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at South Carlsbad ...... SS-30 19 Number of Sea Palms at South Carlsbad ...... SS-31 20 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-32 21 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at BL-SS-3 Since 1997...... SS-33 22 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-33 23 Percent Cover of Surfgrass and Feather Boa Kelp at BL-SS-3 Since 1997...... SS-34 24 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-34 25 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Batiquitos/Leucadia ...... SS-35 26 Number of Sea Palms at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-35 27 Number of Sea Palms at BL-SS-3 Since 1997...... SS-36 28 Number of Sea Fans at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-36 29 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Moonlight...... SS-37 30 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Moonlight...... SS-37 31 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Moonlight ...... SS-38 32 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Moonlight...... SS-38 33 Number of Sea Palms at Moonlight ...... SS-39 34 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Swamis ...... SS-40 35 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Swamis ...... SS-41 36 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Swamis ...... SS-41 37 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Swamis...... SS-42 38 Number of Sea Palms at Swamis ...... SS-42 39 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Cardiff ...... SS-43 40 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Cardiff ...... SS-43 41 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Cardiff...... SS-44 42 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Cardiff ...... SS-44 43 Number of Sea Palms at Cardiff ...... SS-45 44 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Cardiff (Control) ...... SS-46 45 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at CC-SS-2 Since 1997...... SS-47 46 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Cardiff (Control) ...... SS-47 47 Percent Cover of Surfgrass and Feather Boa Kelp at CC-SS-2 Since 1997 ...... SS-48 48 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Cardiff (Control)...... SS-48 49 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Cardiff (Control) ...... SS-49 50 Number of Sea Palms at Cardiff (Control)...... SS-49 51 Number of Sea Palms at CC-SS-2 Since 1997...... SS-50 52 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Solana Beach ...... SS-51 53 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Solana Beach...... SS-52 54 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Solana Beach ...... SS-52 55 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Solana Beach...... SS-53 56 Number of Sea Palms at Solana Beach ...... SS-53 57 Picture of Low-Relief Reef Adjacent to Sand Channel ...... SS-54 58 Picture of Surfgrass, Coralline Algae, and Small Partially Covered With Sand...... SS-54 59 Picture of South Carlsbad Receiver Site in July 2001 and December 2001 Depicting Sand Migrating Downcoast...... SS-55

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-ii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Positions of Shallow Subtidal and Kelp Forest Monitoring Locations (NAD83)...... SS-3

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

A Summary Data...... SS-A-1

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-iii INTRODUCTION

Shallow subtidal habitat is defined as the area of hard substrate (i.e., reef) closest to the shore or beach. It is a dynamic environment as this is the area where seasonal sand transport occurs and where wave energy is released (i.e., surf). It is also the area that would potentially be impacted first by migrating sand from the replenishment area(s). Generally these reefs are located approximately 200 meters (m) from the back beach in water ranging in depth from three to five meters. The reefs can be characterized as either high-relief (being greater than one meter high) or low-relief substrate primarily sandstone, separated by longitudinal sand channels. They are patchily distributed and scattered, meaning that they are not continuous along the coastline. This habitat supports both commercially and recreationally important species such as kelp bass ( clathratus), sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher), and lobster (Panulirus interruptus), and it has been suggested that the nearshore surfgrass habitat acts as a recruitment and nursery area for many invertebrates and fishes. For these reasons, many of the resource agencies have designated the reefs as sensitive marine resources.

Surveys have indicated a very diverse assemblage of fishes, macroalgae, and invertebrates are present or utilize these reefs. Several species such as feather boa kelp, surfgrass, sea fans, and sea palms, are the dominant sessile organisms, and therefore changes in distribution and abundance of these organisms can be used as an indicator of reef health (i.e., indicator species). A key characteristic is that all of these species are perennial, and in the case of sea fans may live for over 50 years (Abbott and Hollenberg 1978; Black 1974; Grigg 1975, 1977). In addition, these species are sensitive to varying degrees of sand scour or burial. Studies suggest that a relatively small amount of sand on, or falling on, the bottom can reduce the survivorship of microscopic life history stages (Devinny and Volse 1978; Littler et al. 1983; Foster and Schiel 1985). Therefore, reefs that support these species are considered persistent and are generally not covered by sand.

The objective of the monitoring program is to evaluate whether beach replenishment operations result in any significant, long-term adverse impacts to sensitive marine resources in the vicinity of the beach replenishment sites.

METHODS

STUDY SITES

Under the Navy s monitoring program, two shallow subtidal reefs identified to support indicator species were established as test reefs (Leucadia and North Carlsbad) and a control reef was established at Cardiff. The control reef was located close enough to experience similar conditions, but far enough away from the receiver beaches to avoid any direct impacts from the replenishment activities.

Based on the results of modeled-predicted sand deposition, all three Navy sites were not predicted to have any sedimentation from the RBSP, therefore new sampling locations were established in areas of concern at North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Batiquitos/Leucadia, Moonlight Beach, Cardiff (Restaurant Row), and Solana Beach. The shallow subtidal

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-1 monitoring locations are shown in Figures 1 through 5, and the positions (latitude/longitude – NAD83) are shown in Table 1. The data are separated into shallow subtidal (SS) and kelp (K) monitoring locations. Unlike the Navy program which established single monitoring locations at key points, multiple sampling locations were established at most receiver sites (up to three monitoring locations per receiver site). Similarly, the monitoring locations were non-randomly selected and were established in areas of concern and/or in areas most likely to be impacted from sand deposition. This was based initially on the base map of existing conditions produced for the EIR/EA, and ground-truthed by reconnaissance surveys and communication with the CLTFA. The change in methodology was due to concern from lobster fisherman regarding the long-term movement of the sand.

The two general criteria used for determining the suitability of a monitoring location included: 1) that it was in the vicinity of the receiver site, either offshore or downcoast or in the area of modeled deposition, and 2) that it was approximately 250 m2 in area, and contained a relatively high percentage of high and/or low-relief reef. This methodology provided greater spatial information regarding sediment transport and possible impacts from sand deposition. The Navy's site at North Carlsbad, Encinitas, Cardiff (i.e., Table Tops) would continue to be monitored. The Cardiff site still serves as a control site, and an additional control site was established at Swami's Reef. Based on existing information and reconnaissance surveys, several of the proposed locations (e.g., South Carlsbad, Moonlight, and Cardiff) did not support the necessary area to establish replicate monitoring locations. Therefore, only a single monitoring location was established at these areas.

METHODS FOR BIOTA STUDIES

Because several sites were carried forward from the Navy program, diving biologists have mapped the habitat and associated biota within a permanently established study area at each of those sites. All the new study areas were established as follows. The offshore edge of each study area was positioned approximately 300 m from the back beach. A permanent, longitudinal transect (running parallel to shore) 40 m long was established at this location. A minimum of five, 50-m long by 2-m wide band transects (total area = 100 m2), spaced at a minimum of ten meter intervals were established perpendicular to shore from the longitudinal transect. These band transects were divided into five meter intervals (i.e., five by two meter quadrats). Biologists qualitatively mapped substrate type in each quadrat to characterize the percent cover of sand and rock, and estimated vertical relief as low-relief (less than one meter high) or high- relief (greater than one meter high).

Within the same quadrat, biologists estimated the abundance or percent cover of key indicator species identified as:

• giant kelp () • feather boa kelp (Egregia menziesii) • surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) • sea palms (Eisenia arborea) • sea fans (Muricea spp.)

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-2 TABLE 1. RBSP POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING LOCATIONS (NAD83).

SHALLOW SUBTIDAL LOCATIONS KELP LOCATIONS

North Carlsbad Batiquitos/Leucadia NC-SS-1 33 9.556 117 21.521 BL-K-1 33 4.661 117 18.986 NC-SS-2* 33 8.908 117 21.030 BL-K-2* 33 4.368 117 18.852 NC-SS-3 33 8.779 117 20.933 BL-K-3 33 3.904 117 18.623 South Carlsbad Encinitas SC-SS-1 33 6.619 117 19.577 EN-K-1 33 3.774 117 18.587 Batiquitos/Leucadia EN-K-2 33 3.442 117 18.440 BL-SS-1 33 4.744 117 18.868 EN-K-3 33 2.932 117 18.260 BL-SS-2 33 4.363 117 18.722 Swamis (Control) BL-SS-3* 33 3.944 117 18.541 SW-K-1 33 2.24 117 18.069 Moonlight SW-K-2* 33 1.983 117 17.933 ML-SS-1 33 3.487 117 18.344 SW-K-3 33 1.825 117 17.730 Swamis (Control) Cardiff SW-SS-1 33 2.186 117 17.960 CF-K-1 33 0.969 117 17.247 SW-SS-2 33 2.039 117 17.857 CF-K-2 33 0.744 117 17.140 SW-SS-3 33 1.935 117 17.718 CF-K-3 33 0.181 117 17.045 Cardiff Solana Beach CF-SS-1 33 0.822 117 17.113 SB-K-1* 32 59.499 117 16.951 Cardiff (Control) SB-K-2 32 59.222 117 16.902 CC-SS-1 33 0.092 117 16.936 SB-K-3 32 58.870 117 16.752 CC-SS-2* 32 59.932 117 16.880 Point Loma (Control) CC-SS-3 32 59.827 117 16.821 PL-K-1* 32 42.025 117 15.856 Solana Beach PL-K-2 32 41.965 117 15.843 SB-SS-1 32 59.544 117 16.730 PL-K-3 32 41.892 117 15.838 SB-SS-2 32 58.940 117 16.623 SB-SS-3 32 58.750 117 16.581

* Navy Site In addition to percent cover data, surfgrass densities were determined by counting the number of shoots in 0.25 m x 0.25 m quadrats (area = 0.0625 m2) every five meters along the transect (i.e., 10 quadrats per transect), and the number of lobsters recorded in each 100 m2 band transect.

DATA ANALYSIS

All data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and arithmetic mean and standard error calculated and either graphed or tabularized. For the Final Report (2005), all sites with replicate monitoring locations (e.g., North Carlsbad, Batiquitos, Swami’s, Cardiff control, and Solana Beach), a nested analysis of variance (ANOVA) will be used to determine statistical differences among percent cover or abundance data at each site for the sampling period, and to make comparisons between test and control sites. A nested ANOVA can also provide statistical analysis at various hierarchical levels such as within and/or between sampling periods, sites, monitoring locations, and transects. For sites where replicate monitoring locations could not be established (e.g., South Carlsbad, Moonlight, Cardiff) statistical comparisons can be made with the control site by using 95% confidence levels. The data will be transformed prior to analysis if violations of homoscedasticity are present. If violations of homoscedasticity are still present after transformations, ANOVA have been done on untransformed data. ANOVA is robust considering heterogeneity of variances as long as the sample size is equal or nearly equal. Sediment data collected during the survey will be analyzed and assessed to determine if any trends observed can be correlated to observed biological data.

FIELD MONITORING PERIODS

Pre-construction or baseline monitoring occurred in Spring 2001 prior to project initiation. Post- construction monitoring occurs semi-annually in the spring and fall following sand replenishment activities, through spring 2005. Spring and fall sampling is ideal because it will coincide with the natural onshore and offshore movement of sand.

RESULTS

During the development of the monitoring plan, it was thought that having replicate monitoring locations would provide a more robust and powerful experimental design; however, the surveys have documented that there is a large amount of variability in measured sampling units. Therefore, the data are being presented at the monitoring location level (e.g., SW-SS-2) instead of at the site level (e.g., Swamis). This will provide more detail and insight to spatial differences within a given area.

NORTH CARLSBAD

At North Carlsbad, sediment transport models suggested that the sand would be transported downcoast towards the jetty at the entrance to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The monitoring locations were placed on hard substrate directly offshore of the receiver site (NC-SS-1) and downcoast of the receiver site (NC-SS-2 and NC-SS-3) (Figure 1).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-4 Substrate

Of the three monitoring locations at North Carlsbad, NC-SS-1 appears different, as sand is more common than at the other two monitoring locations (Figure 6). The mean percent cover of sand at NC-SS-1 was 45.4% for all surveys, with values ranging from a high of 52% in Spring 2001 to a low of 30% in Spring 2002. Since Spring 2002, sand cover has increased to levels observed prior to implementation of the RBSP. Low-relief substrate accounted for 42% of the substrate at NC-SS-1. From Spring 2001 to Fall 2002, the percent cover of low-relief substrate remained relatively stable ranging from a low of 40.0% in Fall 2001 to a high of 55.7% in Spring 2002. In Spring 2003, the percent cover of low-relief substrate decreased to 24.5%. High-relief substrate accounted for 12.6% of the substrate present at NC-SS-1, and data indicates a slight increase during the course of the monitoring. A low of 2.0% was found in Spring 2001, with a high of 25.5% present in Spring 2003.

From Spring 2001 through Spring 2002, the other two sites at North Carlsbad showed similar patterns and values in percent cover (considering the variation around the mean). However, since Spring 2002 surveys indicated that substrate composition has remained relatively constant at NC-SS-2 through Spring 2003, while at NC-SS-3 the percent cover of sand has declined from 47.1% in Spring 2002 to 9.0% in Spring 2003. This corresponded to an increase in the percent cover of high-relief substrate, from 22.3% in Spring 2002 to 65.2% in Spring 2003. Low-relief reef remained relatively constant through this time. The sites are relatively close together and although it would be expected that they would act similarly, it appears that small-scale variation in sand movement is occurring. In addition, this area may be the where sand from both the Oceanside and North Carlsbad receiver sites will eventually migrate, as sand transport is typically downcoast in the Oceanside littoral cell and the jetties downcoast of the monitoring locations may act as a barrier to further downcoast transport.

NC-SS-2 has been monitored since 1997 for the Navy’s beach replenishment effort. There appears to be a decreasing trend in low-relief substrate, and an increasing trend in high-relief reef. Sand cover has varied but has remained between 9% and 23% since 1997 (Figure 7).

Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass at NC-SS-2 and NC-SS-3 was similar with the exception of low percent cover in Spring 2001 at NC-SS-2 (Figure 8), and with the exception of this value are significantly higher than the percent cover observed at NC-SS-1. The mean percent cover of surfgrass at NC-SS-1 was 18.6%, with values ranging from 8.0 to 29.4%. The mean percent cover at NC-SS-2 was 35.1%, with values ranging from 8.1 to 52.0%. The mean percent cover at NC-SS-3 was 44.1%, with values ranging from 36.5 to 48.8%. There was a similar trend at all locations, with generally highest values observed during the fall and the lowest values observed in the spring. This is most likely due to the oceanographic conditions as winter storms and colder water may reduce densities and slow growth.

Surfgrass coverage at NC-SS-2 has fluctuated; however trends observed since implementation of the RBSP are within a range observed at the site since 1997 (Figure 9).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-5 Surfgrass shoot density also exhibited a similar trend with two sites having similar values and patterns (NC-SS-1 and NC-SS-2), while NC-SS-3 exhibited an opposite trend during the first year of the monitoring program (Figure 10). Since Spring 2002, shoot densities at each site has remained relatively constant. Shoot densities at NC-SS-1 ranged from 1.5 to 8.4 shoots per 0.0625 m2 (mean = 3.8 per 0.0625 m2), while shoot densities at NC-SS-2 ranged from 4.1 to 11.6 shoots per 0.0625 m2 (mean = 6.8 per 0.0625 m2). The mean shoot density at NC-SS-3 was similar to the other sites (6.7 per 0.0625 m2), although as stated earlier, there was an opposite trend compared to the other sites.

Percent cover of feather boa kelp remained relatively constant at all sites, although there were slight differences in coverage (Figure 11). The highest values were observed at NC-SS-2 with values ranging from 6.5 to 12.6% (mean = 9.4%). Very low coverage of feather boa kelp was observed at NC-SS-1 with values generally less than 0.9% cover (mean = 0.5%). Coverage at NC-SS-3 was between the other sites with values ranging from 4.8 to 6.9% cover (mean = 5.5%). Since 1997, coverage of feather boa kelp at NC-SS-2 has exhibited a very stable pattern with few fluctuations (Figure 9).

Abundance of sea palms exhibited a similar pattern as feather boa kelp, with the highest densities observed at NC-SS-2 (mean = 2.3 per 10 m2), lowest densities at NC-SS-1 (mean = 0.03 per 10 m2), and similar densities at all sites since Spring 2001 (Figure 12). Since 1997, sea palm densities at NC-SS-2 have remained relatively low (less than 1 per 10m2) through Spring 2000, but increased to approximately 2 per 10m 2 in Fall 2000 and have remained similar, with a slight increasing trend through Spring 2003 (Figure 13).

Sea fans have been observed during several surveys at NC-SS-1 with a mean density of 0.2 per 10 m2, while only one survey documented sea fans at NC-SS-2 in Spring 2003 (Figure 14). At NC-SS-1, no sea fans were recorded in Spring 2001; however, abundance of sea fans in Fall 2001 and Spring 2002 was 0.5 per 10m2. Sea fan abundance at NC-SS-2 has remained relatively low since 1997 (Figure 13).

Adult giant kelp has been observed only at NC-SS-1 during the Fall 2002 and Spring 2003 surveys, but at relatively low densities (less than 0.10 individuals per 10m2).

SOUTH CARLSBAD

Only one monitoring location (SC-SS-1) was established at South Carlsbad within the vicinity of the receiver site. The monitoring location was placed at the closest reef area downcoast of the receiver site (Figure 2).

Substrate

The monitoring location can be characterized as primarily sand (survey mean = 60.2%) with a moderate occurrence of low-relief reef (Figure 15). The percent cover of sand has shown relatively large fluctuations, with values ranging from a low of 39.3% in Fall 2001 to a high of 94% in Spring 2002. Sand levels decreased in Fall 2002 (52.9%) and then increased to a level similar to that observed during the baseline survey (62.9%). Fluctuation in sand cover appears to

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-6 affect the cover of the other substrata as cover of both low and high-relief reef has remained relatively constant during the survey period if the large increase in sand cover in Spring 2002 is excluded. If the Spring 2002 survey period is removed from analysis, the percent cover of low- relief reef ranged from 24.6% (Spring 2003) to 52.9% (Fall 2002), while cover of high-relief reef ranged from 0.2% (Spring 2001) to 13.7% (Fall 2001).

Biota

The density of surfgrass in Spring 2001 was 16.8%, and exhibited a slight decrease in Fall 2001 (14.3%). Despite the high sand cover in Spring 2002, surfgrass density was highest in Spring 2002 (27.6%), although densities have remained relatively constant through the monitoring program (Figure 16). The density of surfgrass shoots also exhibited a similar trend with percent cover with a slight decrease in Fall 2001 (1.5 per 0.0625 m2) and an increase in Spring 2002 (4.3 per 0.0625 m2) (Figure 17). The majority of the surfgrass shoots were buried in sand although they appeared healthy.

The percent cover of feather boa kelp was relatively low (mean = 0.4%), with little fluctuation between surveys (Figure 18). The highest percent cover was observed in Fall 2001 (0.7%), while the lowest cover was observed in Spring 2001 (0.1%). Sea palms were found in relatively low densities, but were present during all surveys except for Fall 2002 (Figure 19)

No sea fans or adult giant kelp have been observed at South Carlsbad.

BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA

The Batiquitos and Leucadia receiver sites were located in close proximity to one another. The nearshore region offshore of these receiver sites contains a large area of low-relief substrate, with patchy high-relief substrate. Sediment transport models suggested that sand from the Batiquitos receiver site would be transported directly offshore of the receiver site. One monitoring location (BL-SS-1) was placed on hard substrate directly offshore and downcoast of the Batiquitos receiver site, and the other two monitoring locations were established offshore (BL-SS-2) and downcoast (BL-SS-3) of the Leucadia receiver site (Figure 3).

Substrate

Similar to North Carlsbad, one of the three monitoring locations at Batiquitos/Leucadia, BL-SS-1 appears different, as sand is more common than at the other two monitoring locations, accounting for 57.6% of the substrate at BL-SS-1 (Figure 20). However, since Fall 2001, the percent cover of sand has shown a slight decreasing trend from 68.7% in Fall 2001 to 49.5% in Spring 2002. Values since Spring 2002 have remained similar, ranging from 47% to 55.9%. The decrease in sand corresponded to an increase in high-relief reef, from 7.5% in Fall 2001 to 37.7% in Spring 2002, and similar to the percent cover of sand, high-relief reef has remained relatively constant through Spring 2003 values ranging from 30.4% to 35.5%. The percent cover of low-relief reef has also remained relatively constant, with values ranging from 23.8% in Spring 2001 to 8.7% in Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-7 BL-SS-2 exhibited a large fluctuation in the percent cover of sand from Spring 2001 to Fall 2002. The percent cover of sand was 65.2% in Spring 2001, decreased to near zero in Fall 2001, increased to 48.7% in Spring 2002, and declined to 12.8% in Fall 2002. Sand cover remained constant in Spring 2003 (13.5%). The decrease in sand in Fall 2001 corresponded to an increase in cover of low and high-relief substrate. Interestingly enough, values observed in Spring 2002 were similar to values observed in Spring 2001 suggesting that seasonal sand transport is evident at BL-SS-2 (i.e., offshore during the winter period and onshore during the summer period).

BL-SS-3 is a site that has been monitored since 1997 for the Navy’s beach replenishment effort. During the surveys for the RBSP, the percent cover of the three substrate types has remained relatively constant, with the exception of the Spring 2003 survey which indicated that sand cover had increased to 42.2%, while cover of low-relief reef declined from 69.8% in Fall 2002 to 38% in Spring 2003 (Figure 20). However, since 1997 data suggests that the current pattern has existed since Spring 1999, but prior to Spring 1999 the percent cover of high-relief substrate decreased significantly to values currently observed (Figure 21). The decrease in high-relief substrate corresponded to an increase in low-relief substrate. The percent cover of sand since 1997has remained relatively constant with some seasonal variation, although values in Spring 2003 were the highest observed.

Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass at BL-SS-2 and BL-SS-3 was similar with the exception of low percent cover in Spring 2001 at BL-SS-2 (Figure 22), and with the exception of this value are significantly higher than the percent cover observed at BL-SS-1. The mean percent cover of surfgrass at BL-SS-1 was 0.6%, with values ranging from zero to 1.1%. The mean percent cover at BL-SS-2 was 45.7%, with values ranging from 11.2 to 62%. The mean percent cover at BL- SS-3 was 36.5%, with values ranging from 29.6 to 40.5%. With the exception of low percent cover at BL-SS-2 in Spring 2001, values at all monitoring locations have remained relatively constant.

Since 1997, the percent cover of surfgrass has fluctuated, with low coverage present in Fall 1998, an increasing trend up through Spring 2001, and relatively constant coverage thereafter (Figure 23). Values observed in the last several years were observed during the initial survey in Fall 1997.

Surfgrass shoot density also exhibited a similar trend with two sites having similar values and trends (BL-SS-2 and BLSS-3), while little to no surfgrass was observed at BL-SS-1 (Figure 24). Shoot densities at BL-SS-2 ranged from 1.1 to 9.9 shoots per 0.0625 m2 (mean = 6.6 per 0.0625 m2), while shoot densities at BL-SS-3 ranged from 3.8 to 6.5 shoots per 0.0625 m2 (mean = 5.0 per 0.0625 m2).

Percent cover of feather boa kelp remained relatively stable at all sites, with very slight differences in coverage through Spring 2002 (Figure 25). Since Spring 2002, there was a peak in coverage in Fall 2002 at BL-SS-1, and an increasing trend at BL-SS-3. The highest values were observed at BL-SS-3 with values ranging from 2.0 to 11.9% (mean = 5.6%). Coverage at BL- SS-2 was similar to BL-SS-1 with values ranging from 1.4 to 3.6% cover (mean = 2.4%). Very

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-8 low coverage of feather boa kelp was observed at BL-SS-1 with values generally less than 1.9%, although there was a peak observed in Fall 2002 (16.6%). Since 1997, coverage of feather boa kelp at BL-SS-3 has exhibited a very stable pattern with low cover and few fluctuations (Figure 23).

Abundance of sea palms remained stable at BL-SS-3 with values ranging from 0.5 to 0.9 per 10 m2 (mean = 0.7 per 10 m2) (Figure 26). Abundance at BL-SS-2 exhibited an increasing trend with low abundance in Spring 2001 (0.06 per 10 m2) to higher abundance in Spring 2002 (2.3 per 10 m2). Since Spring 2002, sea palm abundance remained constant. The lowest densities were observed at BL-SS-1 with values ranging from 0.0 to 0.05 per 10 m2 (mean = 0.02 per 10 m2). Since 1997, sea palm densities at BL-SS-3 have remained relatively stable and low (generally less than 1 per 10m2) (Figure 27).

Sea fans have only been observed in low densities at BL-SS-1 with a mean density of 0.02 per 10 m2 (Figure 28). Sea fans were recorded only in Fall 2001 at a density of 0.08 per 10 m2.

Adult giant kelp has been sporadically observed at all the monitoring locations at Batiquitos/Leucadia. Densities have been relatively low with generally less than 0.10 individuals per 10m2, although the highest density record occurred in Fall 2002 at BL-SS-1 (0.48 individuals per 10m2).

MOONLIGHT BEACH

Only one monitoring location (ML-SS-1) was established within the vicinity of the receiver site at Moonlight Beach. The monitoring location was placed at the closest reef area slightly upcoast of the receiver site as sediment transport modeling suggested that the sand may migrate upcoast and offshore (Figure 3).

Substrate

The monitoring location can be characterized as primarily low-relief substrate (mean = 54%) with moderate amounts of high-relief reef (mean = 22%) and sand (mean =24%). There appears to be seasonal changes in sand cover corresponding to higher sand levels in the spring, and lower cover in the fall (Figure 29). The percent cover of all substrata has remained relatively constant through Spring 2003. The coverage of low-relief reef ranged from a low of 41.3% in Spring 2002 to a high of 69% in Fall 2002. Sand cover was highest in Spring 2001 prior to implementation of the RBSP (33.4%) and lowest in Fall 2001 (9.4%) just after construction was completed. There was some fluctuation in high-relief substrate as the highest coverage was present in Fall 2001 (35.8%) and the lowest coverage was present in Spring 2001 (4.9%).

Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass has remained stable throughout the surveys (Figure 30). The lowest value was observed in Spring 2001 (35.3%) and the highest value observed in Fall 2001 (40.8%). The number of surfgrass shoots indicated a slight increasing trend, with the lowest value in

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-9 Spring 2001 (2.1 per 0.0625 m2) and the highest value in Spring 2002 (7.8 per 0.0625 m2) (Figure 31).

Both feather boa kelp and sea palms displayed a similar pattern with low values present throughout the duration of the monitoring program (Figures 32 and 33). Percent cover of feather boa kelp has consistently increased through the surveys, and values have ranged from a low of 2.5% in Spring 2002 to a high of 9.4 in Spring 2003. The number of sea palms remained relatively constant, with values ranging from 0.9 per 10 m2 in Spring 2001 to a high of 2.9 per 10 m2 in Fall 2001.

No sea fans have been observed at the monitoring locations at Moonlight. Adult giant kelp has been observed during all surveys, although densities have been relatively low (less than 0.10 individuals per 10m2).

SWAMIS (CONTROL)

The monitoring locations at Swamis are considered control sites implying that this area will be unaffected by any replenishment activities. The monitoring locations were distributed on the upcoast and downcoast edges and in the center of the reef (Figure 4).

Substrate

Both SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 displayed similar patterns as BL-SS-2 and ML-SS-1, with a large decrease in the percent cover of sand in Fall 2001 and Fall 2002 (Figure 34). At SW-SS-1, the percent cover of sand was 76.3% in Spring 2001, 0.0% in Fall 2001, 95% in Spring 2002, and 19.9% in Fall 2002. There was an increase in sand cover in Spring 2003 (53%), but cover was not as high as previous spring surveys. At SW-SS-2, the percent cover of sand was 64.43% in Spring 2001, 8.8% in Fall 2001, 55% in Spring 2002, and 8.3% in Fall 2002. Similar to SW-SS- 1, sand cover increased in Spring 2003, but not to levels similar to other spring surveys. The decreases in sand cover corresponded to increases in low-relief reef and to a lesser degree, high- relief reef. At SW-SS-1, low-relief reef increased from 23.3% in Spring 2001 to 80.0% in Fall 2001, while at SW-SS-2, low-relief reef increased from 35.6% in Spring 2001 to 87.2% in Fall 2001. This further supports the concept of seasonal sand transport as this occurred prior to any beach replenishment activities. At SW-SS-3, there was high sand coverage in Spring 2001 (64.4%), a less dramatic decrease in Fall 2001 (48.6%), with similar levels being present in subsequent surveys. There was relatively little high-relief reef present at the two downcoast monitoring locations, with values less than 8.8% cover.

Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass at SW-SS-1 suggests an increasing trend with low cover present in Spring 2001 (6.4%) and higher cover present in subsequent surveys, reaching 20.9% in Spring 2003 (Figure 35). There was an initial decreasing trend in surfgrass cover at SW-SS-2 with the highest cover present in Spring 2001 (6.4%) and the lowest in Spring 2002 (5.3%); however, since Spring 2002, percent cover has steadily increased reaching levels similar to those observed during the first several surveys. Surfgrass cover at SW-SS-3 has remained relatively low (mean

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-10 = 3.6%) and constant ranging from 0.5% to 7.4% through the monitoring program. The number of surfgrass shoots indicated a stable trend throughout the surveys, with SW-SS-2 having the highest shoot density (mean = 4.3 per 0.0625 m2), while SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-3 had much lower shoot densities (1.7 and 0.4 shoots per 0.0625 m2, respectively) (Figure 36).

Feather boa kelp was more common at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 in Spring 2001 and Fall 2001 (Figure 37). The percent cover was similar at the sites in Spring 2001 (approximately 16%); however, there was a decreasing trend at SW-SS-1 (14.3%) and an increasing trend at SW-SS-2 (21.7%) through Spring 2002. In Spring 2002, percent cover decreased at both sites (2.1% at SW-SS-1 and 9.3% at SW-SS-2). Cover increased at both sites in Fall 2002, although the cover was still higher at SW-SS-2. At SW-SS-3, the percent cover of feather boa kelp remained relatively low and stable with values ranging from 2.1% in Spring 2002 to 6.7% in Fall 2002. An apparent pattern at all sites was an increase in cover during the fall and decreasing cover in the spring. This is most likely due to winter storms removing parts of the plant or individuals, followed by growth during the summer and fall.

Sea palms displayed a stable and similar pattern at all sites with relatively low densities (generally less than 1 plant per 10 m2) (Figure 38).

Adult giant kelp was recorded at all Swamis monitoring locations, primarily at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2, with a few individuals observed at SW-SS-3 in Fall 2002 and Spring 2003. Densities at all sites were relatively low (less than 0.1 plants per 10 m2), except for SW-SS-2 in Fall 2002 when densities reached 0.34 plants per 10 m2).

No sea fans were observed at the monitoring locations at Swamis.

CARDIFF

Only one monitoring location (CF-SS-1) was established at Cardiff within the vicinity of the receiver site. The monitoring location was placed at the closest reef area slightly upcoast of the receiver site as sediment transport modeling suggested that the sand may migrate upcoast and offshore (Figure 5).

Substrate

CF-SS-1 revealed an opposite trend to BL-SS-2, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2, and ML-SS-1 as the percent cover of sand increased during the fall surveys and not the spring surveys (Figure 39). Percent cover of sand was 3.0% in Spring 2001, increased to 75.9% in Fall 2001, decreased to 29.3% in Spring 2002, and increased to 44.1% in Fall 2002. Unlike previous surveys, sand cover remained high and increased to 49.6% in Spring 2003. The changes in sand cover corresponded to a changes in low-relief reef, while cover of high-relief reef remained relatively constant throughout all surveys (range between 6.3% and 19.8%).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-11 Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass was relatively stable and indicated atypical seasonal variation, with higher coverage in the spring and lower coverage in the fall. The lowest cover was present in Fall 2001 (2.4%) and the highest cover in Spring 2002 (15.2%). The number of shoots displayed a similar trend with a slight decline observed through Spring 2003. The number of shoots was 2.3 per 0.0625 m2 in Spring 2001, decreased to 0.2 per 0.0625 m2, increased to 1.8 per 0.0625 m2, and decreased to 0.2 per 0.0625 m2 in Fall 2002 (Figure 41).

Feather boa kelp displayed a decreasing trend through Spring 2002, and then increased in subsequent surveys (Figure 42). The percent cover was 15.6% in Spring 2001 and declined to 6.5% in Spring 2002, and increased significantly in Fall 2002 (33.4%). Sea palms exhibited a stable pattern throughout the surveys with densities ranging between 0.6 per 10 m2 in Spring 2003 to 1.1 in Fall 2002 (Figure 43).

Sea fans were observed during several surveys; however, abundances were generally less than 0.2 individuals per 10 m2. Adult giant kelp was recorded during several surveys at relatively low densities (less than 0.02 plants per 10 m2), except for the survey in Fall 2002 when densities were 0.76 plants per 10m2.

CARDIFF (CONTROL)

The monitoring locations at Cardiff (Seaside Reef) are considered control sites implying that this area will be unaffected by any replenishment activities. The monitoring locations were distributed on the upcoast and downcoast edges and in the center of the reef (Figure 5).

Substrate

Both CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 were similar as both had relatively low sand cover (Figure 44); the mean percent cover of sand at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 was 6.4% and 2.9%, respectively. At CC- SS-2, there was a relatively high amount of sand (mean = 56.2%). At CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3, there appeared to be the greatest fluctuation from Spring 2001 to Fall 2001. At CC-SS-1, the percent cover of low-relief reef was 80.0% in Spring 2001, but decreased to 52.7% in Fall 2001, while high-relief reef increased from 17.0% in Spring 2001 to 45.7% in Fall 2001. High-relief reef at CC-SS-3 increased from Spring 2001 (18.1%) to Fall 2001 (58%), while low-relief reef declined from 82.0% in Spring 2001 to 41.8% in Fall 2001. Since Fall 2001, the percent cover for all substrata has remained relatively constant, with only slight fluctuations. At CC-SS-2, the only significant change in substrate cover was in Spring 2002, when the percent cover of sand increased from 39.7% in Fall 2001 to71.6% in Spring 2002.

Data from CC-SS-2 since 1997 suggests relatively large fluctuations in the percent cover of sand and reef habitat, with a general increasing trend in sand cover starting in Fall 2000 (Figure 45).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-12 Biota

The percent cover of surfgrass at all the monitoring locations was similar throughout the surveys (Figure 46). There was a slight increasing trend at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 throughout the surveys, while surfgrass fluctuated seasonally at CC-SS-2, although the range only varied from 20.4% to 34.7%. The mean percent cover was 25.0% at CC-SS-1, 28.7% at CC-SS-2, and 28.5% at CC-SS-3. Data collected from 1997 at CC-SS-2 appears to indicate a similar trend with relatively mild fluctuations in surfgrass cover (Figure 47).

Surfgrass shoot density was also similar between the sites from Spring 2001 to Spring 2003, with a slight decreasing trend through Fall 2001, and then relatively similar shoot densities (Figure 48). The highest and lowest densities were observed at CC-SS-1 in Spring 2001 (9.9 per 0.0625 m2) and Spring 2003 (1.9 per 0.0625 m2), respectively.

The percent cover of feather boa kelp was highest at CC-SS-1 (11.6%), followed by CC-SS-2 (9.6%), and CC-SS-3 (9.2%) (Figure 49). CC-SS-1 displayed the most stable pattern with relatively similar cover through Spring 2002, and then increased during subsequent surveys. The percent cover of feather boa kelp at CC-SS-2 increased from 11.9% in Spring 2001 to 14.4% in Fall 2001, decreased to 2.7% in Spring 2002, but increased to 10% in Spring 2003. This variability has been observed at this site since 1997 (Figure 47). At CC-SS-3, the percent cover decreased from 11.9% in Spring 2001 to 2.2% in Spring 2002, but also increased during subsequent surveys to 18.1% in Spring 2003.

Sea palm abundance at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 was very similar from Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 (Figure 50). At CC-SS-1, the mean number of sea palms steadily increased from 2. per 10m2 in Spring 2001 to3.6 per 10m2 in Spring 2003, while at CC-SS-3, the mean number of sea palms was 1.9 per 10m2 in Spring 2001 and increased to 4.5 per 10m2 by Spring 2003. The abundance of sea palms at CC-SS-2 was lower than the other sites, with densities generally less than 0.8 per 10m2. There appears to be a fair amount of variability in sea palm abundance at CC- SS-2 since 1997 with values ranging from 2.4 per 10m2 in Fall 2001 to near zero during several surveys (Figure 51).

Sea fans were only observed in Spring 2001 at CC-SS-1 at very low densities (0.04 per 10 m2).

Adult giant kelp was observed during most surveys. These plants were present in low densities (less than 0.1 per 10 m2) at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 in Spring 2001 and Spring 2002. No adult giant kelp was present in Fall 2001. However, adult giant kelp were observed at all monitoring locations during Fall 2002 and Spring 2003, although densities were relatively low (less than 0.14 plants per 10 m2).

SOLANA BEACH

At Solana Beach, sediment transport models suggested that the sand would be transported upcoast towards the reefs at Cardiff (i.e., Seaside Reef). One monitoring location was placed on

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-13 available hard substrate upcoast of the receiver site (SB-SS-1), while the other two monitoring locations were established downcoast of the receiver site (SB-SS-2 and SB-SS-3) (Figure 5).

Substrate

Both SB-SS-1 and SB-SS-3 exhibited the same trend as CF-SS-1 with increased sand cover in Fall 2001, although coverage return to levels observed the prior spring (Figure 52). At SB-SS-1, low-relief reef was the most common substrate type (mean = 46.1%), followed by sand (38.3%), and high-relief reef (15.7%). At SB-SS-3, sand was the most common substrate type (mean = 53.6%) reaching a peak in Fall 2001 with a mean percent cover of 69.1%. Low-relief reef was present in moderate amounts (34.0%), while high-relief reef was least common (12.3%). Since Spring 2002, substrate cover remained relatively constant at both sites. At SB-SS-2, sand was the least common substrate type, with a mean percent cover of 19.0%, although there is an increasing trend since the inception of the monitoring program. This is the only monitoring location where there has been a significant increasing trend in sand cover, as other locations where significant increases have occurred appear to be within natural variability.

Biota

The percent cover of surfgrass did not vary among monitoring locations as the highest percent cover was observed at SB-SS-2 (mean = 22.8%), followed by SB-SS-1 (mean = 12.6%), and SB- SS-3 (mean = 5.2%). There was very little fluctuation in surfgrass density over the course of the surveys (Figure 53). Surfgrass shoot densities exhibited a similar trend as percent cover with the highest shoot density present at SB-SS-2 (mean = 3.8 per 0.0625 m2), followed by SB-SS-1 (mean = 1.9 per 0.0625 m2), and SB-SS-3 (mean = 0.4 per 0.0625 m2) (Figure 54).

The percent cover of feather boa kelp was relatively low at SB-SS-3 (mean = 1.4%) and SB-SS-1 (mean = 5.1%), although there was an increasing trend at SB-SS-1 from Spring 2002 to Spring 2003 (Figure 55). The highest percent cover of feather boa kelp was recorded at SB-SS-2 was 8.3%; however, it exhibited a decreasing trend from Spring 2001 (15.6%) to Spring 2002 (2.4%), increased in Fall 2002 (16.1%), but again declined in Spring 2003 (2.3%).

The abundance of sea palms was similar to that of feather boa kelp, with the highest abundance present at SB-SS-2 (mean = 3.9 per 10 m2), followed by SB-SS-3 (mean = 0.7 per 10 m2), and SB-SS-1 (mean = 0.1 per 10 m2) (Figure 56). Densities stayed relatively stable throughout the sampling period.

Adult giant kelp was observed at low densities at SB-SS-2 throughout the surveys with densities of 0.2 per 10 m2 in Spring 2001, 0.04 per 10 m2 in Fall 2001, 0.06 per 10 m2 in Fall 2002, and 0.02 per 10 m2 in Spring 2003. At SB-SS-3, a single observation of an adult giant kelp plant was made in Fall 2002.

No sea fans were observed at Solana Beach.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-14 DISCUSSION

The objective of the shallow subtidal monitoring is to evaluate whether beach replenishment operations result in any significant, long-term adverse impacts to sensitive marine resources in the vicinity of the beach replenishment sites. Because the Regional Beach Sand Project was the first project of its kind on the west coast, it was considered a pilot project and the potential impacts to the marine environment were unknown. Several studies have been conducted on the East Coast of the United States to document the effects of beach nourishment on the marine environment. A study conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, New York District for the Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project indicated short-term impacts on benthic organisms and water quality, but no long-term environmental impacts associated with beach nourishment (USACE 2001). However, studies in Florida have documented significant impacts to coral reef habitat caused by beach nourishment operations (Goreau 2001). This included burial of reef habitat and reduced growth and survival of various corals. This report presents results of an on-going shallow subtidal monitoring program scheduled through Spring 2005, and discusses finding since completion of the RBSP.

It is apparent that these shallow subtidal habitats undergo temporal and spatial variation in sand movement. For some sensitive marine resources to exist, a firm substrate with little or no sand is required for initial settlement and growth. Eventually, these organisms may reach a size that will provide a refuge from sand burial; however, continual scour and/or burial could eventually cause mortality and variation in population structure (Foster and Schiel 1985). Natural variation in the abundance of the indicator species is expected and there are challenges in the determining causal relationships. While the presence of suitable substrate is an important factor, it is just one of many factors that may affect the presence of these indicator species (Foster and Schiel 1985).

In the shallow subtidal zone, sand movement influences substrate type and the presence of associated biota. Previous monitoring efforts for the Navy Homeporting beach replenishment project have documented the variability in natural sand transport at several areas. In areas where sand is constantly shifting, either moving on or offshore, or longshore, the presence of low- and high-relief substrate will vary. The loss of sand will expose previously covered rocky substrate creating habitat. Conversely, the influx of large amounts of sand can potentially cover these rocky areas. At all the study sites, the rocky areas are not continuous, but rather separated by sand channels that generally extend perpendicular from shore (Figure 57 - Picture of sand channel). These sand channels are created by constant scouring, provide avenues for sand movement, and can decrease the likelihood of impacts from scour or burial on the reef tops. Large fluctuations in sand cover observed at several sites (e.g., BL-SS-2, ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2) suggest that seasonal transport does occur. However, the increases in sand cover since completion of the RBSP are similar in magnitude to observations prior to implementation of the RBSP suggesting that this may be natural fluctuation. The only exception is at Solana Beach, where sand cover at SB-SS-2 has increased to levels beyond what was observed prior to the RBSP. Another example of natural sand transport occurred at Cardiff. The percent cover of sand increased in spring 1999, while the percent cover of low-relief reef decreased. It appeared that sand movement occurred along several transects and covered some reef areas. This apparent influx of sand was also observed in the intertidal zone and documented during the rocky intertidal surveys (Engle 2000).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-15

Sand scour and burial can also create substrate disturbance. The effects of the disturbance on organisms are directly related to reef elevation and can determine if the habitat is suitable for surfgrass, macroalgae, and sessile invertebrates (Daly and Mathieson 1977; Devinny and Volse 1978; Hirata 1991). High-relief reefs are exposed to less disturbance, which allows recruitment and persistence of organisms. Low-relief reefs are more exposed to disturbance and provide a less stable habitat (Dayton et al. 1984; Hirata 1986, 1991). If the habitat is highly disturbed, it becomes too unstable to support organisms. There is an elevation where disturbance from scour and burial is low enough to provide a refuge for perennial marine organisms. This is generally site specific and is determined by factors such as exposure to wave action and the amount of sand in the system.

The presence of sensitive marine resources can be directly related to the amount of available substrate (i.e., reefs). Sea palms, sea fans, and giant kelp are generally found on high-and low- relief reefs where sand is not present, which suggests that these species are less tolerant of sand movement and disturbance. In areas that are predominantly sand, no sensitive marine resources are present that are of concern to the resource agencies or commercial fisherman. On both high- and low-relief reefs, surfgrass, feather boa kelp, and sea palms are present, although their distribution is patchy. Surfgrass and feather boa kelp are also present on low-relief reefs with interspersed sand patches, suggesting that these species can tolerate moderate amounts of sand burial (Figure 58 - picture of species buried in sand). It also indicates that these reefs must undergo intermittent burial and removal of sand (i.e., ephemeral), as settlement and growth could not occur in the presence of sand (Foster and Schiel 1985).

An interesting note is the decrease in surfgrass abundance at BL-SS-3 in Fall 2000 (prior to the RBSP), which coincided with an increase in sand in several transects. The area along the transects where the increased sand was observed tended to be at the nearshore margin. A general transect profile usually consists of sand as the dominant substrate near the beach, followed by an area of rocky substrate that is heavily scoured and does not support sensitive marine organisms (“interface area”), followed by rocky substrate that is less scoured and can support a diverse assemblage of marine organisms. It is the boundary or interface area that is probably most affected by seasonal sand movement and disturbance. For example, if there is little sand on the beach, this interface area will move shoreward and may allow marine organisms to settle and grow in an area that was once too heavily disturbed to support organisms. The converse would also be true, as large amounts of sand would push this interface area further offshore and thereby reduce the amount of habitat available for recruitment and settlement of marine organisms.

Data collected from 1997 to 2001 during the Navy monitoring program indicate both general differences and similarities (e.g., BL-SS-2, ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, and SW-SS-2 had large declines in sand in Fall 2001) in the mean percent cover of habitat types between treatment and control sites, suggesting that the distribution of substrata is different. This generally corresponded to observed differences in the mean percent cover of surfgrass and sea palms between treatment and control sites. However, differences were observed between treatment and control sites in the mean abundance of feather boa kelp, which suggests that site-specific variation does occur. Statistical comparisons or correlations could not be made with the sea fan and giant kelp data because they were infrequently encountered.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-16

It is apparent that sand from the receiver sites has moved; however, observations and data from this monitoring program suggest that sand from the receiver sites does not appear to have migrated offshore onto the shallow subtidal reefs during the winter. The winter of 2001/2002 was a relatively mild season with few large storms, which resulted in much of the dredged sand to remain on the beach or migrate downcoast of the receiver sites (Figure 59). The winter of 2002/2003 could be considered an average winter with moderate storm and wave activity. These storms were definitely large enough to move sand from the beach into the nearshore environment, although the exact destination and movement can not be determined from this study.

As stated earlier, this is the second year of a long-term monitoring program and subsequent surveys will further document any potential impacts associated with the RBSP. Data from other components of the monitoring program for the RBSP, primarily beach profile data would also assist in documenting the degree to which sand transport occurs at specific areas and could also validate the observations of the biological monitoring. Based on results of the second year of sampling there appears to be no indication, with the exception of BL-SS-3 and SB-SS-2 that sand from the receiver sites is impacting the shallow subtidal areas that are being monitored. However, several other beach replenishment projects have occurred in the North Carlsbad and Oceanside areas and may potentially affect the North Carlsbad monitoring locations. Also, maintenance dredging of Batiquitos and San Elijo Lagoons is conducted on a regular basis and may potentially affect the respective monitoring sites. There is potentially no way to disseminate between these different replenishment efforts and the RBSP, as well as, the cumulative effects of future beach replenishment efforts.

LITERATURE CITED

Abbott, I.A. and G.J. Hollenberg. 1976. Marine Algae of California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California, USA.

Black, R. 1974. Some biological interactions affecting intertidal populations of the kelp Egregia laevigata. Marine Biology 28: 189-198.

Daly, M.A. and A.C. Mathieson. 1977. The effects of sand movement on intertidal seaweeds and selected invertebrates at Bound Rock, New Hampshire, USA. Mar. Biol. 43: 45-55.

Dayton, P.K., V. Currie, T. Gerodette, B.D. Keller, R. Rosenthal, and D.V. Tresca. 1984. Patch dynamics and stability of some California kelp communities. Ecol. Monogr. 54(3): 253- 289.

Devinny, J.S. and L.A. Volse. 1978. Effects of sediment on the development of Macrocystis pyrifera gametophytes. Mar. Biol. 48: 343-348.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-17 Engle, J.M. 2000. Rocky Intertidal Resource Dynamics in San Diego County: Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma, Third Year Report (1999/2000). U.S. Navy, SWDIV No. N68711-97- LT-70034.

Foster, M.S. and D.R. Schiel. 1985. The Ecology of Giant Kelp Forests in California: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.2): 1-152.

Goreau, T.J. 2001. Reef Protection in Broward County, Florida. Report by Cry of the Water and the Global Coral Reef Alliance. (http://www.cryofthewater.org)

Grigg, R.W. 1975. Age Structure of a Longevous Coral: A Relative Index of Habitat Suitability and Stability. Nature 109: 647-657.

Grigg, R.W. 1977. Population Dynamics of Two Gorgonian Corals. Ecology 58: 278-290.

Hirata, T. 1986. Succession of sessile organisms on experimental plates immersed in Nabeta Bay, Japan I. Algal succession. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 34: 51-61.

Hirata, T. 1991. Succession of sessile organisms on experimental plates immersed in Nabeta Bay, Japan III. Temporal changes in community structure. Ecol. Res. 6: 101-111.

Littler, M.M., D.R. Martz, and D.S. Littler. 1983. Effects of recurrent sand deposition on rocky intertidal organisms: Importance of substrate heterogeneity in a fluctuating environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 11: 129-139.

USACE. 2001. The New York District's Biological Monitoring Program for the Atlantic Coast of New Jersey, Asbury Park to Manasquan Section Beach Erosion Control Project. Waterways Experiment Station. Final Report.

Zar, J.H. 1984. Biostatistical Analysis. Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. 718 pp.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-18 OCEAN

SO TO S T

S PACIFIC ST MORSE ST

ST KELLY ST

S HORNE ST

LOMA ALTA CREEK S N E V S DITMAR ST A D A S WHALEY ST T S KELLY ST F R EE MORSE ST M A N LINCOLN ST WY S S PACIFIC ST T

S HORNE ST

S NEVADA ST

COAST HWY S DITMAR ST CASSIDY ST

S T F VISTA S R

E R E N R

M

D D

A O O S O

N R

C C I

S FE I P T F P

JE

O O

I

P

S PACIFIC ST

LAS FLORES DR Oceanside Buena Vista Receiver Site Lagoon

BUENA VISTA WY

ST N TO EA

ST. MALO BEACH

KNOWLES AV

LAGUNA DR E P IO G P A M IC L STATE ST A O L D D I IS RV ST O V AN N A CE E O S M OAK T O H

C A PACIFIC AVE R L PIN S B A D GRAND AV OCEAN ST B L WASHINGTON ST V D

AD SB North Carlsbad RL Receiver Site CA NC-SS-1 HARDING ST

AV PINE AV

VE CARLSBAD VILLAGEA DR K A O UT TN ES CH

PINE AVE

J

R

R E

D

D F

E

E F

G G E

R A A

L L S

L

L O I I

V V LEGEND SAND LOW RELIEF SCATTERED REEF HIGH RELIEF NC-SS-2 REEF Historical Maximum Kelp Bed Canopies NC-SS-3 1978 to 1996 Kelp Bed Canopy 1997 Hard Substrate Receiver Site Modeled Deposition Area Monitoring Location

0 350

METERS

F I GURE North Carlsbad Beach Replenishment Monitoring Sites 1

/net/tonga/rota/beach/plots/figures/monitor2001.aml 1 08/23/01 ‚

g y x„

‚ ‰

h‚

i ƒ v r e y ‚ ‚ f i y € h v ‚ h e ‚ ƒ i y h v y iv ƒ‚ x y y f v ‚ i ƒh „ i ‚

† v f i

q i

v

v

y

g

e e

†

i

x

s h e

i x g s x

e

ƒ ƒ

‚ we evy €evywe‚ es ‚€ y‚„ ‚yeh €

€ e ‚ u sx q

y e g ‚ i e i x e † si ‡

h ‚

g e ‚ ‡‰ v ƒƒ xi ƒ €€s f re e h

f v † h f ‚ii i h ‚

g

e SouthCarlsbad w s ix x gsxeƒ g‚iiu y

h ReceiverSite i v

€

e

‚



i

€ y

x

„ y

h

‚

e†ix ƒgEƒƒEI she ixg sxeƒ

r

e ‚ f y

‚ ƒ

€ i y e

s ƒ sx ƒ „ g i e € i h ‚

‚ h ƒ e y † s„ i x s s h „

e e f g i x ƒ i x v y e g e ‚ s s „ x „ rg v e „ ƒ ƒ i ƒ ƒi e f ‚ sx e v y ƒ h € f e hƒ

„ e „ „ i ƒ

f ‰ i † e s g rg

e hesƒ‰ e† w se vx € „„ x fy q ƒi ƒe ysx ‚ ‚ € „ y y v f y e x „ h f s 

v † s v „

e y h e y

x ƒ

„ h e ‚

x

ƒ e ex v „ „ s e x i

h ‚

f

i e

e x

‚ e

‚ † ixgsxe ixshe ƒ „ f i e ‚ ‚ e

€ y

x „ ƒex v sƒ y

h viqixh ‚ ƒexh vy‡ ‚ivsip ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip rsqr ‚ivsip ‚iip ristori™—l w—ximum uelp fed g—nopies fe„s s„yƒ IWUV to IWWT veqyyx

ƒ„e„i €e‚u wesx„ixexgi uelp fed g—nopy ‰e ‚ h IWWU r—rd ƒu˜str—te ‚e™eiver ƒite wodeled heposition ere— wonitoring vo™—tion

ƒ„e e†i Batiquitos ve gy ReceiverSite

† i‡ e exh‚

H RHH

r

x s v

† v v wi„i‚ƒ g ‚ r g i ‰

e ƒ q

x „ fvEƒƒEI i e s h † e

‚

e

† p s q ‚i ƒouth g—rls˜—dGf—t—quitos fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites P

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml P HVGPQGHI ‚ ‚ ixshe ƒ „ f i e ‚ ‚ e

€ y x x „ ƒex v sƒ v y r g h x ‚ s p

fe „s  s„ yƒ h‚

xfe„s s„yƒ ‡‰

fe„s s„yƒ veqyyx

ƒ„e„i €e‚u wesx„ixexgi ‰e ‚ h

f—t—quitos ve gyƒ„e e†i

‚h ‚e™eiver ƒite yp„ v ‰ ƒu

q exh‚i‡e† e ƒ ƒ ‡ e g v y v x y ‰ ‡ „ ‚ e h s v g ‚ r e † vgexx e† h s i v

v y h f ‚q xh‰ ‚h

g v y r ‚ ‚

‰ i ƒ ƒ ƒ

q

e „ „ „ fvEƒƒEI i † s h e

‚ ‚

e

h †

‡

i

s

†

u

‡

fvEuEI e

r

y‚€ri ƒe†

rsvvg‚iƒ„ h‚

xi€„ xi e†

„ „

ƒ ƒ

‚ ‚ ƒ ƒ

y y

e

ƒexpy‚h ƒ„ e

h h

ˆ

ˆ

e

y €s‚ei ƒƒ„ y

g

x x ‰ fvEuEP ‰ r‰qise e† fvEƒƒEP † vgexx e†

iyv ƒ e†

iteƒyxƒ„

‚exse e†

† e ‰ h x e ‚w ri‚wiƒ e† y

x ‚h

r‰wi„„ ƒ e† € e ƒ r‰qise e† ƒ sp ‚exse e† vy ‚ e e †

rsqr‡e‰ IHI fvEƒƒEQ se fvEuEQ geh vi fv†h

veu™—di— r‰qise e†

‚e™eiver ƒite r‰wi„„ ƒ e† x ixEuEI i € „ ƒshyx

x i e

† ‚h

€ ifveƒ„

x

†

v g e x e †

wvEƒƒEI xsyx ƒ„

x † vgex e†

ixEuEP v † e e ve†i„ee† w ƒ

ygiex†si‡e† i i ƒ

ƒeˆyx‰ e r € e ‚ † y

xi€„ xi e†

ƒ

x ƒ viqixh i x „

† h w ‚ v i v e v g † ‚ e y i x „ ƒ e ƒexh e i † e e † † vy‡ ‚ivsip e

ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip ‚‚y‰y h‚ s ‚h  esv rsqr ‚ivsip ‚h  esv ‚iip ixEuEQ ixgsxs„eƒ fv†h gyffviGƒexh

wyyxvsqr„ ristori™—l w—ximum ƒ„e„i eƒ„ uelp fed g—nopies fiegr

IWUV to IWWT fƒ„

uelp fed g—nopy gƒ„ IWWU woonlight e‚hix h‚ ‚i ie h i †

y r—rd ƒu˜str—te h‚ gy‚xsƒr

x

‚e™eiver ƒite † vgex

ƒ

r

s

‚

i

h ‚ ‚e™eiver ƒite ‚

Pxh ƒ„

Q‚h ƒ„ e‚hix h‚ wodeled heposition ere— e‚hix h‚

„py‚h h‚

ƒ„‚e

wonitoring vo™—tion

‚ ‚

i i

q q

e e

v v

‚ ‚

h h

ƒ‡EuEI e†

e‚hix h‚

„py‚h h‚

gy‚xsƒrgy‚xsƒr h‚ h‚

ƒ‡EƒƒEI ƒex„e piƒ„‚e

hi†yxƒrs‚i h‚

H SHH ƒ‡EƒƒEP ‚ fixƒ„isx e†

ƒ e ƒ‡EuEP x wi„i‚ƒ i v s t ƒ‡EƒƒEQ y

ƒ

„

e ƒ wws„

‚

v v

s s

q q

r r

„ „ p s q ‚i f—tiquitos 8 veu™—di— fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites Q

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml Q HVGPQGHI x „ ƒ e i e i † h e e ‚ † †  esv qe

‚

h e ‚ ƒ ‚y‰y h‚ x

i

h

‚

e

q

v

s

e

s ‚h ‚h  esv  esv



ixgsxs„eƒ fv† †h ixEuEQ h fv ƒ e s„ sx g wyyxvsqr„ i x ƒ„e„i eƒ„ fiegr

fƒ„

gƒ„

woonlight e‚hix h‚ ‚i ie ƒ„ h i †

y

yxƒ h‚ gy‚xsƒr

x xe‚hy ‚e™eiver ƒite † vgex xe‚hy

ƒ

r

s

‚

i

h

‚ ‚

x ƒ„Pxh

Q‚h ƒ„

e‚hixe‚hix h‚ h‚

ƒ„‚e„py‚h h‚

wivfe

‚ ‚

i i

q q

e e

v v

‚ ‚

‚h ‚h

h h

h

‚

e†

x

i

h

ƒ‡EuEI v

y

q

e‚hix h‚

gy‚xsƒrgy‚xsƒr h‚ h‚

qe‚hixe ‚h

ƒ‡EƒƒEI ƒex„e piƒ„‚e„py‚h h‚ h‚

hi†yxƒrs‚i h‚

wegusxxyx wegusxxyx

ƒ‡EƒƒEP ‚ fixƒ„isx e†

ƒ e ƒ‡EuEP x i v s t ƒ‡EƒƒEQ y

ƒ

„

e ƒ wws„ e†

‚

v v

s s

q q

r r

„ „

h h

‚ ƒ‡EuEQ

yiƒ„e† ƒywi‚ƒi„

e† e† e†

ihsxf ‚q e† yˆpy‚h e† g e gewf‚shqi e† ‚ y w v y x „ q y w w e i x ‚ g ‰ r e i † ƒ „ i ‚ e † viqixh

h‚ ƒexh h siv ‚p „i iƒ vy‡ ‚ivsip gr ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip rsqr ‚ivsip ‚iip ristori™—l w—ximum

uelp fed g—nopies h fvsx h‚ IWUV to IWWT gpEuEI uelp fed g—nopy IWWU usvuixx‰ h‚ r—rd ƒu˜str—te ‚e™eiver ƒite gpEƒƒEI wodeled heposition ere— gpEuEP wonitoring vo™—tion ge‚hspp ƒ„e„i fiegr

g—rdiff ‚e™eiver ƒite

H QSH

wi„i‚ƒ

p s q ‚i woonlightGg—rdiff fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites R

GnetGtong—Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml U HVGPQGHI s‚ ihsxf ‚q e† w yˆpy‚h e† g s e x gewf‚shqi e† ‚ q y r v e w w y † h‚ s x i „ ‡ q y h w w ‚ e i x ‚ g ‰ ‚ r e i † h ƒ h „ i

‚ y

e r

† e v

x

v

e

h h

i i

‚ ‚ veui h‚

p p

h‚ h siv ‚p „i iƒ gr

‚

h

i q ƒ e ie †sv v

v e u i h ‚ h fvsx h‚ gpEuEI

usvuixx‰ h‚

w exgr gpEƒƒEI iƒ„i‚

gpEuEP e† i

ge‚hspp ƒ„e„i fiegr

g—rdiff ‚e™eiver ƒite

r sq gpEuEQ r ‡ e ‰ I H

I †

ggEƒƒEI † ‚ e

e h

e e x

y

‚ ‚ ‰

ƒ x e

e ge

i

f f

e

‚ ‚

f

e e

‚

f f s q r „ v x ggEƒƒEP

vxy„h‚ qvixwyx„

ƒyvexe x‚syƒe† †sƒ„e ‚

h‚ ‚ h

h „ „

€ ƒ ƒ ƒ

e p i v p v s ‚ s

g v r g g g ggEƒƒEQ s

p e

i x x

s x i

g i e v

v v

e y q q † ƒ gvspp ƒ„

x

g i h

‚

† gve‚u †

y ‚ e

ƒ e i h e

e e p ‚

† ‚ e e

ƒ„ e „

f f

q‚exehyƒq‚exehyƒ e† e† x x x

‚ ‚

egegse e† e

e e f ƒ ƒ e w y v ƒfEƒƒEI

ƒxe‚hye† ƒfEuEI pvi„gri‚ ƒ viqixh „ €vee ƒ„ gy†i i fiegr † €e‚u i ƒexh ƒsi‚‚eƒ e† x ƒ

e

ƒ‚syƒe† vy‡ ‚ivsip ƒol—n— fe—™h q‚exehyƒ e† ƒ † ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip ‚e™eiver ƒite

rsqr ‚ivsip ƒgih‚yƒe† ‚iip

†evvi‰ e†

ristori™—l w—ximum ƒfEuEP hervse uelp fed g—nopies h‚ IWUV to€egspsg IWWT ygiex ƒsi‚‚eƒ e†

ƒ x †

uelp fed g—nopy e‚h e ‡ ‡ y

IWWU ƒ y

v e

x

e

r—rd ƒu˜str—te g s ‚ ‚e™eiver ƒite wodeled heposition ere— ƒfEƒƒEP

wonitoring vo™—tion ƒfEuEQ

†sehive†evvi

ƒfEƒƒEQ

H QUS

wi„i‚ƒ

g

e

w x„i fv†h p s q ‚i g—rdiffGƒol—n— fe—™h fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites S

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml S HVGPQGHI NC-SS-1

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

r 80

60

40

Percent Cove Percent 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date NC-SS-2

High-Relief Low- Relief Sand 100

r 80

60

40

Percent Cove 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date NC-SS-3 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 6. Percent cover of three substrate types at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-24

High Relief Low Relief Sand 100

80

60

40 Percent Cover Percent 20

0 Jun-98 Jun-99 Jun-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Feb-98 Feb-99 Feb-00 Feb-01 Feb-02 Feb-03 Date

Figure 7. Percent cover of three substrate types at NC-SS-2 since 1997.

NC-SS-1 NC-SS-2 NC-SS-3

70

60

50

40

30

Percent Cover 20

10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 8. Percent cover of surfgrass at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-25

Surfgrass Feather Boa Kelp 70

60

50

40

30

Percent Cover 20

10

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Date

Figure 9. Percent cover of surfgrass and feather boa kelp at NC-SS-2 since 1997.

NC-SS-1 NC-SS-2 NC-SS-3

20 2

15

10

5 # of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 10. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-26

NC-SS-1 NC-SS-2 NC-SS-3

20

15

10 Percent Cover 5

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 11. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at North Carlsbad.

NC-SS-1 NC-SS-2 NC-SS-3

5

4 2

3

2 Number per 10 m 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 12. Number of sea palms at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-27

Sea Palm Sea Fan 4

3

2 Percent Cover 1

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Date

Figure 13. Number of sea palms and sea fans at NC-SS-2 since 1997.

NC-SS-1 NC-SS-2 NC-SS-3

1.0

0.8 2

0.6

0.4 Number per 10 m 0.2

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 14. Number of sea fans at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-28

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

80

60

40 Percent Cover

20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 15. Percent cover of three substrate types at South Carlsbad.

50

40

30

20 Percent Cover

10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 16. Percent cover of surfgrass at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-29

10 2

5

# of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 17. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at South Carlsbad.

2

1

Percent Cover

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 18. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-30

0.2 2

0.1 Number per 10 m

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 19. Number of sea palms at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-31

BL-SS-1 H igh-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80 60 40

Percent Cover 20 0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date BL-SS-2

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80

60 40

Percent Cover Percent 20 0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

BL-SS-3

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 20. Percent cover of three substrate types at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-32

High Relief Low Relief Sand 100

80

60

40 Percent Cover 20

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Date

Figure 21. Percent cover of three substrate types at BL-SS-3 since 1997.

BL-SS-1 BL-SS-2 BL-SS-3

70

60

50

40

30

Percent Cover 20

10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 22. Percent cover of surfgrass at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-33

Surfgrass Feather Boa Kelp 70

60

50

40

30

Percent Cover 20

10

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Date

Figure 23. Percent cover of surfgrass and feather boa kelp at BL-SS-3 since 1997.

BL-SS-1 BL-SS-2 BL-SS-3

15 2

10

5 # of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 24. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-34

BL-SS-1 BL-SS-2 BL-SS-3

35 30 25 20 15

Percent Cover 10 5

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 25. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

BL-SS-1 BL-SS-2 BL-SS-3

4

2 3

2

Number per 10 m 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 26. Number of sea palms at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-35

Sea Palm Sea Fan 1.5

1.0

0.5 Percent Cover

0.0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Date

Figure 27. Number of sea palms at BL-SS-3 since 1997.

BL-SS-1 BL-SS-2 BL-SS-3

0.2 2

0.1 Number per 10 m

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 28. Number of sea fans at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-36

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

80

60

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 29. Percent cover of three substrate types at Moonlight.

70

60

50

40

30 Percent Cover 20

10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 30. Percent cover of surfgrass at Moonlight.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-37

15 2

10

5 # of shoots per 0.062

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 31. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Moonlight.

15

10

Percent Cov 5

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 32. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Moonlight.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-38

5

4 2

3

2 Number per 10 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 33. Number of sea palms at Moonlight.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-39

SW-SS-1 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date SW-SS-2 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date SW-SS-3 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 34. Percent cover of three substrate types at Swamis.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-40

SW-SS-1 SW-SS-2 SW-SS-3

50

40

30

20

Percent Cov

10

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 35. Percent cover of surfgrass at Swamis.

SW-SS-1 SW-SS-2 SW-SS-3

10 2

5 # of shoots per 0.062

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 36. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Swamis.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-41

SW-SS-1 SW-SS-2 SW-SS-3

30

25

20

15

10 Percent Cov

5

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 37. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Swamis.

SW-SS-1 SW-SS-2 SW-SS-3

2 2

1

Number per 10

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 38. Number of sea palms at Swamis.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-42

High- Relief Low- Relief Sand

100

80

60

40 Percent Cov

20

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 39. Percent cover of three substrate types at Cardiff.

30

20

Percent Cov 10

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 40. Percent cover of surfgrass at Cardiff.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-43

5

2 4

3

2

# of shoots per 0.062 1

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 41. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Cardiff.

50

40

30

20 Percent Cov

10

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 42. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Cardiff.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-44

2 2

1

Number per 10

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 43. Number of sea palms at Cardiff.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-45

CC-SS-1 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date CC-SS-2 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date CC-SS-3 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 44. Percent cover of three substrate types at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-46

High Relief Low Relief Sand 100

80

60

40 Percent Cover 20

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Date

Figure 45. Percent cover of three substrate types at CC-SS-2 since 1997.

CC-SS-1 CC-SS-2 CC-SS-3

50

40

30

20 Percent Cov

10

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 46. Percent cover of surfgrass at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-47

Surfgrass Feather Boa Kelp 50

40

30

20 Percent Cover Percent

10

0 Jun-98 Jun-99 Jun-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Feb-98 Feb-99 Feb-00 Feb-01 Feb-02 Feb-03 Date

Figure 47. Percent cover of surfgrass and feather boa kelp at CC-SS-2 since 1997.

CC-SS-1 CC-SS-2 CC-SS-3

15 2

10

5

# of shoots per 0.062

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 48. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-48

CC-SS-1 CC-SS-2 CC-SS-3

25

20

15

10 Percent Cov

5

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 49. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Cardiff (Control).

CC-SS-1 CC-SS-2 CC-SS-3

6

5 2 4

3

2 Number per 10

1

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 50. Number of sea palms at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-49

Sea Palm 3

2

1 Percent Cover Percent

0 Jun-98 Jun-99 Jun-00 Jun-01 Jun-02 Jun-03 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Feb-98 Feb-99 Feb-00 Feb-01 Feb-02 Feb-03 Date

Figure 51. Number of sea palms at CC-SS-2 since 1997.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-50

SB-SS-1 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 SB-SS-2Date High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date SB-SS-3 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 52. Percent cover of three substrate types at Solana Beach.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-51

SB-SS-1 SB-SS-2 SB-SS-3

50

40

30

20 Percent Cov

10

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 53. Percent cover of surfgrass at Solana Beach.

SB-SS-1 SB-SS-2 SB-SS-3

15

10

5 # of shoots per 0.062

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 54. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Solana Beach.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-52

SB-SS-1 SB-SS-2 SB-SS-3

30

25

20

15

Percent Cov 10

5

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 55. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Solana Beach.

SB-SS-1 SB-SS-2 SB-SS-3

6

5

4

3

2 Number per 10 1

0 S’01 F’01 S’02 F’02 S’03 Date

Figure 56. Number of sea palms at Solana Beach.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-53

Figure 57. Picture of low-relief reef adjacent to sand channel.

Figure 58. Picture of surfgrass, coralline algae, and small kelps partially cover with sand.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-54

Approximate End of Fill

Figure 59. Picture of South Carlsbad Receiver Site in July 2001 and December 2001 depicting sand migrating downcoast.

323550000-0010/Year2_SS.doc Page SS-55

APPENDIX A SUMMARY DATA

KELP FOREST MONITORING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION...... 1

METHODS ...... 1 STUDY SITES ...... 1 METHODS FOR BIOTA STUDIES ...... 1 FIELD MONITORING PERIODS...... 3 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 4

RESULTS...... 4 BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA ...... 4 Substrate...... 4 ENCINITAS ...... 4 Substrate...... 4 SWAMIS (CONTROL)...... 5 Substrate...... 5 CARDIFF...... 5 Substrate...... 5 SOLANA BEACH ...... 6 Substrate...... 6 POINT LOMA (CONTROL)...... 6 Substrate...... 6 DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TARGET TAXA ...... 6 GIANT KELP (MACROCYSTIS PYRIFERA)...... 6 UNDERSTORY KELP...... 7 BROWN TURF ALGAE ...... 7 RED TURF ALGAE ...... 7 LEAFY RED ALGAE ...... 8 CORALLINE ALGAE TURF...... 8 CRUSTOSE RED ALGAE ...... 8 PARAPHOLAS CALIFORNICA...... 8 CHACEIA OVOIDEA ...... 9 MURICEA CALIFORNICA ...... 9 DIOPATRA ORNATA ...... 9 KELLETII...... 9 LITHOPOMA UNDOSUM ...... 10 SEA URCHINS ...... 10 SEA STARS ...... 10 ENCRUSTING INVERTEBRATES...... 10

DISCUSSION ...... 11

LITERATURE CITED...... 15

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-i LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Monitoring Locations at North Carlsbad ...... KF-16 2 Monitoring Locations at South Carlsbad and Batiquitos ...... KF-17 3 Monitoring Locations at Batiquitos and Leucadia ...... KF-18 4 Monitoring Locations at Moonlight Beach and Cardiff...... KF-19 5 Monitoring Locations at Cardiff and Solana Beach...... KF-20 6 Substrata at Batiquitos/Leucadia from 1997-2003...... KF-21 7 Substrata at Encinitas from 2000-2003 ...... KF-21 8 Substrata at Swamis from 1997-2003 ...... KF-22 10 Substrata at Solana Beach from 1997-2003...... KF-23 11 Substrata at Point Loma from 1997-2003 ...... KF-23 12 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-24 13 Macrocystis pyrifera Stipes Per Plant From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-24 14 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Recruits From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-25 15 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Juveniles From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-25 16 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Sub-Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-26 17 Density of Cystoseira osmundacea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-26 18 Density of Eisenia arborea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-27 19 Density of Egregia menziesii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-27 20 Density of Laminaria sp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-28 21 Density of Pterygophora californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-28 22 Percent Cover of Red Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-29 23 Percent Cover of Leafy Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-29 24 Percent Cover of Coralline Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-30 25 Percent Cover of Crustose Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-30 26 Density of Parapholas californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-31 27 Density of Chaceia ovoidea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-31 28 Density of Muricea californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-32 29 Density of Diopatra ornata From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-32 30 Density of Kelletia kelletii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-33 31 Density of Lithopoma undosum From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-33 32 Density of Strongylocentrotus franciscanus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-34 33 Density of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-34 34 Density of Pisaster sp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-35 35 Percent Cover of Sponges From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-35 36 Percent Cover of Ectoprocts From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003...... KF-36 37 Percent Cover of Ascidians From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 ...... KF-36

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-ii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1 Positions of Shallow Subtidal and Kelp Forest Monitoring Locations (NAD83)...... KF-2

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE

A Summary Data...... KF-A-1

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-iii INTRODUCTION

Unlike the shallow subtidal habitat that may support giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera), kelp forest habitat is typically defined as the area further offshore where giant kelp is more persistent. Generally the water is deeper (depth of at least 10 meters [m]), thereby making it less susceptible to breaking waves and strong surge, which is a more conducive environment for giant kelp.

Stands of giant kelp provide a vertically structured habitat through the water column and provide nursery and feeding areas, and shelter for many other organisms (Foster and Schiel 1985). Kelp forests also support both commercially and recreationally important species, as well as providing aesthetic qualities, and similar to the shallow subtidal habitat, many of the indicator species present in the kelp forest habitat are perennial and require hard substrate for attachment. There is some overlap of species (i.e., organisms that may be found in both the shallow subtidal and kelp forest habitats); however, the kelp forest habitat can generally support a more diverse assemblage to organisms. Resource agencies and commercial fisherman were concerned that sand from the receiver sites may potentially move offshore and cover the substrate, thereby affecting the distribution and abundance of these resources. Therefore, the objective of the monitoring is to evaluate whether beach replenishment operations result in any significant, long-term adverse impact to kelp bed resources adjacent to nearshore discharge areas.

METHODS

STUDY SITES

Five sites along the San Diego County coastline have been monitored for the Navy s beach replenishment efforts: three test sites at Imperial Beach, Solana Beach, and Leucadia, and two control sites at Swami s and Point Loma Kelp Bed. Given the sand deposition patterns predicted for the RBSP all sites except for Imperial Beach would continue to be monitored. New test sites (with three replicate monitoring locations per site) were established off Encinitas and Cardiff (Restaurant Row), and replicate monitoring locations were added in Leucadia, Swamis, and Solana Beach to reflect project-specific, model-predicted sand deposition patterns. The monitoring locations are shown in Figures 1 through 5 (except for Point Loma), and the positions (latitude/longitude – NAD83) are shown in Table 1. The data are separated into shallow subtidal (SS) and kelp (K) monitoring locations. The monitoring locations were established in Spring 2001 prior to implementation of the RBSP.

METHODS FOR BIOTA STUDIES

Diving biologists, operating from a research vessel, sampled the kelp and reef biota within permanently established areas within the monitoring site. Three monitoring locations per site were non-randomly positioned at depths of approximately -30 ft MLLW within kelp habitat in the vicinity of receiver sites so biological information regarding kelp production and recruitment

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-1 TABLE 1. RBSP POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING LOCATIONS (NAD83).

SHALLOW SUBTIDAL LOCATIONS KELP LOCATIONS

North Carlsbad Batiquitos/Leucadia NC-SS-1 33 9.556 117 21.521 BL-K-1 33 4.661 117 18.986 NC-SS-2* 33 8.908 117 21.030 BL-K-2* 33 4.368 117 18.852 NC-SS-3 33 8.779 117 20.933 BL-K-3 33 3.904 117 18.623 South Carlsbad Encinitas SC-SS-1 33 6.619 117 19.577 EN-K-1 33 3.774 117 18.587 Batiquitos/Leucadia EN-K-2 33 3.442 117 18.440 BL-SS-1 33 4.744 117 18.868 EN-K-3 33 2.932 117 18.260 BL-SS-2 33 4.363 117 18.722 Swamis (Control) BL-SS-3* 33 3.944 117 18.541 SW-K-1 33 2.24 117 18.069 Moonlight SW-K-2* 33 1.983 117 17.933 ML-SS-1 33 3.487 117 18.344 SW-K-3 33 1.825 117 17.730 Swamis (Control) Cardiff SW-SS-1 33 2.186 117 17.960 CF-K-1 33 0.969 117 17.247 SW-SS-2 33 2.039 117 17.857 CF-K-2 33 0.744 117 17.140 SW-SS-3 33 1.935 117 17.718 CF-K-3 33 0.181 117 17.045 Cardiff Solana Beach CF-SS-1 33 0.822 117 17.113 SB-K-1* 32 59.499 117 16.951 Cardiff (Control) SB-K-2 32 59.222 117 16.902 CC-SS-1 33 0.092 117 16.936 SB-K-3 32 58.870 117 16.752 CC-SS-2* 32 59.932 117 16.880 Point Loma (Control) CC-SS-3 32 59.827 117 16.821 PL-K-1* 32 42.025 117 15.856 Solana Beach PL-K-2 32 41.965 117 15.843 SB-SS-1 32 59.544 117 16.730 PL-K-3 32 41.892 117 15.838 SB-SS-2 32 58.940 117 16.623 SB-SS-3 32 58.750 117 16.581

* Navy Site could be assessed. A permanent, twenty-meter-long transect parallel to the shoreline was established, and along this permanent transect, 10 perpendicular quadrats/band transects were surveyed. The size of the quadrat/transect was dependent upon the resource being quantified.

In ten, five-meter-long by two-meter-wide bands transects (10 m2) the abundance of kelps (large brown algae) were counted. Observations included the number of kelp plants in each transect, the number of stipes at a height of one meter above the bottom, and the size of the individual plants. Four size categories were measured; newly recruited kelp plants (minimum size 2-10 cm), juveniles (10-40 cm in length), subadult (between 40 cm and 2 m) and adults (greater than 2 m in length). The characteristic color and wavy pattern of the blades allows biologists to readily identify even relatively small Macrocystis plants.

Biologists quantified substrate type to characterize the percentage of sand, rock, rock type, vertical relief, and depth of sand cover in ten, one-meter by one-meter quadrats (1 m2). Also, within the 1 m2 quadrat, biologists documented the abundance of key indicator species of plants and invertebrates. The following list is based upon the results of prior reconnaissance dive surveys conducted by the Navy. Indicator species include the following species:

• giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) • red turf algae complex (Corallina/Bossiella) • crustose red algal complex (Lithothamnion/Lithophyllum) • understory kelp (Pterygophora californica) • leafy red algal complex (Rhodymenia/Gigartina) • red urchins (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus) • purple urchins (S. purpuratus) • ornate tube worms (Diopatra ornata) • stalked tunicates (Styela montereyensis) • brown gorgonian (Muricea fruticosa) • Californian golden gorgonian (M. californica) • Kellet's (Kelletia kelletii) • boring (Parapholas californica)

Species are monitored for abundance or percent cover. These organisms represent species that may be known to be sensitive to sand movement, and various trophic levels (primary producer, grazers, omnivores, and predators). The presence of other organisms will be noted in each replicate quadrat, but not quantified.

FIELD MONITORING PERIODS

Predisposal or baseline monitoring occurred in Spring 2001 prior to project initiation. Post- disposal monitoring occurs semi-annually in the spring and fall following sand replenishment activities, through Spring 2005. Spring and fall sampling is ideal because it will coincide with the natural onshore and offshore movement of sand, and natural variation in kelp densities, with generally lower densities in the spring and higher densities in the fall.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-3

DATA ANALYSIS

At each site, species data obtained in each 1 m2 replicate were entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Data, by species, were then summed to provide a total abundance value for each of the ten, 1 m2 quadrats. Percent cover or density per 1 m2 were then calculated for each species. Summary information includes arithmetic mean and standard error for each species. In addition, giant kelp production data (defined for this study as the mean number of kelp stipes per plant or per 10 m2 of habitat) and kelp size class frequency distributions were also generated and summarized graphically for each monitoring site.

RESULTS

BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA

One location at Batiquitos/Leucadia was part of Navy’s monitoring program (BL-K-2), while two other locations were established prior to start of construction. The monitoring locations were established on the shoreward portion of an existing kelp bed downcoast of the model predicted deposition area (Figure 3)

Substrate

Rocky reef was the most common substrate type at Batiquitos/Leucadia, although there have been several large influxes of sand (Figure 6). From 1997 to 2003, the percent cover of rocky substrate has fluctuated between 52.9% in Fall 1999 to 85.4% in Fall 1998. Since implementation of the RBSP, the percent cover of rocky reef has fluctuated from 75% in Spring 2001 to 55.3% in Spring 2002 to 73.5% in Spring 2003. The highest percentage of sand was documented in Fall 2001 (34.5%), which was just after completion of the Batiquitos and Leucadia receiver sites. This presumably was not due to the additional sand on the beach as the majority of the material remained on the beach during the winter of 2001-2002. In Spring 2003, the percent cover of sand (this includes sand with shell hash) combined for 21.7% which was similar to pre-construction sand cover (taking into account standard error) present in Spring 2001 (19.3 + 5.6%) suggesting that episodes of sand movement are common in this area.

ENCINITAS

The Encinitas monitoring locations were established offshore and downcoast of the Leucadia receiver site on the shoreward edge of the existing kelp bed (Figure 3). Monitoring location EN- K-3 is also located upcoast of Moonlight Beach in the vicinity of the modeled predicted area of deposition for the Moonlight Beach receiver site.

Substrate

Encinitas was not included in the Navy’s monitoring program, therefore substrate data are available from Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 (Figure 7). Rocky reef was the most common

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-4 substrate during all surveys, and similar to Batiquitos, sand cover has fluctuated between surveys. The percent cover of sand (includes sand with shell hash) was lowest in Spring 2001 (7.2%) and highest in Spring 2002 (22.0%). This coincided with the first winter after completion of the RBSP, and may suggest the increase was due to beach construction; however, the winter of 2002 was relatively mild and the majority of the nourishment material remained on the beaches throughout the winter of 2002. The Spring 2003 survey indicated that sand cover was 14.1%, which is lower than levels observed prior to beach construction. The Encinitas site is in close proximity to the Batiquitos/Leucadia site further suggesting that sediment transport occurs along this area of the coast.

SWAMIS (CONTROL)

Swamis was included in the Navy’s monitoring program (SW-K-2). The monitoring locations at Swamis are considered control sites implying that this area will be unaffected by any replenishment activities. The monitoring locations were distributed on the shoreward edge of the kelp bed; upcoast, downcoast, and in the middle of the kelp bed (Figure 4.).

Substrate

Rocky reef was the most common substrate type at Swamis, typically exceeding 80% cover during all surveys (Figure 8). Since implementation of the RBSP, the percent cover of sand has fluctuated between 7.2 % in Spring 2001 to 19.3% in Spring 2002. In Spring 2003, the percent cover of sand was 13%, close to levels observed prior to construction. The Swamis site has been monitored since 1997, and the highest sand coverage was observed in Fall 1998 (18%).

CARDIFF

Two monitoring locations were placed at the closest kelp bed area upcoast of the receiver site as sediment transport modeling suggested that the sand may migrate upcoast and offshore (CF-K-1 and 2). One monitoring location was placed at the closest downcoast kelp bed as members of the CLTFA suggested that sediment transport was downcoast in the vicinity of the receiver site (CF- K-3) (Figure 5).

Substrate

Cardiff was not included in the Navy’s monitoring program, therefore substrate data are available from Spring 2001 to Spring 2003 (Figure 9). Rocky substrate has been the most common substrate, although there appears to be a slight increasing trend in sand cover since implementation of the RBSP. The highest percent cover of sand was observed in Fall 2002 (27.5.0%), a year after completion of the Cardiff receiver site, although it appears unlikely that sand from the receiver site contributed to this increase. The replenishment material from SO-6 was very distinct in color and grain size (i.e., very coarse and yellow-brown in color) and the material present at the monitoring location was fine to medium grained. Observations suggested that the majority of the nourishment material moved downcoast instead of upcoast and offshore.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-5 SOLANA BEACH

Solana Beach was included in the Navy’s monitoring program (SB-K-1). The monitoring locations were distributed on the shoreward edge of the kelp bed; upcoast, downcoast, and in the middle of the kelp bed offshore of the Fletcher Cover receiver site (Figure 5).

Substrate

Rocky reef was the most common substrate type at Solana Beach, typically exceeding 75% cover during all surveys, except for the Fall 1999 survey (Figure10). In Fall 1999, the percent cover of rocky substrate declined to 56.3% and corresponded to an increase in sand cover. Sand cover in Fall 1999 was 41.3%, but declined to levels observed for the majority of the surveys. Since implementation of the RBSP, there has been little change in all substrate categories. Sand cover has ranged between 10.7% in Spring 2001 to 25.1% in Fall 2002.

POINT LOMA (CONTROL)

Point Loma was included in the Navy’s monitoring program. The monitoring locations at Point Loma are considered control sites implying that this area will be unaffected by any replenishment activities. The monitoring locations were distributed on the shoreward edge of the kelp bed; upcoast, downcoast, and in the middle of the kelp bed.

Substrate

The substrate at the Point Loma kelp bed is distinctly different from that observed at the other monitoring locations. The substrate is generally flat, pavement-like sandstone, with scattered areas of sand. Rocky substrate is the most common substrate at Point Loma, generally exceeding 89% during most surveys (Figure 11). Sand cover has fluctuated since 1997, from zero percent cover of sand in Fall 1999 and 2000 to a high of 16.0% in Fall 2002.

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TARGET TAXA

Target taxa distribution and abundance from Spring 2001 to Spring 2002 are graphically presented in Figures 12 through 40 to determine the relationships between treatment and reference sites, and relationships among all sampling sites. Note that the mean abundance and percent cover are relative to a 10 m2 sampling area. See Appendix A for a summary of target species.

GIANT KELP (MACROCYSTIS PYRIFERA)

Giant kelp was present at each of the monitoring sites, although there were differences in the distribution of the life stages. Adult plants were observed at all sites and during all surveys (Figure 12). Point Loma consistently had the highest abundance, with densities exceeding 2 plants per 10 m2 during all surveys. The kelp plants at Point Loma were also the largest plants as indicated by the highest mean number of stipes per plant (Figure 13). The other life stages were

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-6 not present or were found at low densities in Spring 2001 through Fall 2001 (Figures 14 - 16). However, in Spring 2002, after implementation of the RBSP, densities of the various life stages increased at most of the sites. An increase in recruits and juveniles was also observed in Spring 2003. Typically recruitment of giant kelp occurs in the spring, although many of the recruits do not persist through the year. Observations of dead holdfasts in Spring 2003 suggested relatively high mortality of adult plants due to winter storms, which may have increased light levels and space, and contributed to the higher recruitment in Spring 2003 compared with past surveys. In areas where there are persistent stands of adult plants, recruitment is generally lower as adult plants typically out compete the recruits for light and space.

UNDERSTORY KELP

Laminarians and fucoid phaeophytes can form dense, subsurface canopies approximately 0.5 to 2.5 m off of the seafloor (Foster and Schiel 1985) and can completely or partially exclude other species of large brown algae. Cystoseira, in shallow depths, can form surface canopies, but in offshore depths it attains an understory status in the community. Pterygophora, Egregia, and Eisenia have relatively long stipes and can create an understory canopy up to 2.5 m off the bottom, while Desmarestia, Cystoseira, and Laminaria are more prostrate and can cover the bottom.

Several species of large, understory kelp species were observed during the surveys including Cystoseira osmundacea, Egregia menziesii, Eisenia arborea, Laminaria farlowii, and Pterygophora californica. Cystoseira, Egregia, and Eisenia displayed the widest distributions, occurring at 5 of the 6 monitoring sites (Figures 17-19). Both Cystoseira and Eisenia have been observed at all the sites, while Egregia is generally absent from Point Loma. Laminaria has been observed at Cardiff, Swamis, and Point Loma, although densities at Point Loma are significantly higher than the other locations (Figure 20). Similarly, Pterygophora is most abundant at Point Loma, although a few individuals have been observed at Solana Beach and Cardiff (Figure 21). Desmarestia ligulata is more of an ephemeral species and is unusually observed during the spring survey in areas that have been recently disturbed and cleared of other kelps. It has been observed at most locations during previous surveys, but only at Batiquitos/Leucadia in Spring 2003.

BROWN TURF ALGAE

Commonly occurring brown algae were combined into a brown turf algae complex that included such species as Dictyopteris undulata, Dictyota binghamiae, Pachydictyon coriaceum, and Zonaria farlowii). This complex, similar to the red turf complex, comprises a secondary layer of biological cover above encrusting algae and sessile invertebrates. Brown turf algae are more common in shallow areas and were not observed at any site.

RED TURF ALGAE

The red turf algae assemblage comprise filamentous, juvenile, and leafy turf growing associates, and forms a secondary canopy of benthic macrophytes that is susceptible to the movements of

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-7 sediments. It can also act to protect kelp sporophytes from the grazing activities of fish and invertebrates grazers (Harris et al. 1984).

Red turf algae has been observed at all the monitoring locations, with the highest percent cover observed at Swamis in Spring 2003 (Figure 22). Coverage appears to vary seasonally, with the higher coverage present during the spring surveys.

LEAFY RED ALGAE

Consisting of the more mature plants, leafy red algae >10 cm in height (e.g., Acrosorium venulosum, Gracilariopsis sp., Rhodymenia californica, and Microcladia coulteri) form a tertiary layer of algae above the encrusting and turf algae. Leafy red algae were observed at all sites, with the highest percent cover observed at Batiquito/Leucadia in Spring 2003 (7.6%) (Figure 23). The majority of the sites appeared to have the highest percent cover of leafy red algae in Fall 2001 and Spring 2003, suggesting no seasonal variation. The percent cover of leafy red algae declined in Spring 2002 after implementation of the RBSP; however, the values in Spring 2003 were similar to those observed in Fall 2001.

CORALLINE ALGAL TURF

Coralline algal turf consists of species that have morphologically and physiologically adapted to the effects of abrasion and burial by possessing strong, calcified thalli (e.g., Corallina officinalis, C. vancouverensis, and Bossiella sp.). They were observed at all the monitoring locations, with the highest percent cover observed at Encinitas, Point Loma, and Cardiff (Figure 24). There was some slight fluctuation between surveys at several locations; however, given the variation during those surveys, the percent cover remained relatively stable.

CRUSTOSE RED ALGAE

This taxonomic complex (e.g., Lithophyllum /Lithothamnion) is common in subtidal zones (Foster and Schiel 1985) and may persist for long periods of time. However, the biology of these taxa is poorly known and may include the encrusting stages of articulated corallines. Like coralline turf, this complex is uniquely adapted to withstand sand burial and abrasion with its calcified thalli, and may exclude other forms of algae from settling. The percent cover of crustose red algae was relatively low at all monitoring locations, with the exception of Point Loma, where the percent cover generally exceeded 12% (Figure 25). At the other locations, percent cover rarely exceeded 2.0%.

PARAPHOLAS CALIFORNICA

The rock-boring pelecypod, Parapholas californica, commonly inhabits soft-shale reefs (Foster and Schiel 1985). Its hole is rarely deeper than 28 to 30-cm deep and it can live normally with sand cover of up to 15 cm (Morris et al. 1980). Parapholas was observed at all sites except for Solana Beach (Figure 26). The highest densities were consistently observed at Point Loma and Batiquitos/Leucadia, although there appears to be a fair amount of variability at these sites. This

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-8 may be due to their ability to retract their siphon into their hole when disturbed, making it difficult for the biologist to document their presence.

CHACEIA OVOIDEA

Chaceia ovoidea is one of the largest pholads and can bore at least up to 60 cm. Haderlie et al. (1974) found few specimens of Chaceia living with a cover of sand, and attributed this to a settling preference that keeps it out of areas where periodic sand movement occurs. Chaceia was most common at Cardiff, Encinitas, Batiquitos/Leucadia, and Swamis, while few individuals were observed at Solana Beach and Point Loma. At Cardiff, densities ranged from 1.2 per 1 m2 in Spring 2001 to 3.4 per 1 m2 in Spring 2003 (Figure 27).

MURICEA CALIFORNICA

Muricea californica is a frequently observed gorgonian on reefs in kelp forest habitats. It is susceptible to damage from storms, sediment burial, and abrasion, which are major causes of its mortality (Grigg 1975; Rosenthal et al. 1969). Muricea was observed at five of the six monitoring locations, with Point Loma being the only location where it was absent (Figure 28). The highest densities were observed at Encinitas, Cardiff, and Swamis, where densities were generally greater than 1.0 individual per 1 m2. At Solana Beach and Batiquitos, densities were generally less than 1.0 individual per 1 m2.

DIOPATRA ORNATA

Ornate tube worms form dense aggregations on sand-inundated reefs and in coarse, detrital-rich sands surrounding hard bottom habitat. A particulate feeder, this polychaete worm attaches fragments of algae and debris to its tube. These tubes can also serve as "refuges" for crustaceans, polychaete worms, and other micro-invertebrates. Diopatra was observed at all sites, with the highest abundance recorded at Batiquitos in Fall 2001 (over 2.1 individuals per 1 m2). In Spring 2003, abundance ranged from 0.3 to 1.4 individuals per 1 m2 at all sites (Figure 29).

KELLETIA KELLETII

The Kellet's whelk is one of the largest gastropods found intertidally and subtidally in southern California. It is commonly found to depths of 70 meters on rocky reefs and gravel bottoms, scavenging on dead or injured animals it finds on the seafloor, including other gastropods and mussels. Its food sources overlap with the giant sea star, , which also is an occasional predator of Kelletia. Kelletia was present at the monitoring locations, although abundance varied, with highest abundance observed at Cardiff in Fall 2001 (1.4 per 1 m2; Figure 30). At the remaining locations, Kelletia abundance was varied, with abundance ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 individuals per 1 m2. Kelletia is generally patchily distributed and during certain times of the year, primarily spring, can form dense mating aggregations, where densities can exceed 50 per 1 m2.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-9 LITHOPOMA UNDOSUM

The dietary habit of this species is not generally known, but it may be a grazer on lower stipes of kelp and sporophylls (Foster and Schiel 1985). This trochid has been observed at five of the six monitoring locations, although densities were relatively low. The highest densities have consistently been observed at Point Loma, where it was observed during all surveys with the highest abundance of 1.0 individual per 1 m2 recorded in Spring 2001 and 2003 (Figure 31). At the other monitoring locations, abundance rarely exceeded 0.1 individuals per 1 m2.

SEA URCHINS

The red urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, is a significant grazer in the subtidal reef environment. Its grazing activity is known to influence the distribution and abundance of macrophytes and has been associated with the complete removal of kelp plants (Foster and Schiel 1985; Morris et al. 1980). The red sea urchin was present at four of the six sites, although not during every survey (Figure 32). Swamis was the only monitoring location where it was observed during every survey, and where abundance ranged from 0.3 to 0.9 individuals per 1 m2. At the other monitoring locations where red sea urchins were observed, abundance was relatively low and rarely exceeded 0.1 individual per 1 m2.

Purple sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, consume a variety of brown and red algae, although Macrocystis is a preferred food item. It is preyed upon by sea stars (e.g., Dermasterias imbricata and P. ochraceous) and sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher). The purple urchin was observed at three of the six monitoring locations (Figure 33). It was most common at Point Loma where it observed during all surveys, with densities between 0.3 and 2.3 individuals per 1 m2. The only other location where it was observed consistently was Swamis, where abundance ranged from 0.1 to 0.5 individuals per 1 m2.

SEA STARS

Predaceous sea stars (Pisaster giganteus, P. ochraceous, and P. brevispinus) feed on a range of mollusks, barnacles, and annelids, although its preferences vary with the available food resources (Morris et al. 1980). They are common predators in the low intertidal to depths of about 80 meters on rocky substrates, and occasionally are found in sandy habitats. They have been observed at all six sites, although at very low abundances at most of the sites (generally less than 0.1 individuals per 1 m2). Similar to purple urchins, sea stars were observed on every survey at Point Loma with densities as high as 2.3 individuals per 1 m2.

ENCRUSTING INVERTEBRATES

Sponges, ectoprocts (bryozoans), and colonial tunicates were assembled into a collective group of colonial and encrusting sessile suspension/filter feeding invertebrates. Sponges (e.g., Sigmadocia and Leucetta), tunicates (e.g., Didemnum spp.), and ectoprocts (e.g., Bugula californica) were present at all six sites (Figures 35-37). Although it appears there was some seasonal variation (considering the standard error), the relative coverage was similar within each monitoring location.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-10

DISCUSSION

The objective of the monitoring program is to evaluate whether beach replenishment operations result in any significant, long-term adverse impacts to marine resources in the vicinity of the beach replenishment sites. Sediment can affect giant kelp forests by scouring or burying established populations or by affecting the survivorship of microscopic life history stages. However, other factors must also be considered when attempting to determine a relationship between beach replenishment operations from the RBSP and the persistence of a kelp forest community. For example, approximately 150,000 cubic yards of sand was placed on the beach at North Carlsbad in 1999, and periodic dredging of , San Elijo Lagoon, and Oceanside Harbor has occurred within the last several years, contributing additional sand into the littoral cell.

The existence of a giant kelp forest depends upon physical and chemical conditions that favor the reproduction and growth of giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, and generally these include hard substratum, cool water temperatures (< 20o C), sufficient light intensities, nutrients, and protection from extreme water motion. Long-term studies of southern California kelp forests suggest that they are not stable over periods as short as several years (Schiel and Foster 1985). For example, studies at Point Loma kelp forest indicate that disturbance associated with the warm, nutrient- stressed 1982-1984 El Niño period resulted in poor Macrocystis growth, canopy formation, and survival. The decline in Macrocystis led to the persistence of understory kelps (Tegner et al. 1997). Once established, understory kelp have considerable resistance to invasion, and the increase in understory kelps led to declines in Macrocystis (Tegner et al. 1996). However, Macrocystis is competitively dominant over understory kelps, and excellent conditions during the cold, nutrient-rich, 1988-1989 La Niña event led to near extinction of understory kelps, although there was considerable site-to-site variation (Dayton et al. 1992). Recovery following large El Niño events also appears to vary. At the Point Loma kelp forest, there was significant recovery following the 1982-1984 El Niño, something that took over 5 years following the 1957-1959 El Niño (Tegner and Dayton 1991).

In kelp forests, sand movement influences substrate type and the presence of associated biota. In areas where sand is constantly shifting, either moving on or offshore or longshore, the biota would be indicative of sand tolerant organisms, whereas in areas that remain free of sand, the substrate would be available for colonization. The monitoring sites are generally composed of rocky reef habitat with some sand. The amount of sand has remained relatively constant at most sites with the exception of Cardiff Reef, which increased in 1999.

The beginning of the Navy's monitoring program (1997) coincided with El Niño conditions, which were characterized by elevated water temperatures and intense storm activity. Giant kelp was present at all sites, although it was sparse at Point Loma and Cardiff Reef. The analysis of the size class information indicated that a large percentage of the kelp plants were recruits and juveniles, which corresponded to a general lack of canopy, and also indicated that kelp recruitment was occurring. Despite higher-than-average surface water temperatures during the survey (22.2 to 23.3o C), the bottom water temperatures were relatively cool (16.7 to 18.3o C) and

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-11 were within the thermal tolerance ranges of kelp for the establishment and growth of young plants.

Kelp bed macrobiota exhibited very site-specific affinities during the 1997 monitoring effort. This trend was likely related to differences in the habitat types and the storm-generated waves that disturbed the bottom communities at the monitoring sites. Differences between the south and North County monitoring sites were defined by (1) different associations of understory kelp (Desmarestia and Laminaria in the south and Pterygophora, Egregia, Eisenia, and Cystoseira in the north); (2) greater cover of crustose coralline algae in the south; and (3) Muricea colonies, ectoprocts, sponges, and red urchins greater abundance at the North County sites. There was also a distinct difference in the distribution of the boring pholads, as both Parapholas and Chaceia were present north of Point Loma, possibly due to the more stable reef habitat. Several taxa were ubiquitous in 1997, such as red turf algae, coralline turf algae, leafy red algae, the whelk Kelletia kelletii, and the ornate tube worm Diopatra ornata.

The 1998 survey was conducted after a year of intense storms and higher-than-average temperatures. Seawater temperatures recorded during the 1998 surveys on the average declined 7.7o C on the surface and 4.3o C on the bottom, compared to the temperatures recorded in 1997. The waning elevated sea-surface temperatures in 1998 also produced a less-pronounced thermal gradient between the surface and bottom waters.

In 1998, all areas sampled appeared to be in a state of recovery from the previous winter’s storms and prolonged periods of elevated sea-surface temperatures. Algae and encrusting invertebrates were highly affected by red turf algae, leafy red algae, brown turf algae, sponge, tunicate, and ectoproct cover reduced in 1998. Reductions in the cover of these assemblages were concurrent with an increase in hardier forms, such as coralline red algae. Macrocystis density at Imperial Beach, Swami’s Reef, and North Carlsbad decreased in 1998 compared to 1997, although recovery at Point Loma and Cardiff Reef appeared greater. Kelp cover, represented in the abundance of adult plants, as well as stipe production, were also lower in 1998 (as much as 60% overall). Understory kelps exhibited site-specific variation, such as Desmarestia (which was observed only at Imperial Beach), Laminaria at Point Loma, and Eisenia at Cardiff Reef.

Similar to the trend toward a decrease in algae and encrusting invertebrates, many of the motile and larger invertebrate target taxa also exhibited either a decrease in density or remained relatively constant. These species include the pholad , Parapholas californica, the whelk Kelletia kelletii, seastars (Pisaster sp.), and the trochid snail Lithopoma. Other taxa, such as the ornate tube worm (Diopatra ornata), Chaceia ovoidea, the red sea urchin (Strongylocentrotus franciscanus), and Muricea californica had site-specific variations in abundance.

In 1999, substrate composition remained relatively stable with the exception of increases in sand at Cardiff Reef and North Carlsbad. This coincided with recovery of giant kelp at Imperial Beach, Point Loma, and Swami’s Reef, while there were declines at Cardiff Reef and North Carlsbad. The increases could not be attributed to the younger life stages as they were generally not observed, therefore the number of adult plants contributed to the overall increase. Although the number of plants was generally greater at the South County sites, stipe data suggests that the plants did not have as many stipes. Therefore, there were fewer, but larger, giant kelp plants in North County, and

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-12 more, but smaller, plants in South County. There was also an increase in several understory kelps: Egregia, Pterygophora, and Eisenia at North County sites, and Laminaria at Point Loma. The low giant kelp recruitment may be a result of the increase in understory kelps as giant kelp reduces the available space and light.

Several algal taxa and sessile invertebrates increased at all sites in 1999, including red turf algae, leafy red algae, ornate tube worms (Diopatra ornata), sponges, tunicates, and ectoprocts, while others were site-specific. For example, pholads (e.g., Chaceia and Parapholas), leafy red algae, and Muricea exhibited higher densities or cover in North County, while coralline turf and crustose corallines exhibited higher cover in South County. Mobile invertebrates also exhibited site-specific variation, with sea stars, purple urchins, and Lithopoma increasing in South County, and red sea urchins increasing in North County.

In 2000, substrate composition returned to pre-1999 levels, with the dominant substrate consisting of rock/reef at most sites or cobble in the case of Imperial Beach. The large influx of sand at Cardiff Reef in 1999 was not present in 2000. Continuing with the apparent recovery observed in 1999, there was an increase in giant kelp at most sites. A surface canopy was present at all sites in 2000, and at both Swami’s Reef and North Carlsbad, all life stages were present, whereas Cardiff Reef, Point Loma, and Imperial Beach were dominated by adult plants. The size of the plants was similar among sites, with the exception of Cardiff Reef where the mean number of stipes was 20 per plant, compared to less than 10 stipes per plant at the other sites.

Several understory kelps increased in abundance although there were site-specific differences. Cystoseira and Eisenia increased at most sites, with larger changes observed at the North County sites. Egregia has consistently been more abundant at North Carlsbad, where its abundance increased significantly in 2000. Similarly, Laminaria abundance at Point Loma has steadily increased throughout the duration of the monitoring program. Pterygophora was the only understory kelp that experienced any marked decline in abundance in 2000, while Desmarestia abundance remained relatively low from 1999 to 2000. Other algal groups generally decreased from 1999 to 2000 at all sites, with the only exception being leafy red algae, which increased at all sites.

Invertebrates distribution and abundance exhibited site-specific variation, with no apparent pattern between north and South County sites. Most species generally declined in abundance from 1999 to 2000 including Parapholas, Chaceia, Muricea, Diopatra, Lithopoma, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, and ascidians. Kelletia and Pisaster appeared to remain relatively constant in abundance, while Strongylocentrotus franciscanus and ectoprocts generally increased. Since 2000, the distribution and abundance of these species has varied, but within a range that can be explained by natural variation as there appears to be no loss of habitat associated with sand burial.

In general, substrate composition has varied within a range that appears to reflect natural variation. Solana Beach is one area in which there appears to be an increase in sand cover since implementation of the RBSP; however, the levels are less than values observed in Fall 1999 during the Navy study. Prior to implementation of the RBSP (Spring 2001), substrate composition was stable at most locations, except for some declines in rocky substrate at Batiquitos/Leucadia, which corresponded to an increase in sand cover. Sand cover at Batiquitos

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-13 has remained at this level through Spring 2003; however, this increase in sand cover does not appear to affect the distribution and abundance patterns of key indicator species. Actually based on giant kelp data, it appears that giant kelp recruitment and persistence has increased since implementation of the RBSP. This does not imply that beach replenishment activities contributed to this increase, but that perhaps there were no negative impacts associated with the construction. Apparently oceanographic conditions from 2001 to 2003 have been conducive to kelp recruitment and persistence. In addition, removal of adult plants appears to have occurred at many of the stations during the winter of 2002/2003. Observations suggest that increased space and light has led to higher densities of kelp recruits.

Factors that affect kelp forest communities were measured during this study and include recruitment periods (periods of high densities of M. pyrifera and unidentified Laminariales), amount of stable substrate available for attachment (percent reef), disturbance (percent sand), competition for space (density of other algae), herbivory (densities of sea urchin species), predation on herbivores (densities of sea stars), and the presence of characteristic biota. Subsequent monitoring will further document the variability associated with each site, and since other beach replenishment activities are being proposed, these data will provide a basis to document any potential effects from the RBSP.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-14 LITERATURE CITED

Dayton, P.K., M.J. Tegner, P.E. Parnell, and P.B. Edwards. 1992. Temporal and spatial patterns of disturbance and recovery in a kelp forest community. Ecological Monographs 62(3):421-445.

Foster M. S. and D. R. Schiel. 1985. The ecology of giant kelp forests in California: A community profile. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 85(7.2). 152 pp.

Grigg, R. 1975. Age structure of a longevous coral: a relative index of habitat suitability and stability. Am. Nat. 109:647-657.

Haderlie, E.C., J.C. Mellor, C.S. Minter III., and G.C. Booth. 1974. The sublittoral benthic flora and fauna off Del Monte Beach, Monterey, Californica. 17:185-204.

Harris, L.G. A.W. Ebling, D.R. Laur, and R.J. Rowley. 1984. Community recovery after storm damage: a case of facilitation in primary succession. Science 224:1136-1338.

Morris, R.H., D.P Abbott, and E.C. Haderlie. 1980. Intertidal Invertebrates of California. Stanford University Press. 685 pp.

Rosenthal, R.J., W.E. Clark, and P.K. Dayton. 1969. Ecology and natural history of a stand of giant kelp, Macrocystis pyrifera, off Del Mar, California. U.S. Natl. Mar. Fish. Serv. Fish. Bull 72:670-684.

Tegner, M.J. and P.K. Dayton. 1991. Sea urchins, El Niño, and the long-term stability of southern California kelp forest communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 77:49-63.

Tegner, M.J., P.K. Dayton, P.E. Edwards, and K.L. Riser. 1996. Is there evidence for long-term climatic change in southern California kelp forests? CalCOFI Report 37:111-126.

Tegner, M.J., P.K. Dayton, P.E. Edwards, and K.L. Riser. 1997. Large-scale, low-frequency oceanographic effects on kelp forest succession: a tale of two cohorts. Marine Ecology Progress Series 146:117-134.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-15 OCEAN

SO TO S T

S PACIFIC ST MORSE ST

ST KELLY ST

S HORNE ST

LOMA ALTA CREEK S N E V S DITMAR ST A D A S WHALEY ST T S KELLY ST F R EE MORSE ST M A N LINCOLN ST WY S S PACIFIC ST T

S HORNE ST

S NEVADA ST

COAST HWY S DITMAR ST CASSIDY ST

S T F VISTA S R

E R E N R

M

D D

A O O S O

N R

C C I

S FE I P T F P

JE

O O

I

P

S PACIFIC ST

LAS FLORES DR Oceanside Buena Vista Receiver Site Lagoon

BUENA VISTA WY

ST N TO EA

ST. MALO BEACH

KNOWLES AV

LAGUNA DR E P IO G P A M IC L STATE ST A O L D D I IS RV ST O V AN N A CE E O S M OAK T O H

C A PACIFIC AVE R L PIN S B A D GRAND AV OCEAN ST B L WASHINGTON ST V D

AD SB North Carlsbad RL Receiver Site CA NC-SS-1 HARDING ST

AV PINE AV

VE CARLSBAD VILLAGEA DR K A O UT TN ES CH

PINE AVE

J

R

R E

D

D F

E

E F

G G E

R A A

L L S

L

L O I I

V V LEGEND SAND LOW RELIEF SCATTERED REEF HIGH RELIEF NC-SS-2 REEF Historical Maximum Kelp Bed Canopies NC-SS-3 1978 to 1996 Kelp Bed Canopy 1997 Hard Substrate Receiver Site Modeled Deposition Area Monitoring Location

0 350

METERS

F I GURE North Carlsbad Beach Replenishment Monitoring Sites 1

/net/tonga/rota/beach/plots/figures/monitor2001.aml 1 08/23/01 ‚

g y x„

‚ ‰

h‚

i ƒ v r e y ‚ ‚ f i y € h v ‚ h e ‚ ƒ i y h v y iv ƒ‚ x y y f v ‚ i ƒh „ i ‚

† v f i

q i

v

v

y

g

e e

†

i

x

s h e

i x g s x

e

ƒ ƒ

‚ we evy €evywe‚ es ‚€ y‚„ ‚yeh €

€ e ‚ u sx q

y e g ‚ i e i x e † si ‡

h ‚

g e ‚ ‡‰ v ƒƒ xi ƒ €€s f re e h

f v † h f ‚ii i h ‚

g

e SouthCarlsbad w s ix x gsxeƒ g‚iiu y

h ReceiverSite i v

€

e

‚



i

€ y

x

„ y

h

‚

e†ix ƒgEƒƒEI she ixg sxeƒ

r

e ‚ f y

‚ ƒ

€ i y e

s ƒ sx ƒ „ g i e € i h ‚

‚ h ƒ e y † s„ i x s s h „

e e f g i x ƒ i x v y e g e ‚ s s „ x „ rg v e „ ƒ ƒ i ƒ ƒi e f ‚ sx e v y ƒ h € f e hƒ

„ e „ „ i ƒ

f ‰ i † e s g rg

e hesƒ‰ e† w se vx € „„ x fy q ƒi ƒe ysx ‚ ‚ € „ y y v f y e x „ h f s 

v † s v „

e y h e y

x ƒ

„ h e ‚

x

ƒ e ex v „ „ s e x i

h ‚

f

i e

e x

‚ e

‚ † ixgsxe ixshe ƒ „ f i e ‚ ‚ e

€ y

x „ ƒex v sƒ y

h viqixh ‚ ƒexh vy‡ ‚ivsip ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip rsqr ‚ivsip ‚iip ristori™—l w—ximum uelp fed g—nopies fe„s s„yƒ IWUV to IWWT veqyyx

ƒ„e„i €e‚u wesx„ixexgi uelp fed g—nopy ‰e ‚ h IWWU r—rd ƒu˜str—te ‚e™eiver ƒite wodeled heposition ere— wonitoring vo™—tion

ƒ„e e†i Batiquitos ve gy ReceiverSite

† i‡ e exh‚

H RHH

r

x s v

† v v wi„i‚ƒ g ‚ r g i ‰

e ƒ q

x „ fvEƒƒEI i e s h † e

‚

e

† p s q ‚i ƒouth g—rls˜—dGf—t—quitos fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites P

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml P HVGPQGHI ‚ ‚ ixshe ƒ „ f i e ‚ ‚ e

€ y x x „ ƒex v sƒ v y r g h x ‚ s p

fe „s  s„ yƒ h‚

xfe„s s„yƒ ‡‰

fe„s s„yƒ veqyyx

ƒ„e„i €e‚u wesx„ixexgi ‰e ‚ h

f—t—quitos ve gyƒ„e e†i

‚h ‚e™eiver ƒite yp„ v ‰ ƒu

q exh‚i‡e† e ƒ ƒ ‡ e g v y v x y ‰ ‡ „ ‚ e h s v g ‚ r e † vgexx e† h s i v

v y h f ‚q xh‰ ‚h

g v y r ‚ ‚

‰ i ƒ ƒ ƒ

q

e „ „ „ fvEƒƒEI i † s h e

‚ ‚

e

h †

‡

i

s

†

u

‡

fvEuEI e

r

y‚€ri ƒe†

rsvvg‚iƒ„ h‚

xi€„ xi e†

„ „

ƒ ƒ

‚ ‚ ƒ ƒ

y y

e

ƒexpy‚h ƒ„ e

h h

ˆ

ˆ

e

y €s‚ei ƒƒ„ y

g

x x ‰ fvEuEP ‰ r‰qise e† fvEƒƒEP † vgexx e†

iyv ƒ e†

iteƒyxƒ„

‚exse e†

† e ‰ h x e ‚w ri‚wiƒ e† y

x ‚h

r‰wi„„ ƒ e† € e ƒ r‰qise e† ƒ sp ‚exse e† vy ‚ e e †

rsqr‡e‰ IHI fvEƒƒEQ se fvEuEQ geh vi fv†h

veu™—di— r‰qise e†

‚e™eiver ƒite r‰wi„„ ƒ e† x ixEuEI i € „ ƒshyx

x i e

† ‚h

€ ifveƒ„

x

†

v g e x e †

wvEƒƒEI xsyx ƒ„

x † vgex e†

ixEuEP v † e e ve†i„ee† w ƒ

ygiex†si‡e† i i ƒ

ƒeˆyx‰ e r € e ‚ † y

xi€„ xi e†

ƒ

x ƒ viqixh i x „

† h w ‚ v i v e v g † ‚ e y i x „ ƒ e ƒexh e i † e e † † vy‡ ‚ivsip e

ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip ‚‚y‰y h‚ s ‚h  esv rsqr ‚ivsip ‚h  esv ‚iip ixEuEQ ixgsxs„eƒ fv†h gyffviGƒexh

wyyxvsqr„ ristori™—l w—ximum ƒ„e„i eƒ„ uelp fed g—nopies fiegr

IWUV to IWWT fƒ„

uelp fed g—nopy gƒ„ IWWU woonlight e‚hix h‚ ‚i ie h i †

y r—rd ƒu˜str—te h‚ gy‚xsƒr

x

‚e™eiver ƒite † vgex

ƒ

r

s

‚

i

h ‚ ‚e™eiver ƒite ‚

Pxh ƒ„

Q‚h ƒ„ e‚hix h‚ wodeled heposition ere— e‚hix h‚

„py‚h h‚

ƒ„‚e

wonitoring vo™—tion

‚ ‚

i i

q q

e e

v v

‚ ‚

h h

ƒ‡EuEI e†

e‚hix h‚

„py‚h h‚

gy‚xsƒrgy‚xsƒr h‚ h‚

ƒ‡EƒƒEI ƒex„e piƒ„‚e

hi†yxƒrs‚i h‚

H SHH ƒ‡EƒƒEP ‚ fixƒ„isx e†

ƒ e ƒ‡EuEP x wi„i‚ƒ i v s t ƒ‡EƒƒEQ y

ƒ

„

e ƒ wws„

‚

v v

s s

q q

r r

„ „ p s q ‚i f—tiquitos 8 veu™—di— fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites Q

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml Q HVGPQGHI x „ ƒ e i e i † h e e ‚ † †  esv qe

‚

h e ‚ ƒ ‚y‰y h‚ x

i

h

‚

e

q

v

s

e

s ‚h ‚h  esv  esv



ixgsxs„eƒ fv† †h ixEuEQ h fv ƒ e s„ sx g wyyxvsqr„ i x ƒ„e„i eƒ„ fiegr

fƒ„

gƒ„

woonlight e‚hix h‚ ‚i ie ƒ„ h i †

y

yxƒ h‚ gy‚xsƒr

x xe‚hy ‚e™eiver ƒite † vgex xe‚hy

ƒ

r

s

‚

i

h

‚ ‚

x ƒ„Pxh

Q‚h ƒ„

e‚hixe‚hix h‚ h‚

ƒ„‚e„py‚h h‚

wivfe

‚ ‚

i i

q q

e e

v v

‚ ‚

‚h ‚h

h h

h

‚

e†

x

i

h

ƒ‡EuEI v

y

q

e‚hix h‚

gy‚xsƒrgy‚xsƒr h‚ h‚

qe‚hixe ‚h

ƒ‡EƒƒEI ƒex„e piƒ„‚e„py‚h h‚ h‚

hi†yxƒrs‚i h‚

wegusxxyx wegusxxyx

ƒ‡EƒƒEP ‚ fixƒ„isx e†

ƒ e ƒ‡EuEP x i v s t ƒ‡EƒƒEQ y

ƒ

„

e ƒ wws„ e†

‚

v v

s s

q q

r r

„ „

h h

‚ ƒ‡EuEQ

yiƒ„e† ƒywi‚ƒi„

e† e† e†

ihsxf ‚q e† yˆpy‚h e† g e gewf‚shqi e† ‚ y w v y x „ q y w w e i x ‚ g ‰ r e i † ƒ „ i ‚ e † viqixh

h‚ ƒexh h siv ‚p „i iƒ vy‡ ‚ivsip gr ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip rsqr ‚ivsip ‚iip ristori™—l w—ximum

uelp fed g—nopies h fvsx h‚ IWUV to IWWT gpEuEI uelp fed g—nopy IWWU usvuixx‰ h‚ r—rd ƒu˜str—te ‚e™eiver ƒite gpEƒƒEI wodeled heposition ere— gpEuEP wonitoring vo™—tion ge‚hspp ƒ„e„i fiegr

g—rdiff ‚e™eiver ƒite

H QSH

wi„i‚ƒ

p s q ‚i woonlightGg—rdiff fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites R

GnetGtong—Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml U HVGPQGHI s‚ ihsxf ‚q e† w yˆpy‚h e† g s e x gewf‚shqi e† ‚ q y r v e w w y † h‚ s x i „ ‡ q y h w w ‚ e i x ‚ g ‰ ‚ r e i † h ƒ h „ i

‚ y

e r

† e v

x

v

e

h h

i i

‚ ‚ veui h‚

p p

h‚ h siv ‚p „i iƒ gr

‚

h

i q ƒ e ie †sv v

v e u i h ‚ h fvsx h‚ gpEuEI

usvuixx‰ h‚

w exgr gpEƒƒEI iƒ„i‚

gpEuEP e† i

ge‚hspp ƒ„e„i fiegr

g—rdiff ‚e™eiver ƒite

r sq gpEuEQ r ‡ e ‰ I H

I †

ggEƒƒEI † ‚ e

e h

e e x

y

‚ ‚ ‰

ƒ x e

e ge

i

f f

e

‚ ‚

f

e e

‚

f f s q r „ v x ggEƒƒEP

vxy„h‚ qvixwyx„

ƒyvexe x‚syƒe† †sƒ„e ‚

h‚ ‚ h

h „ „

€ ƒ ƒ ƒ

e p i v p v s ‚ s

g v r g g g ggEƒƒEQ s

p e

i x x

s x i

g i e v

v v

e y q q † ƒ gvspp ƒ„

x

g i h

‚

† gve‚u †

y ‚ e

ƒ e i h e

e e p ‚

† ‚ e e

ƒ„ e „

f f

q‚exehyƒq‚exehyƒ e† e† x x x

‚ ‚

egegse e† e

e e f ƒ ƒ e w y v ƒfEƒƒEI

ƒxe‚hye† ƒfEuEI pvi„gri‚ ƒ viqixh „ €vee ƒ„ gy†i i fiegr † €e‚u i ƒexh ƒsi‚‚eƒ e† x ƒ

e

ƒ‚syƒe† vy‡ ‚ivsip ƒol—n— fe—™h q‚exehyƒ e† ƒ † ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip ‚e™eiver ƒite

rsqr ‚ivsip ƒgih‚yƒe† ‚iip

†evvi‰ e†

ristori™—l w—ximum ƒfEuEP hervse uelp fed g—nopies h‚ IWUV to€egspsg IWWT ygiex ƒsi‚‚eƒ e†

ƒ x †

uelp fed g—nopy e‚h e ‡ ‡ y

IWWU ƒ y

v e

x

e

r—rd ƒu˜str—te g s ‚ ‚e™eiver ƒite wodeled heposition ere— ƒfEƒƒEP

wonitoring vo™—tion ƒfEuEQ

†sehive†evvi

ƒfEƒƒEQ

H QUS

wi„i‚ƒ

g

e

w x„i fv†h p s q ‚i g—rdiffGƒol—n— fe—™h fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites S

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml S HVGPQGHI 100 F'97 80 F'98 F'99 60 F'00 S'01 40 F'01

Percent Cover S'02 20 F'02 S'03 0 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Reef Rubble Shell Hash

Substrate

Figure 6. Substrata at Batiquitos/Leucadia from 1997-2003.

100

S'01 80 F'01 S'02 60 F'02 S'03 40 Percent Cover

20

0 Rock or Reef Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 7. Substrata at Encinitas from 2000-2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-21 100 F'97 F'98 80 F'99 60 F'00 S'01 40 F'01

Percent Cover S'02 20 F'02 0 S'03 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 8. Substrata at Swamis from 1997-2003.

100

80 S'01 60 F'01 S'02 40 F'02

Percent Cover S'03 20

0 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 9. Substrata at Cardiff from 2001-2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-22 100 F'97 80 F'98 F'99 60 F'00 S'01 40 F'01

Percent Cover S'02 20 F'02 S'03 0 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 10. Substrata at Solana Beach from 1997-2003.

100 F'97 80 F'98 F'99 60 F'00 S'01 40 F'01

Percent Cover S'02 20 F'02 S'03 0 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 11. Substrata at Point Loma from 1997-2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-23 5

4

2 BL EN 3 CF SW 2 SB

Number per 10 m PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 12. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

30

BL 20 EN CF SW 10 SB

Number of stipes PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 13. Macrocystis pyrifera Stipes Per Plant From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-24 25

20

2 BL EN 15 CF SW 10 SB

Number per 10 m PK 5

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 14. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Recruits From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

15

2 BL 10 EN CF SW 5 SB

Number per 10 m PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 15. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Juveniles From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-25 8

2 6 BL EN CF 4 SW SB

Number per 10 m 2 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 16. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Sub-Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

8

2 6 BL EN 4 CF SW SB 2 Number per 10 m PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 17. Density of Cystoseira osmundacea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-26 10

8 2 BL 6 EN CF 4 SW

Number per 10 m SB 2 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 18. Density of Eisenia arborea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

6 2 4 BL EN CF SW 2 SB Number per 10 m PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 19. Density of Egregia menziesii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-27 50

40

2 BL EN 30 CF SW 20 SB

Number per 10 m PK 10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 20. Density of Laminaria sp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

4

3 2 BL EN CF 2 SW SB

Number per 10 m 1 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 21. Density of Pterygophora californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-28 15

BL 10 EN CF SW SB

Percent Cover Percent 5 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 22. Percent Cover of Red Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

12

BL 8 EN CF SW SB

Percent Cover 4 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 23. Percent Cover of Leafy Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-29 30

BL 20 EN CF SW SB

Percent Cover 10 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 24. Percent Cover of Coralline Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

30

BL 20 EN CF SW SB

Percent Cover 10 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 25. Percent Cover of Crustose Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-30 12

2 BL 8 EN CF SW 4 SB Number per 1 m PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 26. Density of Parapholas californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

6

2 BL 4 EN CF SW 2 SB Number per 1 m PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 27. Density of Chaceia ovoidea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-31 4

3 2 BL EN CF 2 SW SB Number per 1 m 1 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 28. Density of Muricea californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

4

3 BL 2 EN CF 2 SW SB Number per 1 m 1 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 29. Density of Diopatra ornata From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-32 3

2 BL 2 EN CF SW 1 SB Number per 1 m PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 30. Density of Kelletia kelletii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

2

2 BL 1 EN CF SW 1 SB Number per 1 m PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 31. Density of Lithopoma undosum From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-33 1.5

2 BL 1.0 EN CF SW 0.5 SB Number per 1 m PK

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 32. Density of Strongylocentrotus franciscanus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

4

3 2 BL EN CF 2 SW SB Number per 1 m 1 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 33. Density of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-34 0.4

0.3 BL 2 EN CF 0.2 SW SB Number per 1 m 0.1 PK

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 34. Density of Pisaster sp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

8

6 BL EN CF 4 SW SB Percent Cover 2 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 35. Percent Cover of Sponges From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-35 20

15 BL EN CF 10 SW SB Percent Cover 5 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 36. Percent Cover of Ectoprocts From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

6

BL 4 EN CF SW SB Percent Cover 2 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 37. Percent Cover of Ascidians From Spring 2001 to Spring 2003.

323550000-0010/Year2_Kelp.doc Page KF-36

APPENDIX A SUMMARY DATA

LOBSTER MONITORING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION...... 1

METHODS ...... 2 STUDY SITES ...... 2 METHODS FOR LOBSTER STUDIES ...... 2 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 3 FIELD MONITORING PERIODS...... 3

RESULTS...... 3 NORTH CARLSBAD ...... 3 Lobster...... 3 SOUTH CARLSBAD ...... 4 Lobster...... 4 BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA ...... 4 Substrate...... 4 Lobster...... 4 MOONLIGHT BEACH...... 5 Substrate...... 5 Lobster...... 5 SWAMIS (CONTROL)...... 5 Substrate...... 5 Lobster...... 6 CARDIFF...... 6 Substrate...... 6 Lobster...... 6 CARDIFF (CONTROL)...... 6 Lobster...... 7 SOLANA BEACH ...... 7 Lobster...... 7

DISCUSSION ...... 7

LITERATURE CITED...... 9

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Monitoring locations at North Carlsbad...... LB-10 2 Monitoring locations at South Carlsbad and Batiquitos...... LB-11 3 Monitoring locations at Batiquitos and Leucadia ...... LB-12

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-i 4 Monitoring locations at Moonlight Beach and Cardiff ...... LB-13 5 Monitoring locations at Cardiff and Solana Beach ...... LB-14 6 Number of lobster at North Carlsbad ...... LB-15 7 Number of lobster at South Carlsbad ...... LB-15 8 Percent cover of three substrate types at BL-SS-2...... LB-16 9 Number of lobster Batiquitos/Leucadia ...... LB-16 10 Percent cover of three substrate types at ML-SS-1...... LB-17 11 Number of lobster at Moonlight Beach...... LB-17 12 Percent cover of three substrate types at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 ...... LB-18 13 Number of lobster at Swamis...... LB-18 14 Percent cover of three substrate types at CF-SS-1 ...... LB-19 15 Number of lobster at Cardiff ...... LB-20 16 Number of lobster at Cardiff (Control) ...... LB-20 17 Number of lobster at Solana Beach...... LB-21

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-ii INTRODUCTION

California spiny lobsters (Panulirus interruptus) occur from Monterey Bay, California to Manzanillo, Mexico, although are more common between Point Conception, California to Magdalena Bay, Baja California. Recruits and juvenile lobsters usually spend their first one to two years in nearshore (shallow subtidal) reef habitats that include surfgrass and eelgrass beds, which provide a recruitment and nursery area. Adult lobsters are typically found in rocky areas from the intertidal zone to at least 240 feet residing in rocky habitats, though they will move onto sand in search of food. Local fishermen note that there is marked movement of adults between inshore and offshore areas. Most of the fishing for this species occurs in rocky coastal areas up to 120 feet in depth, although lobsters have been caught on any type of substrate. It takes approximately seven to eleven years for lobsters to reach legal size and is the commercial species of greatest value to the local fishing industry.

Shallow subtidal habitat is defined as the area of hard substrate (i.e., reef) closest to the shore or beach. It is a dynamic environment as this is the area where seasonal sand transport occurs and where wave energy is released (i.e., surf). It is also the area that would potentially be impacted first by migrating sand from the replenishment area(s). Generally these reefs are located approximately 200 meters (m) from the back beach in water ranging in depth from three to five meters. The reefs can be characterized as either high-relief (being greater than one meter high) or low-relief substrate primarily sandstone, separated by longitudinal sand channels, and are patchily distributed and scattered, meaning that they are not continuous along the coastline. Surveys on the reefs have indicated the presence of surfgrass, which is sensitive to varying degrees of sand scour or burial. Studies suggest that a relatively small amount of sand on, or falling on, the bottom can reduce the survivorship of microscopic life history stages (Devinny and Volse 1978; Littler et al. 1983; Foster and Schiel 1985). This habitat also supports both commercially and recreationally important species such as the . For these reasons, many of the resource agencies have designated the reefs as sensitive marine resources.

During the EIR/EA process for the RBSP, commercial fishermen expressed concerns about the impact of project-related turbidity may have on these nursery areas and its effect on juvenile lobster. The EIR/EA concluded that juvenile lobster appear capable of tolerating high turbidity and suspended sediments, that the project would affect areas relatively less important to the countywide fishermen, and that given the lack of long-term, adverse effects to their habitat from indirect sedimentation, there would be no significant impact to the fishery.

However, there is still concern regarding sedimentation or burial of the nearshore surfgrass habitat. Therefore, the objective of the monitoring is to evaluate whether beach replenishment operations result in any significant, long-term adverse impacts to sensitive marine resources near the beach replenishment sites. Regarding spiny lobster, the objective was to evaluate whether sand encroachment on shallow subtidal reefs depletes habitat occupied by juvenile lobster.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-1 METHODS

STUDY SITES

Under the Navy's monitoring program, two shallow subtidal reefs identified to support indicator species were established as test reefs (Leucadia and North Carlsbad) and a control reef was established at Cardiff. The control reef was located close enough to experience similar conditions, but far enough away from the receiver beaches to avoid any direct impacts from the replenishment activities.

Based on the results of modeled-predicted sand deposition, all three Navy sites were not predicted to have any sedimentation from the RBSP, therefore new sampling locations were established in areas of concern at North Carlsbad, South Carlsbad, Batiquitos/Leucadia, Moonlight Beach, Cardiff (Restaurant Row), and Solana Beach. The shallow subtidal monitoring locations are shown in Figures 1 through 5. The data are separated into shallow subtidal (SS) and kelp (K) monitoring locations. Unlike the Navy program which established single monitoring locations at key points, multiple sampling locations were established at most receiver sites (up to three monitoring locations per receiver site). Similarly, the monitoring locations were non-randomly selected and were established in areas of concern and/or in areas most likely to be impacted from sand deposition. This was based initially on the base map of existing conditions produced for the EIR/EA, and ground-truthed by reconnaissance surveys and communication with the CLTFA. The change in methodology was due to concern from lobster fisherman regarding the long-term movement of the sand.

The two general criteria used for determining the suitability of a monitoring location included: 1) that it was in the vicinity of the receiver site, either offshore or downcoast or in the area of modeled deposition, and 2) that it was approximately 250 m2 in area, and contained a relatively high percentage of high and/or low-relief reef. This methodology provided greater spatial information regarding sediment transport and possible impacts from sand deposition. The Navy's site at North Carlsbad, Encinitas, Cardiff (i.e., Table Tops) would continue to be monitored. The Cardiff site still serves as a control site, and an additional control site was established at Swami's Reef. Based on existing information and reconnaissance surveys, several of the proposed locations (e.g., South Carlsbad, Moonlight, and Cardiff) did not support the necessary area to establish replicate monitoring locations. Therefore, only a single monitoring location was established at these areas.

METHODS FOR LOBSTER STUDIES

Because several sites were carried forward from the Navy program, diving biologists have mapped the habitat and associated biota within a permanently established study area at each of those sites. All the new study areas were established as follows. The offshore edge of each study area was positioned approximately 300 m from the back beach. A permanent, longitudinal transect (running parallel to shore) 40-m-long was established at this location. A minimum of five, 50-m-long by 2-m-wide band transects (total area = 100 m2), spaced at a minimum of ten meter intervals were established perpendicular to shore from the longitudinal transect. Lobster densities were determined by counting the number of lobster in each 100 m2 band transect.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-2 DATA ANALYSIS

All data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and arithmetic mean and standard error were calculated and either graph.

FIELD MONITORING PERIODS

Predisposal or baseline monitoring occurred in Spring 2001 prior to project initiation. Post- disposal monitoring occurs semi-annually in the spring and fall following sand replenishment activities, through Spring 2005. Spring and fall sampling is ideal because it will coincide with the natural onshore and offshore movement of sand.

RESULTS

During the development of the monitoring plan, it was thought that having replicate monitoring locations would provide a more robust and powerful experimental design; however, the surveys have documented that there is a high amount of variability in measured factors. Therefore, the data are being presented at the monitoring location level (e.g., SW-SS-2) instead of at the site level (e.g., Swamis). This will provide more detail and insight to spatial differences within a given area.

Percent cover data of the different substrata are reported in the Shallow Subtidal Monitoring Report and therefore are not repeated here unless large changes in sand cover were documented. Since the loss of rocky substrate may potentially affect lobster recruitment and habitat, only those sites with significant sand fluxes were restated in this report. For example, a large decrease in the percent cover of sand was documented in Fall 2001 at BL-SS-2, ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, and SW-SS-2 followed by a large increase in Spring 2002.

NORTH CARLSBAD

At North Carlsbad, sediment transport models suggested that the sand would be transported downcoast towards the jetty at the entrance to Agua Hedionda Lagoon. The monitoring locations were placed on hard substrate directly offshore of the receiver site (NC-SS-1) and downcoast of the receiver site (NC-SS-2 and 3) (Figure 1).

Lobster

At North Carlsbad, no lobsters were observed in Spring 2001 at all three monitoring locations, however, lobsters were present in Fall 2001 at both NC-SS-1 (2.0 per 100 m2) and NC-SS-3 (1.2 per 100 m2) (Figure 6). At both NC-SS-1 and NC-SS-3, lobster abundance increased slightly through Spring 2003. However, from Spring 2002 to Spring 2003 there was a significant increase in lobster abundance (up to 8.8 per 100 m2) at NC-SS-2.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-3 SOUTH CARLSBAD

Only one monitoring location (SC-SS-1) was established at South Carlsbad within the vicinity of the receiver site. The monitoring location was placed at the closest reef area downcoast of the receiver site (Figure 2).

Lobster

Lobster abundance at SC-SS-1 was low (between 0.8 and 1.2 lobsters per 100 m2) and relatively consistent through Spring 2002 (Figure 7). Abundance increased to 5.6 per 100 m2 in Fall 2002 but decreased to 3.8 per 100 m2 in Spring 2003.

BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA

The Batiquitos and Leucadia receiver sites were located in close proximity to one another. The nearshore region offshore of these receiver sites contains a large area of low-relief substrate, with patchy high-relief substrate. Sediment transport models suggested that sand from Batiquitos would be transported directly offshore of the receiver site. One monitoring location (BL-SS-1) was placed on hard substrate directly offshore and downcoast of the Batiquitos receiver site, and the other two monitoring locations were established offshore (BL-SS-2) and downcoast (BL-SS- 3) of the Leucadia receiver site (Figure 3).

Substrate

BL-SS-2 exhibited a large fluctuation in the percent cover of sand from Spring 2001 to Fall 2002. The percent cover of sand was 65.2% in Spring 2001, decreased to near zero in Fall 2001, increased to 48.7% in Spring 2002, and declined to 12.8% in Fall 2002. Sand cover remained constant in Spring 2003 (13.5%). The decrease in sand in Fall 2001 corresponded to an increase in cover of low and high-relief substrate. Interestingly enough, values observed in Spring 2002 were similar to values observed in Spring 2001 suggesting that seasonal sand transport is evident at BL-SS-2 (i.e., offshore during the winter period and onshore during the summer period).

Lobster

Lobster abundance was low with less than 1.4 individuals per 100 m2 at BL-SS-2 and BL-SS-3 throughout the survey (Figure 9). However, BL-SS-1 exhibited an increasing trend with low abundance in Spring 2001 (1.2 per 100 m2), higher abundance in Spring 2002 (4.6 per 100 m2), and a significant increase in Spring 2003 (44.6 per 100 m2). A large standard error suggests that lobster abundance was patchy, with very high densities present in some transects and low densities in other. Correlation analysis indicates that lobster abundance responded proportionally with sand cover (i.e., as sand increased, so did lobster abundance) at BL-SS-2, which does not fit the expected concept that a decrease in sand cover would result in an increase in rocky substrate which is considered preferred lobster habitat.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-4 MOONLIGHT BEACH

Only one monitoring location (ML-SS-1) was established within the vicinity of the receiver site at Moonlight Beach. The monitoring location was placed at the closest reef area slightly upcoast of the receiver site as sediment transport modeling suggested that the sand may migrate upcoast and offshore (Figure 4).

Substrate

ML-SS-1 can be characterized as primarily low-relief substrate (mean = 54%) with moderate amounts of high-relief reef (mean = 22%) and sand (mean =24%). There appears to be seasonal changes in sand cover corresponding to higher sand levels in the spring, and lower cover in the fall (Figure 10). The percent cover of all substrata has remained relatively constant through Spring 2003. The coverage of low-relief reef ranged from a low of 41.3% in Spring 2002 to a high of 69% in Fall 2002. Sand cover was highest in Spring 2001 prior to implementation of the RBSP (33.4%) and lowest in Fall 2001 (9.4%) just after construction was completed. There was some fluctuation in high-relief substrate as the highest coverage was present in Fall 2001 (35.8%) and the lowest coverage was present in Spring 2001 (4.9%).

Lobster

At ML-SS-1, the lowest abundance of lobsters was observed in Spring 2001 (0.2 per 100 m2), but abundance increased in Fall 2001 (2.6 per 100 m2) and remained constant through Fall 2002 (Figure 11). In Spring 2003, the mean number of lobster increased to 5.0 per 100 m2, the highest abundance recorded for this site. Unlike BL-SS-2, lobster abundance was highest at ML- SS-1 during Fall 2001, when the lowest percentage of sand cover was recorded. In addition, lobster abundance remained high as sand cover remained relatively low. This could support the idea that the absence of sand provides more low and/or high-relief substrate for lobster habitat.

SWAMIS (CONTROL)

The monitoring locations at Swamis are considered control sites implying that this area will be unaffected by any replenishment activities. The monitoring locations were distributed on the upcoast and downcoast edges and in the center of the reef (Figure 4).

Substrate

Both SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 displayed similar patterns as BL-SS-2 and ML-SS-1, with a large decrease in the percent cover of sand in Fall 2001 and Fall 2002 (Figure 12). At SW-SS-1, the percent cover of sand was 76.3% in Spring 2001, 0.0% in Fall 2001, 95% in Spring 2002, and 19.9% in Fall 2002. There was an increase in sand cover in Spring 2003 (53%), but cover was not as high as previous spring surveys. At SW-SS-2, the percent cover of sand was 64.43% in Spring 2001, 8.8% in Fall 2001, 55% in Spring 2002, and 8.3% in Fall 2002. Similar to SW-SS- 1, sand cover increased in Spring 2003, but not to levels similar to other spring surveys. The decreases in sand cover corresponded to increases in low-relief reef and to a lesser degree, high- relief reef. At SW-SS-1, low-relief reef increased from 23.3% in Spring 2001 to 80.0% in Fall

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-5 2001, while at SW-SS-2, low-relief reef increased from 35.6% in Spring 2001 to 87.2% in Fall 2001. This further supports the concept of seasonal sand transport as this occurred prior to any beach replenishment activities.

Lobster

Lobsters were not recorded at any of the monitoring locations at Swamis during Spring 2001 (Figure 13). Both SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 had an increase in lobster densities in Fall 2001 with 2.0 per 100 m2 and 1.4 per 100 m2, respectively. Lobster abundance at both sites declined slightly in Spring 2002. This further supports the idea that a decrease in sand cover increases the amount of suitable lobster habitat. Lobster abundance at SW-SS-3 displayed a stable pattern with relatively low densities of 0.6 per 100 m2 from Fall 2001 to Spring 2002. Since Spring 2002, lobster abundance steadily increased at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-3, with up to 5.4 lobster per 100 m2 recorded at SW-SS-3 in Spring 2003. Lobster abundance at SW-SS-1 remained constant through Spring 2003, with generally less than 1.0 per 100 m2. Data at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 also indicates that an inverse relationship between sand cover and lobster abundance (i.e., as sand cover decreased, lobster abundance increased).

CARDIFF

Only one monitoring location (CF-SS-1) was established at Cardiff within the vicinity of the receiver site. The monitoring location was placed at the closest reef area slightly upcoast of the receiver site as sediment transport modeling suggested that the sand may migrate upcoast and offshore (Figure 4).

Substrate

CF-SS-1 revealed an opposite trend to BL-SS-2, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2, and ML-SS-1 as the percent cover of sand increased during the fall surveys and not the spring surveys (Figure 14). Percent cover of sand was 3.0% in Spring 2001, increased to 75.9% in Fall 2001, decreased to 29.3% in Spring 2002, and increased to 44.1% in Fall 2002. Unlike previous surveys, sand cover remained high and increased to 49.6% in Spring 2003. The changes in sand cover corresponded to a changes in low-relief reef, while cover of high-relief reef remained relatively constant throughout all surveys (range between 6.3% and 19.8%).

Lobster

At CF-SS-1, lobsters were only recorded during the Spring 2002 survey and the density was very low (0.4 per 100 m2) (Figure 14).

CARDIFF (CONTROL)

The monitoring locations at Cardiff (Seaside Reef) are considered control sites implying that this area will be unaffected by any replenishment activities. The monitoring locations were distributed on the upcoast and downcoast edges and in the center of the reef (Figure 5).

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-6 Lobster

Lobster abundance at all three monitoring locations increased over time (Figure 15). At CC-SS- 1, the mean number of lobster was 0.2 per 100 m2 in Spring 2001, 3.0 per 100 m2 in Fall 2001, 5.8 per 100 m2 in Spring 2002, 6.0 per 100 m2 in Fall 2002, and 8.4 per 100 m2 in Spring 2003. The abundance of lobster at CC-SS-2 was initially lower than the other sites, with no lobsters recorded in Spring 2001, 0.6 per 100 m2 in Fall 2001, and 2.4 per 100 m2 Spring 2002; however, lobster abundance increased in Fall 2002 (4.0 per 100 m2) and remained stable in Spring 2003 (3.6 per 100 m2). At CC-SS-3, the mean number of lobster was 0.6 per 100 m2 in Spring 2001, but increased to 2.6 per 100 m2 in Spring 2002 and remained relatively constant through Spring 2003.

SOLANA BEACH

At Solana Beach, sediment transport models suggested that the sand would be transported upcoast towards the reefs at Cardiff (Seaside Reef). One monitoring location was placed on available hard substrate upcoast of the receiver site (SB-SS-1), while the other two monitoring locations were established downcoast of the receiver site (SB-SS-2 and SB-SS-3) (Figure 5).

Lobster

Lobster abundance at all three monitoring locations followed a similar trend, increasing until Spring 2003 (Figure 16). Lobster abundance at SB-SS-1 was lower than the other sites, with no lobsters recorded in Spring 2001 or Fall 2001, and peaked at 2.6 per 100 m2 Fall 2002, but declined to 0.8 per 100 m2 in Spring 2003. At SB-SS-2, no lobsters were recorded in Spring 2001, although abundance increased to 9.6 per 100 m2 by Fall 2003 and then declined to 0.8 per 100 m2 in Spring 2003. The highest lobster abundance was recorded at SB-SS-3, which peaked in Fall 2002 with 11.2 per 100 m2. Similar to the other locations, abundance decreased to 3.0 per 100 m2 in Spring 2003.

DISCUSSION

The objective of monitoring lobster abundance in the shallow subtidal area is to evaluate whether beach replenishment has any significant, long-term adverse impacts to an important fishery. This report documents results of an on-going monitoring program scheduled through Spring 2005, and discusses preliminary results since completion of the RBSP.

In the shallow subtidal zone, sand movement influences substrate type and the presence of associated biota. In areas where sand is constantly shifting, either moving on or offshore, or longshore, the presence of low- and high-relief substrate will vary. The loss of sand will expose previously covered rocky substrate creating habitat. Conversely, the influx of large amounts of sand can potentially cover these rocky areas. At all the study sites, the rocky areas are not continuous, but rather separated by sand channels that generally extend perpendicular from shore. These sand channels are created by constant scouring, provide avenues for sand movement, and can decrease the likelihood of impacts from scour or burial on the reef tops.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-7 Large fluctuations in sand cover observed at several sites (e.g., BL-SS-2, ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2) suggest that seasonal transport does occur. However, the increases in sand cover since completion of the RBSP are similar in magnitude to observations prior to implementation of the RBSP suggesting that this may be natural variability.

It is apparent that observations and data from this monitoring program cannot accurately determine whether the change in habitat availability has affected lobster population. Reasons are that it is difficult to document a causal relationship between lobster abundance and habitat availability. There are many areas that may qualify as suitable habitat; however, lobsters are rarely observed. The converse has also been observed, as habitat that may not appear to be ideal for lobster, will support lobsters on occasion. Correlations between lobster abundance and percent cover of sand, low-relief substrate, and high-relief substrate indicated no strong relationship. Observations also suggest that lobsters are patchily distributed and that there is no consistent pattern. The monitoring programs also lacks size data, as it is difficult to accurately measure lobster from diving surveys. This is important information that may provide recruitment and growth data, as well as, any potential habitat selection or preference. At a few of the monitoring locations (e.g., ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2), results could suggest that the absence of sand increased habitat, which possibly led to, increased lobster abundance. However, this occurred at specific sites and cannot be generally applied to all monitoring locations. Data indicates that when you consider all monitoring locations that there is little relationship between the availability of habitat and lobster abundance

It has been noted that lobsters will migrate during certain seasons as well as during certain weather conditions. It is not known if juvenile lobsters preferentially recruit and remain in the nearshore area and the current sampling design is not capable of documenting this concept. Therefore another sampling technique will be implemented in Summer 2003. After discussions with John Guth, president of the CLTFA, AMEC will attempt to target juvenile (sub-legal) lobsters within the monitoring locations. It is believed that juvenile lobsters are primarily found in the shallow subtidal areas. It is the juveniles that are of most concern to sustain a future for the lobster fishery. The California Department of Fish and Game has granted a permit to deploy custom-made 1” mesh traps. The traps, having smaller mesh then the regulation 2” mesh traps will retain juvenile lobsters as well as adults. Quarterly surveys will be conducted at selected receiver sites to potentially document the distribution and abundance of the different size classes. The sampling will help to determine if there is a direct correlation between availability of suitable habitat (given temporal variations in sand cover) and lobster recruitment and abundance.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-8 LITERATURE CITED

Devinny, J.S. and L.A. Volse. 1978. Effects of sediment on the development of Macrocystis pyrifera gametophytes. Mar. Biol. 48: 343-348.

Foster, M.S. and D.R. Schiel. 1985. The Ecology of Giant Kelp Forests in California: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85(7.2): 1-152.

Littler, M.M., D.R. Martz, and D.S. Littler. 1983. Effects of recurrent sand deposition on rocky intertidal organisms: Importance of substrate heterogeneity in a fluctuating environment. Mar. Ecol. Prog. Ser. 11: 129-139.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-9 OCEAN

SO TO S T

S PACIFIC ST MORSE ST

ST KELLY ST

S HORNE ST

LOMA ALTA CREEK S N E V S DITMAR ST A D A S WHALEY ST T S KELLY ST F R EE MORSE ST M A N LINCOLN ST WY S S PACIFIC ST T

S HORNE ST

S NEVADA ST

COAST HWY S DITMAR ST CASSIDY ST

S T F VISTA S R

E R E N R

M

D D

A O O S O

N R

C C I

S FE I P T F P

JE

O O

I

P

S PACIFIC ST

LAS FLORES DR Oceanside Buena Vista Receiver Site Lagoon

BUENA VISTA WY

ST N TO EA

ST. MALO BEACH

KNOWLES AV

LAGUNA DR E P IO G P A M IC L STATE ST A O L D D I IS RV ST O V AN N A CE E O S M OAK T O H

C A PACIFIC AVE R L PIN S B A D GRAND AV OCEAN ST B L WASHINGTON ST V D

AD SB North Carlsbad RL Receiver Site CA NC-SS-1 HARDING ST

AV PINE AV

VE CARLSBAD VILLAGEA DR K A O UT TN ES CH

PINE AVE

J

R

R E

D

D F

E

E F

G G E

R A A

L L S

L

L O I I

V V LEGEND SAND LOW RELIEF SCATTERED REEF HIGH RELIEF NC-SS-2 REEF Historical Maximum Kelp Bed Canopies NC-SS-3 1978 to 1996 Kelp Bed Canopy 1997 Hard Substrate Receiver Site Modeled Deposition Area Monitoring Location

0 350

METERS

F I GURE North Carlsbad Beach Replenishment Monitoring Sites 1

/net/tonga/rota/beach/plots/figures/monitor2001.aml 1 08/23/01 ‚

g y x„

‚ ‰

h‚

i ƒ v r e y ‚ ‚ f i y € h v ‚ h e ‚ ƒ i y h v y iv ƒ‚ x y y f v ‚ i ƒh „ i ‚

† v f i

q i

v

v

y

g

e e

†

i

x

s h e

i x g s x

e

ƒ ƒ

‚ we evy €evywe‚ es ‚€ y‚„ ‚yeh €

€ e ‚ u sx q

y e g ‚ i e i x e † si ‡

h ‚

g e ‚ ‡‰ v ƒƒ xi ƒ €€s f re e h

f v † h f ‚ii i h ‚

g

e SouthCarlsbad w s ix x gsxeƒ g‚iiu y

h ReceiverSite i v

€

e

‚



i

€ y

x

„ y

h

‚

e†ix ƒgEƒƒEI she ixg sxeƒ

r

e ‚ f y

‚ ƒ

€ i y e

s ƒ sx ƒ „ g i e € i h ‚

‚ h ƒ e y † s„ i x s s h „

e e f g i x ƒ i x v y e g e ‚ s s „ x „ rg v e „ ƒ ƒ i ƒ ƒi e f ‚ sx e v y ƒ h € f e hƒ

„ e „ „ i ƒ

f ‰ i † e s g rg

e hesƒ‰ e† w se vx € „„ x fy q ƒi ƒe ysx ‚ ‚ € „ y y v f y e x „ h f s 

v † s v „

e y h e y

x ƒ

„ h e ‚

x

ƒ e ex v „ „ s e x i

h ‚

f

i e

e x

‚ e

‚ † ixgsxe ixshe ƒ „ f i e ‚ ‚ e

€ y

x „ ƒex v sƒ y

h viqixh ‚ ƒexh vy‡ ‚ivsip ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip rsqr ‚ivsip ‚iip ristori™—l w—ximum uelp fed g—nopies fe„s s„yƒ IWUV to IWWT veqyyx

ƒ„e„i €e‚u wesx„ixexgi uelp fed g—nopy ‰e ‚ h IWWU r—rd ƒu˜str—te ‚e™eiver ƒite wodeled heposition ere— wonitoring vo™—tion

ƒ„e e†i Batiquitos ve gy ReceiverSite

† i‡ e exh‚

H RHH

r

x s v

† v v wi„i‚ƒ g ‚ r g i ‰

e ƒ q

x „ fvEƒƒEI i e s h † e

‚

e

† p s q ‚i ƒouth g—rls˜—dGf—t—quitos fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites P

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml P HVGPQGHI ‚ ‚ ixshe ƒ „ f i e ‚ ‚ e

€ y x x „ ƒex v sƒ v y r g h x ‚ s p

fe „s  s„ yƒ h‚

xfe„s s„yƒ ‡‰

fe„s s„yƒ veqyyx

ƒ„e„i €e‚u wesx„ixexgi ‰e ‚ h

f—t—quitos ve gyƒ„e e†i

‚h ‚e™eiver ƒite yp„ v ‰ ƒu

q exh‚i‡e† e ƒ ƒ ‡ e g v y v x y ‰ ‡ „ ‚ e h s v g ‚ r e † vgexx e† h s i v

v y h f ‚q xh‰ ‚h

g v y r ‚ ‚

‰ i ƒ ƒ ƒ

q

e „ „ „ fvEƒƒEI i † s h e

‚ ‚

e

h †

‡

i

s

†

u

‡

fvEuEI e

r

y‚€ri ƒe†

rsvvg‚iƒ„ h‚

xi€„ xi e†

„ „

ƒ ƒ

‚ ‚ ƒ ƒ

y y

e

ƒexpy‚h ƒ„ e

h h

ˆ

ˆ

e

y €s‚ei ƒƒ„ y

g

x x ‰ fvEuEP ‰ r‰qise e† fvEƒƒEP † vgexx e†

iyv ƒ e†

iteƒyxƒ„

‚exse e†

† e ‰ h x e ‚w ri‚wiƒ e† y

x ‚h

r‰wi„„ ƒ e† € e ƒ r‰qise e† ƒ sp ‚exse e† vy ‚ e e †

rsqr‡e‰ IHI fvEƒƒEQ se fvEuEQ geh vi fv†h

veu™—di— r‰qise e†

‚e™eiver ƒite r‰wi„„ ƒ e† x ixEuEI i € „ ƒshyx

x i e

† ‚h

€ ifveƒ„

x

†

v g e x e †

wvEƒƒEI xsyx ƒ„

x † vgex e†

ixEuEP v † e e ve†i„ee† w ƒ

ygiex†si‡e† i i ƒ

ƒeˆyx‰ e r € e ‚ † y

xi€„ xi e†

ƒ

x ƒ viqixh i x „

† h w ‚ v i v e v g † ‚ e y i x „ ƒ e ƒexh e i † e e † † vy‡ ‚ivsip e

ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip ‚‚y‰y h‚ s ‚h  esv rsqr ‚ivsip ‚h  esv ‚iip ixEuEQ ixgsxs„eƒ fv†h gyffviGƒexh

wyyxvsqr„ ristori™—l w—ximum ƒ„e„i eƒ„ uelp fed g—nopies fiegr

IWUV to IWWT fƒ„

uelp fed g—nopy gƒ„ IWWU woonlight e‚hix h‚ ‚i ie h i †

y r—rd ƒu˜str—te h‚ gy‚xsƒr

x

‚e™eiver ƒite † vgex

ƒ

r

s

‚

i

h ‚ ‚e™eiver ƒite ‚

Pxh ƒ„

Q‚h ƒ„ e‚hix h‚ wodeled heposition ere— e‚hix h‚

„py‚h h‚

ƒ„‚e

wonitoring vo™—tion

‚ ‚

i i

q q

e e

v v

‚ ‚

h h

ƒ‡EuEI e†

e‚hix h‚

„py‚h h‚

gy‚xsƒrgy‚xsƒr h‚ h‚

ƒ‡EƒƒEI ƒex„e piƒ„‚e

hi†yxƒrs‚i h‚

H SHH ƒ‡EƒƒEP ‚ fixƒ„isx e†

ƒ e ƒ‡EuEP x wi„i‚ƒ i v s t ƒ‡EƒƒEQ y

ƒ

„

e ƒ wws„

‚

v v

s s

q q

r r

„ „ p s q ‚i f—tiquitos 8 veu™—di— fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites Q

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml Q HVGPQGHI x „ ƒ e i e i † h e e ‚ † †  esv qe

‚

h e ‚ ƒ ‚y‰y h‚ x

i

h

‚

e

q

v

s

e

s ‚h ‚h  esv  esv



ixgsxs„eƒ fv† †h ixEuEQ h fv ƒ e s„ sx g wyyxvsqr„ i x ƒ„e„i eƒ„ fiegr

fƒ„

gƒ„

woonlight e‚hix h‚ ‚i ie ƒ„ h i †

y

yxƒ h‚ gy‚xsƒr

x xe‚hy ‚e™eiver ƒite † vgex xe‚hy

ƒ

r

s

‚

i

h

‚ ‚

x ƒ„Pxh

Q‚h ƒ„

e‚hixe‚hix h‚ h‚

ƒ„‚e„py‚h h‚

wivfe

‚ ‚

i i

q q

e e

v v

‚ ‚

‚h ‚h

h h

h

‚

e†

x

i

h

ƒ‡EuEI v

y

q

e‚hix h‚

gy‚xsƒrgy‚xsƒr h‚ h‚

qe‚hixe ‚h

ƒ‡EƒƒEI ƒex„e piƒ„‚e„py‚h h‚ h‚

hi†yxƒrs‚i h‚

wegusxxyx wegusxxyx

ƒ‡EƒƒEP ‚ fixƒ„isx e†

ƒ e ƒ‡EuEP x i v s t ƒ‡EƒƒEQ y

ƒ

„

e ƒ wws„ e†

‚

v v

s s

q q

r r

„ „

h h

‚ ƒ‡EuEQ

yiƒ„e† ƒywi‚ƒi„

e† e† e†

ihsxf ‚q e† yˆpy‚h e† g e gewf‚shqi e† ‚ y w v y x „ q y w w e i x ‚ g ‰ r e i † ƒ „ i ‚ e † viqixh

h‚ ƒexh h siv ‚p „i iƒ vy‡ ‚ivsip gr ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip rsqr ‚ivsip ‚iip ristori™—l w—ximum

uelp fed g—nopies h fvsx h‚ IWUV to IWWT gpEuEI uelp fed g—nopy IWWU usvuixx‰ h‚ r—rd ƒu˜str—te ‚e™eiver ƒite gpEƒƒEI wodeled heposition ere— gpEuEP wonitoring vo™—tion ge‚hspp ƒ„e„i fiegr

g—rdiff ‚e™eiver ƒite

H QSH

wi„i‚ƒ

p s q ‚i woonlightGg—rdiff fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites R

GnetGtong—Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml U HVGPQGHI s‚ ihsxf ‚q e† w yˆpy‚h e† g s e x gewf‚shqi e† ‚ q y r v e w w y † h‚ s x i „ ‡ q y h w w ‚ e i x ‚ g ‰ ‚ r e i † h ƒ h „ i

‚ y

e r

† e v

x

v

e

h h

i i

‚ ‚ veui h‚

p p

h‚ h siv ‚p „i iƒ gr

‚

h

i q ƒ e ie †sv v

v e u i h ‚ h fvsx h‚ gpEuEI

usvuixx‰ h‚

w exgr gpEƒƒEI iƒ„i‚

gpEuEP e† i

ge‚hspp ƒ„e„i fiegr

g—rdiff ‚e™eiver ƒite

r sq gpEuEQ r ‡ e ‰ I H

I †

ggEƒƒEI † ‚ e

e h

e e x

y

‚ ‚ ‰

ƒ x e

e ge

i

f f

e

‚ ‚

f

e e

‚

f f s q r „ v x ggEƒƒEP

vxy„h‚ qvixwyx„

ƒyvexe x‚syƒe† †sƒ„e ‚

h‚ ‚ h

h „ „

€ ƒ ƒ ƒ

e p i v p v s ‚ s

g v r g g g ggEƒƒEQ s

p e

i x x

s x i

g i e v

v v

e y q q † ƒ gvspp ƒ„

x

g i h

‚

† gve‚u †

y ‚ e

ƒ e i h e

e e p ‚

† ‚ e e

ƒ„ e „

f f

q‚exehyƒq‚exehyƒ e† e† x x x

‚ ‚

egegse e† e

e e f ƒ ƒ e w y v ƒfEƒƒEI

ƒxe‚hye† ƒfEuEI pvi„gri‚ ƒ viqixh „ €vee ƒ„ gy†i i fiegr † €e‚u i ƒexh ƒsi‚‚eƒ e† x ƒ

e

ƒ‚syƒe† vy‡ ‚ivsip ƒol—n— fe—™h q‚exehyƒ e† ƒ † ƒge„„i‚ih ‚iip ‚e™eiver ƒite

rsqr ‚ivsip ƒgih‚yƒe† ‚iip

†evvi‰ e†

ristori™—l w—ximum ƒfEuEP hervse uelp fed g—nopies h‚ IWUV to€egspsg IWWT ygiex ƒsi‚‚eƒ e†

ƒ x †

uelp fed g—nopy e‚h e ‡ ‡ y

IWWU ƒ y

v e

x

e

r—rd ƒu˜str—te g s ‚ ‚e™eiver ƒite wodeled heposition ere— ƒfEƒƒEP

wonitoring vo™—tion ƒfEuEQ

†sehive†evvi

ƒfEƒƒEQ

H QUS

wi„i‚ƒ

g

e

w x„i fv†h p s q ‚i g—rdiffGƒol—n— fe—™h fe—™h ‚eplenishment wonitoring ƒites S

Grot—G˜e—™hGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIF—ml S HVGPQGHI NC-SS-1 NC-SS-2 NC-SS-3

15 2 10

5 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 6. Number of lobster at North Carlsbad.

15 2 10

5 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 7. Number of lobster at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-15 High-Relief Low -R elief Sand

100

80

60

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03

Date

Figure 8. Percent cover of three substrate types at BL-SS-2.

BL-SS-1 BL-SS-2 BL-SS-3 50

40 2

30

20 Number per 100 m 10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 9. Number of lobster at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-16 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

80

60

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 10. Percent cover of three substrate types at ML-SS-1.

15 2 10

5 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 11. Number of lobster at Moonlight Beach.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-17 SW-SS-1 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40

Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

SW-SS-2

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80

60

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 12. Percent cover of three substrate types at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-18 SW-SS-1 SW-SS-2 SW-SS-3

15 2

10

5 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 13. Number of lobster at Swamis.

High- Relief Lo w - Relief Sand

100

80

60

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 14. Percent cover of three substrate types at CF-SS-1.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-19 15 2

10

5 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 15. Number of lobster at Cardiff.

CC-SS-1 CC-SS-2 CC-SS-3

15 2

10

5 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 16. Number of lobster at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-20

SB-SS-1 SB-SS-2 SB-SS-3

15 2

10

5 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 Date

Figure 17. Number of lobster at Solana Beach.

323550000-0010/Year2_Lobster.doc Page LB-21