DRAFT PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program
SCH# 2018032067
Prepared for:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
May 2019 Draft PROGRAM ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program
SCH# 2018032067
Prepared for: California Department of Fish and Wildlife P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244 Contact: Randy Lovell State Aquaculture Coordinator
Prepared by: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Heather Blair Project Manager
14010052.06 May 2019
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... VI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... ES-1 ES.1 Introduction ...... ES-1 ES.2 Program Overview ...... ES-2 ES.3 Summary of Public Involvement ...... ES-4 ES.4 Areas of Controversy and Issues to Be Resolved ...... ES-4 ES.5 Summary of Impacts ...... ES-5 ES.6 Summary of Alternatives ...... ES-5
1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1-1 1.1 Background on Marine Aquaculture ...... 1-2 1.2 Program Area ...... 1-8 1.3 Purpose of This PEIR ...... 1-8 1.4 Scope of This PEIR ...... 1-9 1.5 Environmental Review Process ...... 1-11 1.6 Terminology Used in This Draft PEIR ...... 1-12 1.7 Organization of This PEIR ...... 1-13
2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 2-1 2.1 Chapter Description ...... 2-1 2.2 Program Area ...... 2-1 2.3 Program Objectives ...... 2-1 2.4 Proposed Program and Alternatives ...... 2-3
3 REGULATORY SETTING ...... 3-1 3.1 Policies, Management Authorities and Framework ...... 3-1 3.2 Regulatory Overview ...... 3-3 3.3 Permitting Process for Land-Based Facilities ...... 3-9 3.4 Permitting Process for Facilities in State Waters ...... 3-11 3.5 Permitting Process for Combined Land-Based and In-Water Facilities ...... 3-12 3.6 Permitting Process for Facilities in Offshore Waters ...... 3-12 3.7 Other Regulatory Setting ...... 3-14
4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 4.1 Introduction and Scope of the Environmental Analysis ...... 4.1-1 4.2 Aesthetics ...... 4.2-1 4.3 Air Quality ...... 4.3-1 4.4 Biological Resources ...... 4.4-1 4.5 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources ...... 4.5-1 4.6 Land Use ...... 4.6-1 4.7 Recreation ...... 4.7-1 4.8 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation ...... 4.8-1 4.9 Water Quality and Oceanography ...... 4.9-1 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy ...... 4.10-1 4.11 Cumulative Impacts ...... 4.11-1
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR i Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
5 OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS ...... 5-1 5.1 Introduction ...... 5-1 5.2 Growth-Inducing Impacts ...... 5-1 5.3 Significant and Unavoidable Impacts ...... 5-2 5.4 Irreversible Environmental Changes ...... 5-2 5.5 Potential for Ocean User Conflict ...... 5-3
6 ALTERNATIVES ...... 6-1 6.1 Introduction ...... 6-1 6.2 Considerations for Selection of Alternatives ...... 6-2 6.3 Alternatives Considered but Not Evaluated Further ...... 6-3 6.4 Alternatives Selected for Detailed Analysis ...... 6-4 6.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative ...... 6-8
7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT ...... 7-1 7.1 Public Involvement ...... 7-1 7.2 Stakeholder Involvement ...... 7-3 7.3 Agency Involvement ...... 7-3
8 REFERENCES ...... 8-1
9 REPORT PREPARERS ...... 9-1
Appendices (included in a CD on back cover) Appendix A –SB 201 Appendix B – 2018 NOP and Summary of All Comments Received Appendix C – Air Quality and Greenhous Gas Emissions Appendix D – Energy Consumption
Figures Figure 2-1 Program Area, including Southern California Bight ...... 2-2 Figure 2-2 Comparison of Lease Area to Surface Area ...... 2-7 Figure 2-3 Potential Net-Pen Configuration—200-Acre Lease ...... 2-8 Figure 2-4 Offshore Marine Finfish Aquaculture Cage Designs ...... 2-9 Figure 2-5 Conceptual Model Marine Finfish Aquaculture Facility ...... 2-10 Figure 2-6 Conceptual Offshore Shellfish and Seaweed Cultivation ...... 2-15 Figure 2-7 Anchoring Components Typical of Offshore Longline Shellfish and Seaweed Cultivation Systems ...... 2-16 Figure 2-8 Adaptive Management ...... 2-20
Figure 3-1 Aquaculture Industry Infographic ...... 3-2
Figure 4.2-1 California Coast Scenic Resources ...... 4.2-2
Figure 4.3-1 California Coast Air Basins ...... 4.3-5
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ii Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Table of Contents
Figure 4.4-1 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the Northern California Region ...... 4.4-4 Figure 4.4-2 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the North- Central California Region ...... 4.4-5 Figure 4.4-3 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the Central California Region ...... 4.4-6 Figure 4.4-4 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the Southern California Region ...... 4.4-7 Figure 4.4-5 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the Northern California Region ...... 4.4-13 Figure 4.4-6 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the North-Central California Region ...... 4.4-14 Figure 4.4-7 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the Central California Region ...... 4.4-15 Figure 4.4-8 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the Southern California Region ...... 4.4-16 Figure 4.4-9 Pinniped Rookeries and Haul-Out Sites and Seabird Colonies in the Southern California Bight ...... 4.4-28
Figure 4.6-1 Public Lands along the California Coast ...... 4.6-4
Tables Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures ...... ES-8 Table ES-2 Summary of Program Alternatives ...... ES-6 Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to Those of the Proposed Program ...... ES-7
Table 1-1 Existing Commercial Marine Aquaculture Operations in California by Facility Type ...... 1-4 Table 1-2 Current Marine Aquaculture Activity in California ...... 1-5 Table 1-3 Consideration of Senate Bill 201 Factors in This PEIR ...... 1-10
Table 2-1 Comparison of Program Alternatives ...... 2-5 Table 2-2 Conceptual Offshore Marine Finfish Facility Summary ...... 2-10
Table 3-1 Local, State, and Federal Involvement in Establishing Aquaculture Facilities in the Program Area .... 3-4 Table 3-2 Federal, State, and Local Agency Involvement in Establishing Aquaculture Facilities in Offshore Waters ...... 3-13 Table 3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards Comparison ...... 3-14 Table 3-4 North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds ...... 3-38 Table 3-5 Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds ...... 3-39 Table 3-6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds ...... 3-40 Table 3-7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds for Regional Impacts ...... 3-41 Table 3-8 South Coast Air Quality Management District Localized Ambient Air Quality Significance Thresholds ...... 3-42
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR iii Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
Table 4.3-1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants ...... 4.3-2 Table 4.3-2 Federal and State Attainment Status ...... 4.3-6 Table 4.3-3 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Emissions Estimate ...... 4.3-14 Table 4.3-4 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Mitigation Measure Reductions ...... 4.3-16 Table 4.3-5 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Operational Emissions Estimate ...... 4.3-17 Table 4.3-6 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Operational Emissions Estimate ...... 4.3-19
Table 4.4-1 Habitat Conservation Plans within the Program Area ...... 4.4-11 Table 4.4-2 Marine Protected Areas within the Northern California Region ...... 4.4-19 Table 4.4-3 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the Northern California Region ...... 4.4-20 Table 4.4-4 Marine Protected Areas within the North-Central California Region ...... 4.4-22 Table 4.4-5 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the North-Central California Region...... 4.4-23 Table 4.4-6 Marine Protected Areas within the Central California Region ...... 4.4-25 Table 4.4-7 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the Central California Region ...... 4.4-26 Table 4.4-8 Marine Protected Areas within the Southern California Region ...... 4.4-29 Table 4.4-9 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the Southern California Region ...... 4.4-30
Table 4.6-1 Jurisdictions with Local Coastal Programs ...... 4.6-2
Table 4.8-1 Two-Lane Conventional Highways ...... 4.8-3 Table 4.8-2 Intersection Level of Service Definitions ...... 4.8-3 Table 4.8-3 Installation- and Decommissioning-Related Marine Vessel Trips Generated Annually ...... 4.8-7 Table 4.8-4 Operational Marine Vessel Trips Generated Annually ...... 4.8-7 Table 4.8-5 Operational Vehicle Trips Generated Annually ...... 4.8-8
Table 4.9-1 NPDES Permit Requirements for Qualifying Flow-Through and Recirculating Marine Aquaculture Facilities ...... 4.9-7 Table 4.9-2 NPDES Permit Requirements for Qualifying Net-Pen Marine Aquaculture Facilities ...... 4.9-9
Table 4.10-1 California Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory ...... 4.10-2 Table 4.10-2 GHG Emissions Estimates for Aquaculture Facility Construction, Decommissioning, and Operations ...... 4.10-10 Table 4.10-3 Aquaculture Facility Construction and Decommissioning Energy Use Estimate ...... 4.10-14 Table 4.10-4 Aquaculture Facility Operation Energy Use Estimate ...... 4.10-15
Table 4.11-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis ...... 4.11-2 Table 4.11-2 Projected Population Growth in California Coastal Counties ...... 4.11-5
Table 6-1 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to Those of the Proposed Program .... 6-9
California Department of Fish and Wildlife iv Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
°F degrees Fahrenheit µg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter
ADC Aquaculture Development Committee Advisory Council Aquaculture Adaptive Planning Advisory Council APCD air pollution control district AQMD air quality management district ASBS Areas of Special Biological Significance
BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management BOEM Bureau of Ocean Energy Management
C.F.G.C California Fish and Game Code CAA Clean Air Act CAAP Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category CAAQS California ambient air quality standards CAFE corporate average fuel economy CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CCAA California Clean Air Act CCC California Coastal Commission CCR California Code of Regulations CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDP Coastal Development Permit CEC California Energy Commission CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR v List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
CH4 methane CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CNRA California Natural Resources Agency CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide COLREGS Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea Commission California Fish and Game Commission CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CSLC California State Lands Commission CVM Center for Veterinary Medicine CWA Clean Water Act
DFMPA De Facto Marine Protected Area diesel PM PM exhaust from diesel engines DOC U.S. Department of Commerce DPS Distinct Population Segment
EEZ exclusive economic zone EFH Essential Fish Habitat EMFAC 2017 CARB Emission Factor 2017 Model ENSO El Nino Southern Oscillation EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act
FCR Feed Conversion Ratio FDA U.S. Food and Drug Administration FGC California Fish and Game Code ft3 cubic feet
GHG greenhouse gas GIS Geographic Information System GWP global warming potential
California Department of Fish and Wildlife vi Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
HAB Harmful Algal Bloom HACCP Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point HAP hazardous air pollutant HAPC habitat areas of particular concern HCP Habitat Conservation Plan HFC hydrofluorocarbon
I-80 Interstate 80 INAD investigational new animal drugs IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation IS Initial Study
kg/m3 kilograms per cubic meter km kilometers km2 square kilometers
lb/ft3 pounds per cubic foot lbs/day pounds per day LCP local coastal program LOS level of service LRP low regulatory priority
m meters m2 square meters m3 cubic meters Magnuson-Stevens Act Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MBUAPCD Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District MCAPCD Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District mg/m3 milligrams per cubic meter MLMA Marine Life Management Act MMPA Marine Mammal Protection Act MMRP mitigation monitoring and reporting program
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR vii List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
MMTCO2e million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent MND Mitigated Negative Declaration MPA Marine Protected Area MPO metropolitan planning organization MT metric tons
N2O nitrous oxide NAAQS national ambient air quality standards NCAB North Coast Air Basin NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan NCUAPCD North Coast Unified Air Pollution Control District NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 NISMP National Invasive Species Management Plan nm nautical mile NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO nitric oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOP notice of preparation
NOX oxides of nitrogen NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OPR Governor’s Office of Planning and Research ozone photochemical smog
PDO Pacific Decadal Oscillation PEIR programmatic environmental impact report PFC perfluorocarbon PM particulate matter
PM10 respirable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter Porter-Cologne Act State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California Department of Fish and Wildlife viii Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental List of Abbreviations
ppd pounds per day ppm parts per million PRC California Public Resources Code PRPA Paleontological Resources Preservation Act
RCEA Redwood Coast Energy Authority RNA regulated navigation area ROG reactive organic gases RTP Regional Transportation Plan RTPA Regional Transportation Planning Agency Rules International Navigation Rules RWQCB regional water quality control board
Santa Barbara California Fish and Game Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Mariculture MND Barbara Mariculture Company Continued Shellfish Operation SB Senate Bill SB 201 FGC Section 15008 SBCAPCD Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District SDCAPCD San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SIP state implementation plan SLOCAPCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMCA State Marine Conservation Area SMR State Marine Reserve SMRMA State Marine Recreation Management Area
SO2 sulfur dioxide sq. ft. square feet SR State Route SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant TCR tribal cultural resource
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ix List of Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
TMDL total maximum daily load TSS traffic separation scheme TTC temporary traffic control
UCSC University of California, Santa Cruz USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USCG U.S. Coast Guard USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
V/C volume-to-capacity VCAPCD Ventura County Air Pollution Control District VMT vehicle miles traveled VOC volatile organic compound VTS Vessel Traffic Services
WDR waste discharge requirement
California Department of Fish and Wildlife x Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 INTRODUCTION
This summary is provided in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (State CEQA Guidelines) Section 15123. As stated in Section 15123(a), “an EIR [environmental impact report] shall contain a brief summary of the proposed action and its consequences. The language of the summary should be as clear and simple as reasonably practical.” As required by the State CEQA Guidelines, this chapter includes (1) a summary description of the Proposed Program, (2) a summary of public involvement, (3) a discussion of the areas of controversy associated with the project, (4) a synopsis of environmental impacts and recommended mitigation measures (Table ES-1, located at the end of this summary), and (5) identification of the alternatives evaluated and of the environmentally superior alternative. A California marine aquaculture program can be broadly conceptualized to include all the policy, management, and regulatory components spread throughout multiple agencies, at all levels of local, State, and federal government, having roles in managing marine aquaculture in the state. The Aquaculture Development Act (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 825 et seq.) also calls for the establishment of a policy and program toward improving the science and practice of aquaculture as a means of expanding aquaculture industry and related economic activity in the state. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) are the principal State government entities responsible for the management, protection, and conservation of the state’s fish and wildlife resources. As part of that responsibility, the Commission has the authority to regulate certain aspects of commercial marine aquaculture on state lands or in state waters, whereas CDFW has management responsibility. Specifically, the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) provides CDFW and the Commission the authority to regulate marine aquaculture in four ways:
registration of aquaculture facilities and species cultured within the state;
lease of state water bottoms and water column for the purpose of aquaculture;
permitting and licensing of various aquaculture-related activities, including stocking, broodstock collection, and importation; and
detection, control, and eradication of disease in aquaculture facilities. These management authorities were modified when the California Legislature passed the Sustainable Oceans Act, also known as Senate Bill (SB) 201, in 2006. This act added FGC Sections 54.5 and 15008 and amended FGC Section 15400 and PRC Section 30411. This law has three major implications:
It provides that “the commission may lease state water bottoms or the water column to any person for aquaculture, including, but not limited to, marine finfish aquaculture” (FGC Section 15400) under certain conditions and with certain restrictions.
It requires that “the department [CDFW] shall, in consultation with the Aquaculture Development Committee, prepare programmatic environmental impact reports for existing and potential commercial aquaculture operations in both coastal and inland areas of the state” (FGC Section 15008[a]) if funds are appropriated to CDFW and matching funds are provided by the aquaculture industry.
If a final programmatic EIR (PEIR) is completed, it “shall provide a framework for managing marine finfish aquaculture in an environmentally sustainable manner” (FGC Section 15008[b]) “so as to avoid adverse environmental impacts, and to minimize any unavoidable impacts” (FGC Section 15008[b][10]).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-1 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
This PEIR for marine aquaculture is being prepared in compliance with SB 201 and in accordance with CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15000 et seq.). This CEQA document was prepared in response to a statutory mandate and not to any proposed discretionary act by CDFW or the Commission. This PEIR considers the potential environmental effects of an expanded finfish, shellfish, and seaweed aquaculture industry along the California coast to inform the Commission and CDFW’s consideration of any modifications to their current aquaculture management responsibilities and capacity in anticipation of the expansion of the marine aquaculture industry in California. The existing framework, as well as strategies for management of the program are described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” and refined through mitigation measures presented in the analysis of the potential physical environmental impacts of the Proposed Program in Chapter 4. Implementation of the Proposed Program, including initial review and approval of projects, along with ongoing adaptive management, oversight by CDFW and Commission staffs, and interagency coordination would require additional staff capacity and resources in order to effectively manage and implement the Proposed Program. The PEIR process is intended to provide CDFW with the environmental information required to evaluate the Proposed Program, to identify methods for reducing adverse environmental impacts, and to ensure that a range of alternatives is considered before the Program is approved. As individual new projects are brought before the Commission for leases in the future, this guidance can support the preparation of project-specific CEQA evaluations that will provide detailed guidance to the individual aquaculturist.
ES.2 PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Program Area The Program area is limited to California’s coastal area, encompassing waters of the state from mean high water inland 1,000 yards (914.4 meters [m]) and out to 3 nautical miles (nm) (5.556 kilometers [km]) between Oregon and Mexico. Although most of the aquaculture production allowed under the Program is anticipated to occur in coastal waters, some land-based support facilities may also be developed, as noted below, within 1,000 yards (914.4 m) of coastal waters. Although the Program area is very broad, with respect to marine finfish aquaculture, weather and sea conditions would likely limit the majority of marine finfish aquaculture operations to the Southern California Bight, which extends from Point Conception in Santa Barbara County southward to the US/Mexico border (California Sea Grant College Program 2015). The Program area also does not include federally administered waters beyond 3 nm (5.556 km) offshore or state waters surrounding islands more than 3 nm (5.556 km) offshore (e.g., the Channel Islands). Due to the existence of intertidal shellfish aquaculture within California and the associated body of environmental regulatory guidance, the scope of the Program, as evaluated in this PEIR, does not include intertidal facilities, and intertidal areas are not considered part of the Program area.
Program Objectives CDFW’s Program, in the context of this document and in compliance or consistent with various legislated polices, resolutions, and statutes,1 has the following objectives:
Encourage the expansion of marine aquaculture activities in a sustainable, feasible, and environmentally sound manner.
1 Including PRC Section 825 et seq., FGC Sections 1700(f), 13.5, 703.3, AB32, provisions of SB 201, 2014 Assembly Joint Resolution 43 (Chesbro), and CA Food & Ag Code Sections 5260 and 7700 et seq. See Chapter 2.3 “Program Objectives” for detailed attributions to specific statutes.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Align the scale and rate of aquaculture development with the State’s capacity to effectively and adaptively manage the Program across the state.2
Substantially reduce reliance on imported shellfish, finfish, and seaweeds to meet the annual seafood demand of the people of California.
Substantially reduce the associated carbon footprint and lost economic opportunities associated with imported marine aquaculture product.
Supplement the sustainable harvest of wild seafood supplies, while ensuring the protection of the state’s natural marine resources.
Expand employment opportunities along the California coast, and promote domestic economic activity.
Ensure that the Program does not unreasonably interfere with fishing or other existing maritime uses or public trust values.
Ensure that the Program does not unreasonably disrupt existing native marine fish and wildlife and their habitats and does not unreasonably harm the marine environment’s ability to support the health and populations of ecologically significant flora and fauna.
Minimize the risk of introduction or spread of invasive species in California state waters.
Program Characteristics and Lease Requirements
Alternative 1, the Proposed Program, would limit both the size (in surface acres) of new finfish, shellfish, and seaweed aquaculture facilities and the number of new finfish, shellfish, and seaweed aquaculture leases that would be approved by the Commission in a given period. Size limits on new facilities would be intended to find a balance between minimizing environmental impact and allowing for project development at a scale that is economically feasible. Under the Proposed Program, the maximum size limit of an offshore finfish facility would be 200 surface acres (0.8 square kilometers [km2]); offshore shellfish and seaweed facilities would be limited to 400 surface acres (1.6 km2) each. These size limitations would not apply to land-based marine aquaculture and support facilities; however, for the purposes of this analysis, land-based facilities supporting offshore operations are anticipated to be approximately 10,000 square feet (18.6 square meters) per lease. In addition to size, a limited rate of expansion under the Proposed Program would constrain the number of new offshore leases per 2-year period to no more than two projects of each type (finfish, shellfish, and seaweed), potentially resulting in approvals of up to six new aquaculture leases per 2-year period. By limiting the rate of expansion, Proposed Program capacity may be allowed to grow and manage adaptively as funding, monitoring feedback, and experience indicate. These expansion rate limitations would not apply to land-based support facilities. The limitations on facility size would be governed by the horizontal extent of a project. Facility size is defined by the horizontal dimensions of all surface and submerged fish culture system components, not including anchoring and mooring lines, legs, or other devices that tether the culture system to the bottom. The actual state water bottom lease footprint would not be explicitly limited because its size would vary with ocean depth at the project location and would be determined by certain site-specific engineering considerations. Several approaches could be taken by the Commission in its implementation of specific regulations, especially where specific guidance of individual projects would encourage better environmental outcomes. Prototypical or conceptual offshore aquaculture production facilities and their associated land-based support facilities are described in detail in Chapter 2, “Proposed Program and Alternatives,” to frame the assumptions used in the impact analysis for this PEIR.
2 This may include funding and staff capacity, as well as scientific understanding, and may be informed by technological developments, scientific studies and monitoring feedback, and changing oceanographic or market conditions, among other factors. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-3 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Adaptive management, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point, and siting criteria in the context of natural resource management and aquaculture oversight are considered to avoid and minimize impacts. Furthermore, compliance with applicable regulations (as described in Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting”), including the standards identified in SB 201, is considered part of the Program.
ES.3 SUMMARY OF PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT In accordance with CEQA requirements, a notice of preparation (NOP) was submitted to the State Clearinghouse and distributed on February 23, 2007, to responsible and trustee agencies, organizations, and individuals that could have interest in the Program. A new NOP was circulated on March 23, 2018. CDFW also posted the NOP on its website at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Aquaculture/PEIR. In 2007, three meetings were held to share information about the Program and to solicit public comment. Approximately 50 people attended the meetings, including several regulatory agency representatives. In 2018, two scoping meetings were held, on April 10, 2018, at the offices of the Sonoma County Water Agency in Santa Rosa, California, and on April 12, 2018, at the Port of San Diego’s offices in San Diego, California. Approximately 100 people in total attended the 2018 meetings, including several regulatory agency representatives. The draft PEIR is being circulated for a 45-day public review and comment period (as required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15105[a]). During this period, comments from the general public, as well as from organizations and agencies, on environmental issues may be submitted to the lead agency. CDFW will also hold a public meeting on the draft PEIR during the review period. Upon completion of the public review and comment period, CDFW will prepare a final PEIR that will include the comments received on the draft PEIR during the public review period, responses to those comments, and any revisions to the draft PEIR made in response to comments.
ES.4 AREAS OF CONTROVERSY AND ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED According to Section 15143 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency must focus the EIR’s analysis on the significant environmental effects on the environment. CDFW used several information sources to determine the environmental resources that could experience significant impacts. These sources included but were not limited to site visits, peer-reviewed literature, agency information databases, agency consultation, and consideration of comments received on the NOPs in writing and during the public scoping meeting. The following issues and areas of concern are known and/or were raised by agencies or interested parties during the NOP review periods:
biological concerns related to:
the escape of cultured organisms and subsequent genetic, disease transmission, and competition effects, including past and present impacts and ecosystem-level impacts;
the impacts associated with a potential increase in disease vectors;
the impacts of predator control activities and devices on nontargeted species;
aquaculture as a pathway for aquatic nuisance species; and
the impacts of aquaculture on protected and sensitive species;
water quality concerns, including pollution and eutrophication from aquaculture operations;
physical impacts on the seafloor affecting sensitive marine habitats;
ecosystem and public health impacts related to the use of fish meal and fish oils and aquaculture discharges into the water;
hazardous materials concerns related to the use of chemicals;
conflict with existing land uses, including fishery grounds, recreation areas, and natural preserves; and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
global climate change. Commenters suggested that the PEIR should entail careful and thorough analysis of:
the cumulative impacts of aquaculture;
relevant, available literature and data; and
a No Project Alternative that involves not approving new aquaculture projects under SB 201. Also received during scoping was the comment that the PEIR should include a discussion of the types of aquaculture to be covered, including clarification regarding siting restrictions for future operations and the corresponding regulatory jurisdictions over these areas. Furthermore, the PEIR should clarify the regulatory environment for aquaculture permitting to allow for a more streamlined permitting process and to satisfy the requirements of SB 201. Issues to be resolved include whether the Commission will approve a program and which alternative will be selected for approval by the Commission.
ES.5 SUMMARY OF IMPACTS
This PEIR has been prepared pursuant to CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Chapter 3, Section 1500 et seq.) to evaluate the physical environmental effects of the Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program. Table ES-1, presented at the end of this executive summary, provides a summary of the environmental impacts of the Proposed Program. The table identifies the level of significance of the impact before mitigation, recommended mitigation measures, and the level of significance of the impact after implementation of the mitigation measures. The Proposed Program could result in potentially significant and unavoidable impacts on the resource areas identified below.
Air Quality
Impact AQ-1: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Construction or Decommissioning
Impact AQ-2: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Operation
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-5: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through the Introduction and Spread of Nonnative Invasive Species during Finfish or Shellfish Aquaculture or Wild Fish Populations through Escaped Cultured Finfish
ES.6 SUMMARY OF ALTERNATIVES The alternatives identified in this section have been selected for detailed analysis in the PEIR. Alternative 1 is the Proposed Program, and Alternatives 2 and 3 are listed below; these alternatives are summarized in Table ES-2.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size)
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-5 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-2 Summary of Program Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Alternative 2 (Proposed Program) (No Program) Limit facility size (area at surface*) of individual projects: Yes No NA Offshore finfish ≤ 200 ac (0.8 km2) each No NA Offshore shellfish ≤ 400 ac (1.6 km2) each No NA Offshore seaweed ≤ 400 ac (1.6 km2) each No NA Limit rate of new lease approvals: Yes Yes NA Offshore finfish 2 per 2-year period 2 per 2-year period NA Offshore shellfish 2 per 2-year period 2 per 2-year period NA Offshore seaweed 2 per 2-year period 2 per 2-year period NA Notes: ac = acres; km2 = square kilometers; NA = not applicable.
*Area of actual lease footprint on the seafloor would vary according to depth due to length of anchorages. Integrated systems (e.g., integrated multi-trophic aquaculture or polyculture) and master lease/sublease (or “aggregate”) projects would be subject to special size limit consideration based on impact analyses for those projects.
This PEIR also evaluates Alternative 4: New Management Framework with Geographic Limitations and Alternative 5: New Management Framework with Reduced Lease Size Limitations. These alternatives would involve size and timing restrictions similar to those of the Proposed Program, as identified in Table ES-1. However, under Alternative 4, future marine aquaculture operations would be restricted to available areas within the Southern California Bight. No leases would be approved for areas north of Point Conception in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, this alternative would concentrate aquaculture development in a smaller geographic region than would the Proposed Program. Under Alternative 5, further lease size limitations would be placed on shellfish and seaweed aquaculture leases.
Environmentally Superior Alternative
Implementing Alternative 3 (No Program Alternative) would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of marine aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program; therefore, it would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 3 would not meet the objectives of the Program (presented in Section ES.2). In addition, as noted in Section 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy,” and Chapter 6, “Alternatives,” it is reasonable to assume that, under Alternative 3, the State’s continued reliance on beef, poultry, pork, and dairy, as well as imported seafood (as noted in Section 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy”) would result in substantially greater GHG emissions per ton of food product compared to potential marine aquaculture industry operations within California. Refer to Section 4.10 for further clarification. When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other action alternatives evaluated. As illustrated in Table ES-3, Alternative 4 would be the environmentally superior action alternative because although the environmental impacts would be similar to those that would occur under the Proposed Program, the geographic span of impacts would be reduced and concentrated within the Southern California Bight. No significant impacts of the Proposed Program would be completely avoided.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-3 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to Those of the Proposed Program
Proposed Program Alternative 4 Alternative 5 (Smaller Alternative 3 Environmental Topic (Alternative 1) Alternative 2 (Geographic Shellfish and (No Program) Significance Limitations)* Seaweed Facilities) Less than significant Less Aesthetics Greater Less Less with mitigation Potentially significant Similar Air Quality Greater Less Similar and unavoidable Potentially significant Less Biological Resources Greater Less Less and unavoidable Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Less than significant Similar Greater Less Less Paleontological Resources with mitigation Land Use Less than significant Greater Less Similar Similar Less than significant Similar Recreation Greater Less Less with mitigation Less than significant Similar Water Quality and Oceanography Greater Less Less with mitigation Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Less than significant Similar Greater Less Less Navigation with mitigation Less than significant Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Greater Less Similar with mitigation Notes: * - The comparison of effects expressed for Alternative 4 reflects the limited geographic span of the alternative compared to the Proposed Program. The restriction of aquaculture operations to the Southern California Bight would also potentially result in a concentration of effects within the region.
However, on balance, the environmentally superior alternative would be either the Proposed Program, Alternative 4, or Alternative 5 depending on decisions weighing types of environmental benefits and adverse effects by the Commission and CDFW. Implementing the Proposed Program could result in a wider distribution of aquaculture operations, resulting in more widely distributed impacts, whereas implementing Alternative 4 would result in more localized impacts within the Southern California Bight and would eliminate impacts north of the Bight. The reduced size of shellfish and seaweed operations under Alternative 5 would generally result in a lesser degree of impact related to visual and biological resources.
Nonetheless, these alternatives would likely still result in the potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified for the Proposed Program (see Section 6.2.2); none of the alternatives, with the exception of the no program alternative, would reduce all significant impacts to less than significant. In weighing the consideration of the environmentally superior alternative, decision makers must also weigh the relative importance of the intent behind the project, as well as any legislative direction (e.g., SB 201, PRC Section 826, and FGC Section 1700). This would include statements within SB 201 related to preparation of a statewide EIR, which could be interpreted to require that the Program cover marine aquaculture operations statewide, thereby precluding the ability to consider Alternative 4. Therefore, the differences in environmental impacts between these three alternatives are not substantial enough to allow one to be identified as clearly superior to the other.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-7 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant 4.2 Aesthetics Impact AES-1: Substantially Degrade a Scenic Vista LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program could introduce visual elements that would degrade scenic views along the coastline. All future development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to protect scenic resources. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect scenic views would ensure impacts to visual resources are minimized to the extent feasible and avoid any substantial adverse effect to scenic vistas. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact AES-2: Substantially Damage Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Development of onshore facilities under the Proposed Program could alter scenic resources along a scenic highway. All future development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable regulations adopted to protect scenic resources along protected highways. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect scenic resources would ensure that impacts to scenic resources are minimized to the extent feasible and avoid any substantial damage to scenic resources along a scenic highway. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact AES-3: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of a LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Site and Its Surroundings Development of onshore facilities that could occur under the Proposed Program could introduce structures that detract from or contrast with the existing visual aesthetic or quality of a neighborhood, community, or localized area, if not properly regulated. All future aquaculture development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable regulations adopted to protect local visual character. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect local visual character would ensure that aesthetic impacts are minimized to the extent feasible and avoid any substantial degradation of visual character or quality. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant Impact AES-4: Create New Sources of Substantial Light and Glare S Mitigation Measure AES-4: Minimize Lighting Visibility LTS Development of onshore and offshore facilities that could occur under the The project applicant shall design/install offshore night lighting in a manner Proposed Program could introduce new sources of light and glare, which could consistent with industry practice as required for safe operations as determined by create substantial light pollution. Given the programmatic nature of this analysis, State and local jurisdictions. If additional night lighting of offshore facilities whose the quantity and intensity of future offshore and exterior onshore lighting sources impacts from shore are considered substantial and adverse is proposed, the project are unknown at this time, and impacts on visual resources would be highly applicant shall install downward focused, shielded lighting where night lighting is localized. Offshore nighttime lighting would be limited to that needed to ensure required. In areas where lighting may be required occasionally, but not safety and avoid marine navigation hazards. Future onshore development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable standards for outdoor lighting. The severity of impacts would be determined during project-specific review, but it is reasonably foreseeable that impacts may be potentially significant. 4.3 Air Quality Impact AQ-1: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and S Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Apply On-Site ROG and NOX Control Measures for PSU Precursors during Construction or Decommissioning Offshore Facility Construction The Proposed Program would result in the construction and eventual CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt the following decommissioning of offshore finfish, offshore subtidal shellfish, and offshore requirements for the approval of aquaculture facilities and ensure that all subtidal seaweed facilities. Construction and demolition of offshore aquaculture aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission that involve the construction of facilities as part of the Proposed Program would require the use of marine vessels new facilities will be required to meet these terms: which would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants. Emissions modeling All offshore aquaculture facility construction shall use marine vessels that illustrates that emissions of NOX would be above the significance threshold for all include or have been repowered with EPA Tier 2 engines. air districts where new facilities could be built along the coast. Therefore, To reduce equipment exhaust emissions, acceptable options for reducing construction emissions would conflict with implementation of the MBUAPCD air emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, quality plan by contributing to an existing or projected ambient air quality violation alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or by exceeding emissions thresholds for NOX. The MBUAPCD emissions thresholds other options as they become available. Incorporate all air district- for NOX are the highest mass emissions threshold among the applicable air recommended emission control measures available at the time of plan districts for the Proposed Program. Therefore, the Proposed Program would also submittal, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation by using diesel violate the air quality plans for all other applicable air districts by exceeding the construction equipment meeting CARB’s Tier 3 standard, or the highest tier emissions thresholds for NOX in each of the other air districts. As a result, this available at the time of contractor bid, for heavy-duty diesel engines. Proof shall impact would be significant. be submitted along with the written calculation of the emissions reduction achieved, incorporated additional measures, and engine model-year to be used for all equipment. Proof shall also include submittal of the CARB compliance certificate of the construction fleet to be used.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-9 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant
Impact AQ-2: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and S Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Apply On-Site NOX Control Measures for Offshore PSU Precursors during Operation Aquaculture Facility Operation Implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the operation of new CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the aquaculture facilities along the coast of California. Activities associated with the following requirements for aquaculture facilities and ensure that all aquaculture operation of new aquaculture facilities would generate emissions of NOX that leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms: would exceed the significance threshold for the following air districts in which a All offshore aquaculture facility operations shall use marine vessels that include new aquaculture facility could be built: NCUAQMD, MCAQMD, BAAQMD, EPA Certified Tier 2 engines. SLOCAPCD, VCAPCD, and SCAQMD. Operational emissions would conflict with implementation of the air quality plans for these air districts by exceeding emissions thresholds for NOX. As a result, this impact would be significant. Impact AQ-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Toxic LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Air Contaminants Construction of aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program would result in the use of marine vessels at new aquaculture facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Program would generate diesel PM emissions, a known TAC. Additionally, operation of the aquaculture facilities would also result in the use of marine vessels at the offshore facilities. Diesel PM emissions generated during construction and operation of aquaculture facilities would not occur in close proximity to any sensitive receptors. This impact would be less than significant. Impact AQ-4: Cause Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of LTS No mitigation is required. LTS People Construction and operation of aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program would result in the use of equipment, including marine vessels and other auxiliary engines located on marine vessels, which could generate localized odors. The odor sources would be temporary in nature and dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase with distance. As a result, the Proposed Program is not anticipated to result in exposure of a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. This impact would be less than significant 4.4 Biological Resources Impact BIO-1: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through S Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Establish Criteria for Siting Aquaculture Facilities. LTS Increased Nutrient Discharge during Finfish Aquaculture CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the Increased nutrient-rich discharge that may occur from implementation of the following requirements for siting offshore aquaculture facilities and all aquaculture Proposed Program has the potential to adversely affect special-status species and leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant habitat under certain conditions. Under the Proposed Program, excess finfish feed CDFW will establish requirements for applicant-performed baseline surveys and and fish wastes would be minimized by management of feeding and adaptive studies of the physical and biological characteristics of proposed aquaculture management. However, there is potential for degraded water quality and sites. Baseline studies will include an assessment of factors important for increased nutrient deposition under certain conditions, which could harm benthic determining appropriate siting, such as water depths, current speeds, water habitat, such as sensitive submerged vegetation, and prey for special-status circulation patterns, bottom types, and benthic communities. Data collected will species in the vicinity of finfish aquaculture facilities. Reduced suitable habitat and include seasonal variations, multiple sampling locations that extend to all areas prey availability for special-status species could result in injury or loss of of the proposed lease area, and at least one reference site. Collection of enough individuals, which would constitute a substantial adverse effect. This would be a replicate samples at each location to provide a valid sample will be required. potentially significant impact. Modeling or other tools will screen sites and determine the maximum density of aquaculture structures within a lease area to avoid adverse effects to natural resources and marine habitats. Aquaculture facilities will generally be prohibited within a distance within which measurable impacts can be detected from MPAs, ASBS, national marine sanctuaries, and DFMPAs. In addition, aquaculture facilities will generally be prohibited within a distance from Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and other sensitive Essential Fish Habitat, such as seagrass, kelp canopy, and rocky reefs, within which measurable impacts can be detected. In the absence of site-specific recommendations from applicant-performed baseline surveys and studies, a buffer distance of 328 feet (100 m) between leased footprints and the aforementioned designated areas shall be used. CDFW will require the lease applicant to submit information regarding whether the proposed location would be within the range and habitat of one or more special-status wildlife species and will include specific plans to avoid or mitigate any potential biological impacts of aquaculture. Such information will include review of available literature and survey of the site to evaluate habitat suitability and occurrence likelihood for special-status wildlife species and nesting birds by a qualified biologist. Surveys will identify important feeding, nesting, migrating, and congregating areas for special-status species within or adjacent to proposed facility locations. CDFW will require that aquaculture facilities are sited in locations that avoid or minimize adverse effects on sensitive communities, special-status species habitat, and special-status species. CDFW will review the literature and survey results and proposed location to ensure that it avoids or minimizes adverse effects. For example, CDFW will review the depth of the site; current patterns and speeds;
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-11 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant habitat on or around the proposed site; frequency of harmful algal blooms or hypoxia at the proposed site; substrate type; distance to other aquaculture facilities; distance to seabird colonies; and distance to marine mammal migratory pathways, feeding and mating areas, and haul-out sites. The proposed facilities will be located in areas away from sensitive habitats and with appropriate currents and bottom types, such as areas with shifting erosional sediment having a high sand content with currents that limit resistance on aquaculture gear and yet provide adequate current for nutrient flushing. The proposed location will be revised to avoid or minimize impacts to special-status species and their habitat and will generally prohibit aquaculture activities surrounding known wildlife congregating areas (e.g., around a seabird colony or marine mammal breeding area) within a distance within which wildlife disturbance can be detected. In the absence of site- specific recommendations from applicant-performed baseline surveys and studies, a buffer distance of 0.5 mile (0.8 km) between leased footprints and wildlife congregating areas shall be used and a buffer distance of 1,000 feet (304 meters) between vessel traffic associated with aquaculture leases and wildlife congregating areas shall be used. CDFW will require that finfish aquaculture facilities are sited away from areas used by wild populations of the same species to reduce the likelihood of uncontrolled breeding as a result of viable finfish or viable finfish gamete escape. The minimum distance required will be determined based on project- level conditions, the finfish species, and the dispersal capabilities of escaped individuals (likely determined by the species). CDFW will require that shellfish and finfish aquaculture facility siting incorporates spacing requirements to reduce the likelihood of disease outbreaks. The minimum spacing requirements will be determined based on project-level conditions, the shellfish or finfish species, and the best available science regarding disease transmission in the marine environment. Aquaculture facilities will generally be prohibited within a distance from another aquaculture lease within which measurable impacts can be detected. In the absence of site- specific recommendations from applicant-performed baseline surveys and studies, a distance of 5 kilometers between facilities shall be used.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant Impact BIO-2: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through S Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 LTS Food Web Alteration during Shellfish Aquaculture Marine shellfish aquaculture operation could result in adverse effects to sensitive benthic communities under some conditions due to nutrient deposition or changes in marine food web dynamics that could result in an overall adverse ecosystem effect. These impacts would be minimized by restrictions on facility size and rate of development under the Proposed Program, as well as by implementation of adaptive management. However, residual food web dynamic changes could reduce habitat or prey availability for special-status species, which would constitute a substantial adverse effect. This would be a potentially significant impact. Impact BIO-3: Substantially Affect Sensitive Habitat through Direct Impacts during S Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 LTS Finfish, Shellfish, or Seaweed Aquaculture Decreased light penetration and anchor placement that may occur from installation of facilities under the Proposed Program could adversely affect sensitive habitat, including special-status species habitat and sensitive communities, by decreasing growth rates of light-dependent species or crushing benthic species. These impacts would be minimized by restrictions on facility size and rate of development under the Proposed Program, as well as by implementation of adaptive management. However, there is potential for degradation of sensitive habitat, such as sensitive submerged vegetation, due to shading or crushing. This loss of sensitive habitat would constitute a substantial adverse effect and be considered a potentially significant impact. Impact BIO-4: Substantially Affect Special-Status Wildlife and Common Nesting PS Mitigation Measure BIO-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 LTS Birds through Interactions with Finfish, Shellfish, or Seaweed Aquaculture Mitigation Measure BIO-4b: Establish Best Management Practices for Wildlife Operations Protection Special-status wildlife and common nesting birds could become entangled in CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to modify/adopt/approve marine aquaculture gear, collide with vessels, or be exposed to noise or light best management practices to avoid and minimize adverse effects on wildlife. All disturbance during Proposed Program operations. Entanglement could cause leaseholders will be required to implement these best management practices, injury or loss of special-status wildlife species and noise or light disturbance could which will include, but not be limited to: result in injury to wildlife or disruption in normal movement, breeding, and standards and requirements for the use, maintenance, and monitoring of foraging behavior. This would constitute a substantial adverse effect and be aquaculture gear, including but not limited to materials; mesh sizes; tension considered be a potentially significant impact.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-13 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant strength of gear such as net walls, lines, and ropes; and anti-predator exclusion netting and other barriers including overhead netting to exclude seabirds; specifications for use of lighting, including a prohibition on sustained lighting of waters outside of the aquaculture facility. Any lighting will be required to be minimized at night, downward-pointing, and shaded; specifications for allowable noise levels and duration, including requiring that allowable levels are below the underwater acoustic thresholds for onset of permanent and temporary threshold shifts provided by NMFS in “Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing” (NMFS 2016, or current version); and specifications for vessel speed limits and behavior during travel and in the vicinity of aquaculture facilities. CDFW will establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for best management practices. All entanglements with wildlife by aquaculture facilities or vessel strikes will be required to be reported to CDFW and other appropriate authorities within 24 hours of detection. Impact BIO-5: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through the PS Mitigation Measure BIO-5a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 PSU Introduction and Spread of Nonnative Invasive Species during Finfish or Shellfish Mitigation Measure BIO 5b: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4b Aquaculture or Wild Fish Populations through Escaped Cultured Finfish Mitigation Measure BIO-5c: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Hazard Implementation of the Proposed Program could result in introduction of nonnative Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan invasive organisms colonizing on aquaculture structures, which could result in CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the adverse impacts to marine ecosystems or native species. Implementation of the following requirements, which are also described in Chapter 2, “Program Description Proposed Program could also result in escape and spread of nonnative cultured and Alternatives,” for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities, and all aquaculture shellfish species, potentially resulting in adverse effects on native shellfish; or leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms: escape of cultured finfish or their viable gametes, potentially resulting in Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant will prepare and submit to CDFW a interbreeding between cultured fish and wild fish, or other adverse effects on wild Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan. The plan will outline methods to fish. This would be a potentially significant impact. prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nonnative invasive species. The plan will also outline additional implementation measures for the introduction of aquatic nonnative invasive species should prevention efforts fail. Mitigation Measure BIO-5d: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Nonnative Shellfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms: Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant will prepare and submit to CDFW a Nonnative Shellfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan (Plan) that would identify the methods for prevention of escape and spread of nonnative cultured shellfish (e.g., Pacific oyster) as well as methods for response should escape and/or spread occur. The escape prevention plan will include the specifications for the design of the facility and demonstrate that the proposed specifications are sufficient to withstand the range of wind, waves, and currents at the site to the maximum extent practicable. CDFW or the Commission (authority to be determined through rulemaking) will review and approve these specifications before lease approval. CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding prevention of shellfish escape and spread to prepare the Nonnative Shellfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-5e: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan and Reports of Escape Incidents CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms: Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant will prepare and submit to CDFW a Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan (Plan) that would identify the methods for escape prevention and methods for response should escape occur. The Plan will include an analysis of the genetic structure of wild stocks of the finfish species planned for cultivation, and a risk assessment of the genetic impacts of farmed fish escape on wild stocks using the best available tools (e.g., the NOAA Offshore Aquaculture Escapes Genetics Assessment [OMEGA] model). The escape prevention plan will include the specifications for the design of the facility, including cages and anchoring systems, and demonstrate that the proposed specifications are sufficient to withstand the range of wind, waves, and currents at the site to the maximum extent practicable. CDFW or the Commission (authority to be determined through rulemaking) will review and approve these specifications before lease approval. The response plan for an escape incident will include methods for recovering escaped finfish to the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-15 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant maximum extent feasible, reporting escape incidents, and remedial measures to prevent future escape (e.g., requirements to improve cage design or provide additional staff training within a specified timeframe). CDFW or the Commission will review escape incidents. This review will occur within 48 hours of the escape incident and appropriate recommendations/corrective actions shall be implemented within 1 week of the incident. Additionally, the lease applicant will submit annual reports to CDFW or the Commission to report escape incidents. CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding finfish and viable finfish gamete escape to prepare the Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan. Mitigation Measure BIO-5f: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Plan for Prevention of Reproduction between Cultured Finfish and Wild Fish Should Escape Occur CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms: Prior to lease approval, and as part of the Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan (Plan), the lease applicant will identify methods to prevent reproduction between cultured finfish and wild fish, either as a result of escaped individuals or viable escaped gametes. Example plan elements may include marking all farmed finfish individuals so they can be identified later and measures that prevent the sexual maturity or reproductive viability of cultured finfish. These measures may include using sterile fish, either by inducing triploidy or other sterilization measures (e.g., fish that require dietary additives for maturation), or harvesting finfish prior to sexual maturity to avoid gamete production (Rust et al. 2014). CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available technology regarding sterilization. Additionally, the use of highly domestic populations or cultured finfish may reduce the likelihood of escaped fish surviving in the wild or outcompeting wild fish for resources (Waples et al. 2012). The Plan shall include additional corrective action/control measures with a goal of preventing uncontrolled breeding of cultured fish or interbreeding of cultured and wild fish stocks. These measures may include post-escape monitoring of wild populations to determine the fraction of a wild population
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant that originated from aquaculture operations. CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding finfish and viable finfish gamete escape to prepare the Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan.
Impact BIO-6: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species through Spread of PS Mitigation Measure BIO-6a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 LTS Pathogens and Parasites to Wild Finfish and Shellfish Mitigation Measure BIO-6b: Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-5e Cultured shellfish and finfish within marine aquaculture operations under the Mitigation Measure BIO-6c: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Plan for Proposed Program could introduce pathogens into the marine environment, Shellfish or Finfish Disease Prevention and Response potentially infecting wild organisms. The California Fish and Game Code includes CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the various requirements and recommendations to prevent introduction of pathogens following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All and to monitor and respond to diseases in aquaculture populations. However, aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these these requirements and recommendations would not fully reduce the risk of terms: transmission of disease from cultured shellfish or finfish to wild populations, and as Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant will prepare and submit to CDFW a a result, impacts would be potentially significant. Shellfish or Finfish Disease Prevention and Response Plan (Plan) that would identify the methods for disease prevention and methods for response should disease outbreaks occur. Disease prevention and response measures would include biosecurity measures; monitoring plans (e.g., routine health exams by aquatic animal health specialists); methods for the use of antibiotics, vaccines, or other therapeutants; methods for record keeping by aquaculture operators to document mortalities; and methods for removal of infected or dead shellfish or finfish in a timely manner. CDFW or the Commission (authority to be determined through rulemaking) will review and approve the Plan before lease approval. CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding disease in aquaculture operations to prepare the Shellfish or Finfish Disease Prevention and Response Plan.
Impact BIO-7: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Construction of Land-Based Aquaculture Support Facilities Construction of land-based support facilities as part of the Proposed Program could result in adverse effects to special-status plants, special-status wildlife, or sensitive habitats (e.g., waters of the United States, waters of the state, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities) if present within the footprint or in the vicinity of these facilities. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable resource management and protection mandates, including those established within the Coastal Zone Act and the Porter-Cologne Water
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-17 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant Quality act, such that impacts to special-status species and associated habitat would be minimized/avoided. This would be a less-than-significant impact. Impact BIO-8: Substantially Affect Wild Fish Populations through Use of Wild Fish LTS No mitigation is required. LTS as Feed in Finfish Aquaculture Finfish aquaculture could reduce wild fish populations through the use of fish meal and fish oil, feed ingredients produced from harvested wild fish. Reduced wild fish populations could limit food supplies for special-status fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. SB 201 includes the requirement that finfish aquaculture leaseholders minimize use of fish meal and fish oil and utilize alternative ingredients. With adherence to this requirement, impacts would be less than significant. Impact BIO-9: Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement or Impede the Use of PS Mitigation Measure BIO-9a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 LTS Wildlife Nurseries Mitigation Measure BIO-9b: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4b Proposed Program implementation could result in placement of marine aquaculture structures within important migratory corridors or in the vicinity of nursery sites which could result in a disruption in the normal movement, breeding, and foraging behavior of marine organisms. Proposed Program operation, including the use of vessels to transport feed, could also result in disruption of movement corridors or disturbance to nursery sites. This would be a potentially significant impact. Impact BIO-10: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Resources or Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Habitat Plan Construction of land-based support facilities has the potential to result in adverse effects to special-status species or sensitive habitats, if present within the vicinity of these facilities. This could result in conflicts with local policies, local ordinances, or provisions of an HCP or NCCP. However, existing lease requirements and existing rules and regulations of local jurisdictions would require compliance with existing, applicable regulations. This would be a less-than-significant impact.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-18 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant 4.5 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Impact CUL-1: Result in a Substantial Adverse Change to Known Historic, Unique LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Archaeological, or Paleontological Resources Future aquaculture operations under the Proposed Program could be located on lands that contain or are near historic, unique archeological, or paleontological resources. This could result in damage to or destruction of a historic building or structure, thereby resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource, as well as historic or unique archeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable resource management and preservation mandates, such as PRC 5024 and 5097, such that impacts to known cultural resources would be minimized/avoided. This impact would be less than significant. Impact CUL-2: Result in a Substantial Adverse Change to Previously Undiscovered LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Historical, Archaeological, or Paleontological Resources Implementation of the Proposed Program would involve physical changes such as construction of new buildings, infrastructure modifications, and installation of submerged cages. Damage to or destruction of a building or structure that has not yet been evaluated has the potential to result in a change in its historical significance. Surface-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of undiscovered subsurface unique archaeological or paleontological resources. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable resource management and preservation mandates, including local jurisdiction requirements related to identification, evaluation, and protection pursuant to CEQA and PRC requirements. This impact would be less than significant. Impact CUL-3: Disturb Previously Undiscovered Human Remains LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Prehistoric or historic-era marked or unmarked human interments are present throughout California. Surface-disturbing activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and PRC Section 5097 would make this impact less than significant. Impact CUL-4: Result in a Substantial Adverse Change to Tribal Cultural Resources LTS No mitigation is required. LTS CDFW sent notification for consultation to 98 tribes. Two responses were received during the 30-day response period for AB 52 as defined in PRC Section 21074, but
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-19 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant neither identified resources related to state water bottom leases under the program. Compliance with PRC 21080.3.2, 21084.3, and 5097.9 would make this impact less than significant. 4.6 Land Use Impact LU-1: Conflict with Any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for LTS No mitigation is required. LTS the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect Local and regional agencies regulate the physical development of land within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. All future aquaculture development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted by the applicable jurisdiction would ensure consistency with adopted plans. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. 4.7 Recreation Impact REC-1: Increase the Use of Existing Recreational Facilities Such That Physical LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Deterioration Would Occur or Be Accelerated Future aquaculture employees may increase the use of existing, onshore recreational facilities. However, future aquaculture operations would employ a nominal number of individuals at different facilities throughout the state which would disperse pressure on existing recreational facilities from new employees, thereby avoiding any physical deterioration attributable to increased use. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact REC-2: Directly or Indirectly Disrupt Recreational Activities, including within S Mitigation Measure REC-2: Coordinate Aquaculture Construction and Installation LTS Designated Areas Schedule with Managing Officer(s) for Affected Recreation Areas Development and installation of future aquaculture facilities along the coastline As part of the permit application process, CDFW shall require all future applicants to could result in potential conflicts with existing recreational onshore and offshore submit information regarding the existence of recreation areas within 1,500 feet (~500 users, thereby disrupting recreational activities. Conflicts may include access m) of the proposed offshore aquaculture facilities. For each identified recreation area, restrictions or nuisance impacts during construction including aesthetics, dust the applicant shall consult with the agency and/or authorized officer(s) of the emissions, water quality degradation, and increased traffic, that disrupt the recreation area to develop of the construction and installation schedule Through recreational experience. This disruption would be potentially significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-20 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant consultation with the Coastal Commission or other applicable agency and/or authorized office, the applicant shall ensure that the following steps are taken: The timeline required for usage of each staging area is clearly identified in coordination with all agencies with jurisdiction over the recreation area. Construction and installation of aquaculture activities are scheduled to avoid heavy recreational use periods, including major holidays, to the maximum extent feasible. Project-related equipment, materials, and vehicles are located away from designated or known recreational areas to minimize disruption of recreation activities.
4.8 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Impact NAV-1: Substantially Increase Oceanic Hazards, in Particular Due to LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Changes in Vessel Traffic Concentration (i.e., Congestion) Future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program could increase marine vessel congestion within navigable waters if not regulated. All future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with State and federal regulations adopted to enhance navigation and vessel safety. Enforcement of navigation and vessel regulations would ensure that impacts on oceanic hazards are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, future aquaculture facilities would not increase oceanic hazards, and the impact would be less than significant. Impact NAV-2: Result in Disruption of Existing Vessel Traffic Patterns and Marine LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Navigation Installation of offshore aquaculture facilities within coastal waters could disrupt established navigational patterns of marine vessels. However, all future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with federal regulations adopted to ensure safe marine vessel movement, including siting criteria and the installation of warning markers. Enforcement of navigation and vessel regulations would ensure that impacts on vessel traffic patterns are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-21 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant Impact NAV-3: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Roadway Circulation System Future aquaculture facilities would generate vehicle trips that could result in increased traffic volumes and delay on roadway segments and intersections. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including laws related to identification, evaluation, and protection pursuant to CEQA requirements. This impact would be less than significant. Impact NAV-4: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature LTS No mitigation is required. LTS (e.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersection) or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment) Development of onshore structures could require or result in new access roads; driveways to facilitate ingress and egress of vehicles; or minor alterations to existing roadways, such as restriping. All future aquaculture facilities would be required to undergo the local jurisdictions’ discretionary review process, which would require proposed aquaculture operations to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted to ensure that projects are designed in accordance with safety standards and are compatible with existing uses. Enforcement of adopted regulations by applicable jurisdictions would ensure that future aquaculture facilities do not increase hazards or result in incompatible uses. Therefore, development of onshore facilities would result in a less-than-significant impact. Impact NAV-5: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Development of onshore structures could impede on-site emergency access and/or interrupt the flow of emergency vehicles on nearby roadways if not regulated properly. All future aquaculture development would be regulated by the local jurisdictions’ discretionary review process, which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to ensure adequate emergency access. Enforcement of adopted regulations by applicable jurisdictions would ensure that future aquaculture facilities do not obstruct or impede emergency access. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-22 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant 4.9 Water Quality and Oceanography Impact WQ-1: Substantially Degrade Water Quality, Violate Water Quality LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Standards, Conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan Due to Discharge from Land- Based Facilities The Proposed Program could result in the development of land-based support facilities such as offices, feed storage facilities, as well as onshore aquaculture facilities. Water from aquaculture facilities may contain particulate matter, nutrients, and residuals of therapeutants and other chemicals. Additionally, discharge may be generated by process waters used in washing, cleaning, and other associated activities. These discharges have the potential to degrade water quality, violate water quality standards, and affect the beneficial uses if not properly treated or contained. The potential for water quality degradation would be reduced through the required compliance with the conditions of the NPDES permitting system, which includes implementation of water quality protections tailored for aquaculture. Although these protections cannot eliminate any risk of degradation to water quality from the development of land-based aquaculture support facilities, they would ensure any degradation would not be substantial or violate water quality standards or conflict with a water quality control plan. This impact would be less than significant. Impact WQ-2: Substantially Degrade Water Quality, Violate Water Quality S Mitigation Measure WQ-3: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1. LTS Standards, or Conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan Due to Discharge from Marine Finfish Facilities The Proposed Program would result in the development of offshore finfish leases which could discharge particulate matter, nutrients, and residuals of therapeutants and other chemicals which have the potential to degrade water quality. The potential for water quality degradation would be reduced through required compliance with the conditions of the NPDES permitting system, which includes water quality protections tailored for aquaculture. Although these protections would reduce the risk to water quality, the potential for substantial degradation of water quality, violation of water quality standards, or conflict with a water quality control plan would remain for aquaculture facilities located in sites without sufficient water movement or depth for adequate dispersion. For this reason, the development of finfish aquaculture under the Proposed Program would have a potentially significant impact on water quality. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-23 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant Impact WQ-3: Substantially Degrade Water Quality, Violate Water Quality LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Standards, or Conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan Due to Discharge from Shellfish or Seaweed Aquaculture Shellfish and seaweed aquaculture are passive aquaculture systems and are generally understood to positively affect water quality. However, under intensive production scenarios shellfish aquaculture can alter nutrient cycling and may result in increased productivity in algae and microbial communities. The Proposed Program would manage and reduce this risk through the gradual expansion of shellfish and seaweed leases coupled with a well-structured and effective adaptive management process that requires review every 5 years of conditions that could be affected by aquaculture, such as organic and benthic loading and changes in water quality. Because shellfish and seaweed aquaculture is expected to result in an overall benefit to water quality and because the potential for adverse effects related to intensive production would be managed through Proposed Program limitations and adaptive management, substantial degradation of water quality, violation of water quality standards, or conflict with a water quality control plan would not occur. This impact would be less than significant. Impact WQ-4: Alter Circulation Patterns in a Way That Results in a Substantial LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Increase in Erosion or Siltation The Proposed Program would allow the limited development of marine aquaculture facilities, which could result in modification of local circulation patterns. However, these changes would not generate substantial changes in erosion or siltation. Additionally, the potential structural changes to the benthic environment from the installation of anchors would have isolated and localized effects and would not alter benthic function. For these reasons, the Proposed Program would not alter circulation patterns in a way that results in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation. This impact would be less-than-significant. Impact WQ-5: Release Pollutants Due to Tsunami S Mitigation Measure WQ-5a: Require the Preparation of an Emergency/Disaster LTS California’s coastal areas are susceptible to tsunami. Many of the potential land Plan for All Facilities based, nearshore, or offshore aquaculture facilities that would be permitted The Commission shall require the preparation of an Emergency/Disaster Plan for through the Proposed Program would be located in areas that could experience each aquaculture facility that includes, but is not limited to, procedures for large tsunami waves, potentially resulting in damage to feed and chemical storage management of aquaculture systems, equipment, and cultured organisms in the systems causing an uncontrolled discharge of pollutants. Additionally, tsunami event of a disaster (e.g., tsunami, harmful algal bloom, chemical or oil spill) to prevent degradation of water quality from accidental release aquaculture materials. California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-24 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Executive Summary
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant could damage anchors or net-pen infrastructure generating debris. This would be This plan must include site-specific protocols for securing feed, therapeutants, and a potentially significant impact. any other materials that may be detrimental to water quality, if released. If land- based facilities are proposed as part of a lease application to be considered by the Commission, the Commission shall include the preparation of an emergency/disaster plan as part of the lease agreement. Mitigation Measure WQ-5b: Require the Use of Location Devices for In-Water System Components The Commission shall require the lessee to maintain a minimum of one properly functioning electronic locating device (e.g., Global Positioning System device, pinger with radio signal) on each allowable aquaculture system (i.e., net-pen or cage) placed in the water at the aquaculture facility. Locating devices must be monitored to ensure their function after storm events. In the event that the system breaks free of its mooring and becomes located away from the original permitted site, the locating device will be used to find it and either remove it from the water or return it to the permitted site. 4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Impact GHG-1: Generate GHG Emissions That May Have a Significant Impact on S Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 LTS the Environment or Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2 for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of GHGs Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Quantify and Offset Remaining GHG Emissions Implementation of the Proposed Program could result in the development and CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt the following operation of new aquaculture facilities along the coast of California. GHG requirements for the approval of aquaculture facilities and ensure that all aquaculture emissions would be generated during the construction and decommissioning of leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms. offshore aquaculture facilities. GHG emissions also would be generated during All GHG emissions generated by facilities under the Proposed Program (i.e., normal operations of aquaculture facilities. Based on the significance threshold of construction and operational) shall be fully offset to achieve net-zero emissions, no-net-increase used for the Proposed Program, GHG emissions generated during including mobile-source GHG emissions, through either the use of renewable construction, decommissioning, and operations of the aquaculture facilities could energy at offshore facilities or purchase of carbon offsets as described in CCR Title result in a considerable contribution to global climate change and associated 3, Division 8, Chapter 1, Section 8305(a)(1) or other mechanisms approved by the significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, this impact would be potentially Commission in consultation with CARB. significant. To determine the magnitude of carbon offsets required for each facility to meet the standard of no net increase in GHG emissions, before permits are issued for individual facilities, a GHG reduction plan (GHGRP) shall be developed and submitted for approval to CDFW. The GHGRP shall quantify construction and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR ES-25 Executive Summary Ascent Environmental
Table ES-1 Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures Significance Significance Impacts before Mitigation Measures after Mitigation Mitigation PSU = Potentially Significant and Unavoidable S = Significant LTS = Less than significant operational GHG emissions from the individual offshore facility seeking entitlement approval based on specific facility size, type, and design at that time. The GHGRP to be developed for each new permitted facility may include quantification of the carbon sequestration potential of the products to be produced at the facility. The quantified reductions may be used in the estimation of the facility’s net GHG emissions as part of the GHGRP and may demonstrate that facility would result in net-zero emissions, in which case no carbon offsets would need to be purchased. Quantification of the carbon sequestration potential for the facility shall use the best available methodology and must be supported by substantial evidence to ensure that carbon sequestered through facility operations is stored in perpetuity and would not be rereleased by the end use of the products produced at the facility. Carbon offset protocols established by CARB or affiliated entities should be used to verify the carbon sequestration potential of new facility operations. If offsets are purchased, the total magnitude of carbon offsets for an individual facility shall be determined based on a one-time mass emissions level associated with total construction activity plus an annual operational emission estimate (multiplied by a 25-year period) less the GHG reductions associated with any end- use sequestration potential, such that construction, operations, and decommissioning of the facility result in no net increase in GHG emissions. Impact GHG-2: Result in the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of LTS No mitigation is required. LTS Energy, or Wasteful Use of Energy Resources or Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency Implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of new offshore finfish, offshore/subtidal shellfish, and offshore/subtidal seaweed facilities. Construction and decommissioning of offshore facilities would result in the use of passenger vehicles for construction worker commute trips, marine vessels, and auxiliary equipment on marine vessels, resulting in the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel. Operational activity at the offshore facilities under the Proposed Program would result in the use of diesel fuel in marine vessels and auxiliary equipment on marine vessels. Energy use as part of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the offshore facilities that would be developed under the Proposed Program would not be considered a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ES-26 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the purpose of this programmatic environmental impact report (PEIR) for the Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program (Proposed Program), as proposed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The following discussion addresses the background information on aquaculture (especially marine aquaculture) and environmental procedures that are to be followed according to State law, the purpose and intended uses of the EIR, the EIR scope and organization, and a summary of the CEQA process and public input received to date with respect to the Proposed Program. A California marine aquaculture program can be broadly conceptualized to include all the policy, management, and regulatory components spread throughout multiple agencies, at all levels of local, State, and federal government, having roles in managing marine aquaculture in the state. The Aquaculture Development Act (California Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 825 et seq.) also calls for the establishment of a policy and program toward improving the science and practice of aquaculture as a means of expanding aquaculture industry and related economic activity in the state. CDFW and the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) are the principal State government entities responsible for the management, protection, and conservation of the state’s fish and wildlife resources. As part of that responsibility, the Commission has the authority to regulate certain aspects of commercial marine aquaculture on state lands or in state waters, while CDFW has management responsibility. Specifically, the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) provides CDFW and the Commission the authority to regulate marine aquaculture in four ways:
registration of aquaculture facilities and species cultured within the state;
lease of state water bottoms and water column for the purpose of aquaculture;
permitting and licensing of various aquaculture-related activities, including stocking, broodstock collection, and importation; and
detection, control, and eradication of disease in aquaculture facilities. Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR) provides implementing regulations under this authority. In addition, 14 CCR Section 15386 identifies CDFW as a trustee agency under CEQA regarding fish and wildlife of the state. Trustee agencies are state agencies with jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by a project that are held in trust for the people of the State of California. Although CDFW and the Commission are primarily responsible for marine aquaculture, the following federal, State, and local entities, among others, also play important roles: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Department of Public Health, the California State Lands Commission, the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the State Water Resources Control Board and regional water quality control boards, universities, and local zoning agencies. The makeup and duties of various statutorily defined, interagency groups, such as the Aquaculture Development Committee and the Aquaculture Disease Committee, and, to some degree, the duties of the state aquaculture coordinator, as provided under FGC Section 15700 et seq., Sections 15502–15503, and Section 15100, demonstrate the interagency connectedness of a California marine aquaculture program. As defined in FGC Section 17, aquaculture is that form of agriculture devoted to the propagation, cultivation, maintenance, and harvesting of aquatic plants and animals in marine, brackish, and fresh water. An alternative definition is included in the California Aquaculture Development Act, which states that “aquaculture” means the culture and husbandry of aquatic organisms, including, but not limited to, fish, shellfish, mollusks, crustaceans, kelp, and algae (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 828). However, the types of aquaculture considered in this draft PEIR are more limited, as described in Chapter 2 and below under “Scope of This PEIR.”
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 1-1 Introduction Ascent Environmental
The management authorities listed above were modified when the California Legislature passed the Sustainable Oceans Act, also known as Senate Bill (SB) 201, in 2006 (Appendix A). This act added FGC Sections 54.5 and 15008 and amended FGC Section 15400 and PRC Section 30411. This law has three major implications: 1. It provides that “the commission may lease state water bottoms or the water column to any person for aquaculture, including, but not limited to, marine finfish aquaculture” (FGC Section 15400) under certain conditions and with certain restrictions. 2. It requires that “the department [CDFW] shall, in consultation with the Aquaculture Development Committee, prepare programmatic environmental impact reports for existing and potential commercial aquaculture operations in both coastal and inland areas of the state” (FGC Section 15008[a]) if funds are appropriated to CDFW and matching funds are provided by the aquaculture industry. 3. If a final PEIR is completed, it “shall provide a framework for managing marine finfish aquaculture in an environmentally sustainable manner” (FGC Section 15008[b]) “so as to avoid adverse environmental impacts, and to minimize any unavoidable impacts” (FGC Section 15008[b][10]). This PEIR for marine aquaculture is being prepared in compliance with SB 201 and in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.). This CEQA document is prepared in response to a statutory mandate and not to any proposed discretionary act by CDFW or the Commission. This PEIR considers the potential environmental effects of an expanded finfish, shellfish, and seaweed aquaculture industry along the California coast to inform the Commission and CDFW’s consideration of any modifications to their current aquaculture management responsibilities in anticipation of the expansion of the marine aquaculture industry in California.
1.1 BACKGROUND ON MARINE AQUACULTURE
1.1.1 Seafood Demand Seafood and fisheries are integral both as an industry and as a necessary commodity globally and in the United States, including California. Harvest from global capture fisheries has leveled off over the last decade at around 90 million metric tons (FAO 2018), while global population continues to increase. Further, 67 percent of worldwide fish stocks were considered exploited with 33 percent of stocks being exploited at beyond sustainable levels (FAO 2018). The levelling off of global capture fisheries harvest and exploitation of worldwide fish stocks mean that the global demand for seafood requires an additional, sustainable source. The United States imported 5.5 billion pounds of edible seafood products (product weight) valued at $19.5 billion in 2016. In contrast, U.S. businesses exported 2.9 billion pounds of edible seafood products valued at $5.4 billion, resulting in a trade deficit of $14.1 billion (NMFS 2017). By volume, 59 percent of imports are from Asia. It is estimated that about 90 percent of these imports are aquaculture products. This reliance on imports moves potential seafood jobs overseas and poses a risk to U.S. food security (NOAA 2016). While wild catches of seafood have stabilized or declined over the past 30 years, U.S. population growth has continued to contribute to increased demand. The increase in demand has been and still is recognized by the federal government and the aquaculture industry as a strong opportunity for future industry growth and food security. In California, the state’s ocean fishing industry has fluctuated dramatically in recent years with values during low-yield years indicating potentially high demand. Since 2002, California’s commercial fisheries landings ranged from a low of 167 million pounds (75,750 metric tons [MT]) in 2016 valued at $199 million, to a high of 438 million pounds (199,000 MT) in 2010 with a value of $179 million (CDFW 2019). Some California fisheries, however, face significant challenges. For example, the salmon troll fishery was restricted to Chinook salmon in 1996 and closed to commercial harvest in 2008 and 2009 as a result of low returns to the Sacramento River. The salmon fishery then recovered, and between 2011 and 2015 almost 1 million pounds were landed annually with an ex-vessel value of more than $5 million (CDFW 2018). California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Introduction
Currently in the United States, more than 90 percent of seafood consumed is imported (costing $18.8 billion in 2015), and more than half of that is produced on farms (NMFS 2016). Per capita seafood consumption in the United States was 15.5 pounds per person in 2015 (NMFS 2016), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) recommend that this amount be doubled for consumers to receive the health benefits of increased seafood consumption (reduced risk of heart disease) (American Heart Association 2016). With a 2018 population of 39.8 million (DOF 2018), a conservative estimate of Californian’s annual seafood consumption is 617 million pounds (279,850 MT), which is 400 million pounds (74,000 MT) more than the total harvest (2017) from capture fisheries in the state (CDFW 2019). The annual U.S. demand is expected to increase as population grows and people increase food consumption to receive additional health benefits (as directed by FDA and USDA). The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations estimates that maintaining current (2016) levels of global seafood consumption will require an additional 30 million metric tons of seafood production by 2030 (FAO 2018).
1.1.2 Marine Aquaculture Increasing development of marine aquaculture could reduce this increasing gap between seafood supply and demand (FAO 2018). The U.S. government has planned for significant growth in the domestic aquaculture sector, envisioning as much as a fivefold increase in production by 2025. However, this growth projection has not materialized (Bittenbender 2018). With the policy and marine spatial planning groundwork set by the National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Obama administration, and along with a large and diverse exclusive economic zone (EEZ) suitable for culture of many species of marine fish and shellfish, aquaculture leases in the EEZ could create a significant domestic marine aquaculture sector (Corbin 2010). This is supported by U.S. Department of Commerce (DOC) and NOAA aquaculture policies and strategic plans, which were updated and reissued in 2011 and 2016, and which reaffirm NOAA’s and DOC’s support for aquaculture, including expansion of sustainable production by 50 percent by the year 2050. Currently, marine aquaculture in the United States includes production of fish and shellfish with the primary species being salmon, oysters, clams, and shrimp. Finfish production occurs in ponds, raceways, recirculating systems, and ocean net-pens. Shellfish farmers employ on- and off-bottom culture techniques with mesh bags and trays, floating bags and trays, rack and bag, and long lines suspended from submerged lines and floats. Other farmed fish and shellfish include cobia (Rachycentron canadum) and moi (Polydactylus sexfilis), mussels and abalone (Haliotis ssp.), as well as nonfood ornamental fish, and species used for restoration and enhancement programs, such as white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis) and redfish. Other fish that may be commercially farmed in the future include species of California halibut (Paralichthys californicus), lingcod (Ophiodon elongatus), flatfish, sablefish (Anoplopoma fimbria), bluefin (Thunnus thynnus) and yellowfin tuna (Thunnus albacares), snapper, pompano (Trachinotus spp.), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), and California yellowtail (Seriola lalandi). Presently, U.S. aquaculture is dominated by production of catfish with approximately 180,000 tons produced in 2013 (USDA 2014). Given the competition for space and fresh water, most future growth is anticipated to occur from fish and shellfish farms located in nearshore and offshore marine waters. Several coastal states already have well- developed marine aquaculture industries and rank high in the value of aquaculture products. Coastal states along the eastern seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Pacific Coast from California to Alaska all have well-developed shellfish industries. Washington state is the leading shellfish producer, while Maine leads the nation in farmed salmon production.
TYPES OF MARINE AQUACULTURE FACILITIES
Generally, the four types of marine aquaculture facilities are distinguished by their location: land-based, subtidal, offshore, or intertidal. The following discussion presents a more detailed description of each facility type.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 1-3 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Land-Based Land-based facilities can include tanks, raceways, or ponds and related administrative or support structures. Water used for land-based facilities can be municipally supplied and discharged to sanitary sewers or can be drawn from and discharged to the marine environment. Certain marine species may be cultured in inland locations, in full- strength seawater, brackish water, or nearly freshwater. Additionally, land-based facilities may be used to support the two other types of facilities.
Subtidal Subtidal waters encompass the deeper areas of bays and estuaries, like Humboldt Bay, San Diego Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and Tomales Bay, with a more diverse bathymetry. Water depths below exposure at low tides generally range from 10 to 300 feet in state waters and nearshore federal waters but are deeper in many locations. The direction and strength of currents and eddies vary spatially and seasonally. Current and future facilities within subtidal areas may include rafts with suspended lines or trays, or tethered lines with anchors.
Offshore Offshore waters extend out from shore to the 3-nautical-mile (nm) limit of State jurisdiction. Similar to subtidal, the bathymetry of offshore waters along the California coast is more diverse. The ocean bottom is generally composed of a gradually descending sandy or rocky continental shelf, but in many areas, there are rapidly descending shelf breaks or submarine canyons. Water depths below exposure at low tides generally range from 10 to 300 feet in state waters and nearshore federal waters but are deeper in many locations. The direction and strength of currents and eddies vary spatially and seasonally. Facilities within offshore areas may include net-pens or tethered lines with anchors.
Intertidal Most marine aquaculture operations in California currently occur in intertidal waters that are shielded from exposure to the open ocean, such as bays or estuaries. The intertidal zone, also known as foreshore and seashore and sometimes referred to as the littoral zone, is the area that is above water at low tide and underwater at high tide. This transition zone between the marine and terrestrial environments occurs along the coastline and includes many important ecosystems and communities, most of which are intertidal. Intertidal zones along the California coast include sandy beaches, rocky shores, tidal flats, and coastal marsh along the shores of estuaries and lagoons.
EXISTING MARINE AQUACULTURE OPERATIONS IN CALIFORNIA
This section describes existing commercial marine aquaculture operations in California. Currently, most aquaculture operations in California are intertidal facilities for shellfish. Table 1-1 identifies existing marine aquaculture operations within California by facility type. Table 1-2 identifies the location and type of existing marine aquaculture operations within California.
Table 1-1 Existing Commercial Marine Aquaculture Operations in California by Facility Type
Aquaculture Operation Land-Based Intertidal Subtidal Offshore Finfish N N N N Shellfish Oyster H E E E Mussel N E E E Clam H E E E Abalone H,E E E E Seaweed E E E E Notes: H = existing hatchery facilities; E = existing production or growout operations; N = currently no facilities.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Introduction
Table 1-2 Current Marine Aquaculture Activity in California
Number of Acreage Total Acreage Location Operations in Use Approved Species Culture Methods of Operations (including subleases) (estimated) Humboldt Bay 7 Approximately 400 Olympia (Ostrea lurida), Kumamoto Longlines on stakes, 3,950 (Crassostrea sikamea), and Pacific hanging baskets, and (Crassostrea gigas) oysters; littleneck rack-and-bag (Protothaca staminea), Manila (Venerupis philippinarum), and quahog (Mercenaria mercenaria) clams; rock scallops (Crassadoma giganteum); and sea lettuce (Ulva sp.), nori (Porphyra lanceolata), (Gracilaria sp.) and blood worms (Glycera dibranchiata) Tomales Bay 13 520 152 Olympia, Kumamoto, Eastern (Crassostrea Bottom culture, stakes, virginica), Suminoe (C. ariakensis), European wires, rafts, longlines, flat (Ostrea edulis), and Pacific oysters; Manila rack-and-bag, and littleneck clams; Mediterranean (Mytilus groundlines and bag galloprovincialis), California sea (Mytilus longlines, floats, rack californianus), and Bay mussels (Mytilus and tray, buoyed edulis); Japanese (Patinopectin yessoensis), longlines, and in-ground and rock scallops; and red abalone (Haliotis culture with net cover rufescens) Monterey Bay 2 2 1 Red abalone Cages on rafts and cages under pier Morro Bay 3 290 90 Pacific oysters, Manila and northern quahog Longlines, barge, bags, clams, mussels, ghost shrimp (Neotrypaea stakes, and bottom californiensis), and Innkeeper worms (Urechis culture unicinctus) Santa Barbara 2 97 25 Native marine algae (Gelidium spp., Anchored, buoyed, and Macrocystis pyrifera, M. angustifolia, M. submerged longlines intergrifolia, and Pelagophycus spp.) and the exotic algae (Euchema uncinatum, male plants only); rock, speckled (Argopecten circularis), and Japanese bay scallops (Pecten albicans); Pacific and Kumamoto oysters; Manila clams; and Mediterranean (also known as Gallo) mussels Los Angeles 1 100 100 (Mussel and seaweed farm off California in Anchored, buoyed, and federal waters) submerged longlines Agua Hedionda 1 5 5 Carlsbad blonde and Carlsbad luna Anchored and Lagoon (Crassostrea gigas) oysters submerged longlines San Diego Bay 2 <1 <1 Seaweed and shellfish seed Experimental longlines and floating-upweller system (FLUPSY) Source: Ramey, pers. comm., 2019
Finfish Currently, there is no commercial aquaculture of marine finfish in California. The only related finfish activity is limited to land-based hatchery and intertidal nursery cage operations that are research oriented and in support of stock enhancement. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 1-5 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Shellfish The dominant species being cultured for commercial marine aquaculture production in California waters are shellfish, including several species of oysters, mussels, clams, and abalone. Shellfish operations occur primarily in estuarine and intertidal waters, although some production also occurs in land-based facilities. Further, most shellfish culture operations have some land-based facilities that can be used for hatching, early rearing, and processing of shellfish. As shown in Table 1-2, most shellfish operations in California are located in Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay, Morro Bay, and Agua Hedionda Lagoon. There has been some debate about naturalized populations of nonnative shellfish cultured in California and the question of whether they are invasive. U.S. Presidential Executive Order 13112 (Clinton 1999) defines an invasive species as “an alien species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.” The National Invasive Species Council describes invasive species as “a non-native species whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human, animal, or plant health” (ISAC 2006). The National Invasive Species Management Plan (NISMP) further indicates that the National Invasive Species Council will focus on “non-native organisms known to cause or likely to cause negative impacts and that do not provide an equivalent or greater benefit to society.” The NISMP provides further policy guidance and notes that many established nonnative species “are non-invasive and support human livelihoods or a preferred quality of life.” Determining relative impacts resulting from naturalized populations of nonnative species is often a subjective, value- driven decision, and impacts can vary from one region to another and over time, particularly under changing ocean conditions. Some nonnative species are considered harmful and therefore invasive by some, while others consider them beneficial. This typifies the discussion of naturalized shellfish populations in California. Various nonnative shellfish species have been approved for cultivation and importation into California, through registrations, permits, and lease conditions that are subject to ongoing adaptive management over time. In this PEIR, the terms “nonnative” and “nonindigenous” are used.
Oysters Five oyster species are cultured in the California oyster industry. Four of the five species grown are nonnative species. The Pacific oyster (Crassostrea gigas), originally from Japan, is the principal species on the West Coast. The Kumamoto oyster (Crassostrea sikamea), also from Japan, is the second most popular species grown in California estuaries. The eastern oyster (Crassostrea virginica), grown on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts of North America, accounts for most U.S. oyster landings but is just a small percentage of the oyster production in California. Two brooding oyster species are cultivated to a lesser extent: The European flat oyster (Ostrea edulis) leads in production, while the Olympia oyster (Ostreola conchaphila), indigenous to the Pacific coast, has been the least important. Water temperature is one of the most important environmental factors affecting growth and reproduction in oysters. Oysters of the genus Crassostrea generally require temperatures greater than 67 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) for spawning, larvae need temperatures above 68°F to develop properly, and mature oysters grow well at a range of 50°F–86°F or higher (Galstoff 1964, Berg 1971, Castagna and Chanley 1973). Ostrea and Ostreola spawn at 59°F–64°F, larval development is optimal at 55°F–64°F, and mature oysters grow well at 50°–75°F (Barrett 1963). While Ostrea prefers coolers temperatures than Crassostrea, it cannot tolerate continued temperatures below freezing, whereas Crassostrea can (Berg 1971). Oysters can tolerate a wide range of salinities. C. virginica and C. gigas are estuarine species and occur in waters from 10 to 35 parts per thousand (ppt) with an optimal spawning range of 20–25 ppt (Barrett 1963; Quayle 1969; Berg 1971). Both the European and Olympia oysters grow well in more saline waters generally above 25 ppt (Bardach et al. 1972). No commercial fishing of wild stocks of oysters takes place in California, and an insignificant level of harvest may occur recreationally. Culturists import hatchery-produced oyster seed or eyed larvae. Prior to the early 1970s, most oyster seed was imported from Japan. However, hatchery produced eyed-larvae and seed have since supplied the needs of shellfish growers in California, thereby reducing, if not eliminating, a historic pathway of invasive species introductions. Hatchery produced eyed-larvae are caught on Pacific oyster shell in tanks by growers at their locations by a technique called remote setting. Spatted cultch (clean oyster shell with spat attached) is moved to growing grounds or sold as a seed source to other growers. Cultch with attached seed (cultched seed) results in clusters of oysters attached to each oyster
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Introduction shell as the oysters grow. While this method of seed production is suitable for a shucked and packed oyster, some growers in California produce a single or separate oyster for the cocktail or half-shell market, which requires “cultchless seed.” Hatcheries use a variety of setting substrates depending on whether or not cultchless or cultched seed is produced. For cultchless seed, these are typically crushed oyster shell chips or calcium carbonate particles (Hidu et al. 1981, Burrell 1985). Oyster species currently cultured at facilities within California for commercial sale are the Pacific, European flat, Kumamoto, and Olympia oysters. Humboldt Bay has the highest production of commercial oysters; oysters are also produced in Tomales Bay, Morro Bay, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Santa Barbara Channel. The primary methods of oyster culture employed by California growers are longline culture on stakes, rack-and-bag, longline bottom floating bags, and bottom culture using bags.
Mussels There are three primary species of wild mussel along the California coast, the Mediterranean mussel (Mytilus galloprovincialis), the California mussel (Mytilus caifornianus) and the Pacific Blue mussel (Mytilus trossulus). Most mussel production in California comes from hatchery-produced seed. Mussel seed from West Coast hatcheries is mainly the Mediterranean mussel, which has long been established along the California coast, and is the same mussel cultured in Spain and most of Europe. Hatcheries produce eyed larvae for remote setting or seed mussels for outplanting. Currently, several operations within California actively culture and harvest mussels (primarily bay and Mediterranean mussels). The primary methods of mussel culture employed by these growers are submerged longlines and bag culture.
Clams Currently, the Manila clam (Venerupis philippinarum) is the only clam species grown commercially in California. The Manila clam is a nonnative clam introduced to California and the Pacific Northwest from Japan with Pacific oysters in the 1930s (Talley et al. 2015). While locally abundant in protected-water areas of California from Elkhorn Slough north (Frey 1971), no commercial fishery exists on local stocks. Commercial growers purchase artificially reared clam seed for grow out. Because of its preferred distribution in the upper tidal zone, it is not believed to have displaced any native species (Bourne 1982). The Manila clam often occurs with Pacific littleneck clam (Protothaca staminea), soft shell clam (Mya arenaria), Macoma spp. clams, and other estuarine infauna (NOAA 1989). Currently, approximately half of the registered shellfish operations in California are actively culturing and harvesting clams. The areas with the highest clam production are Tomales Bay, and Humboldt Bay, with additional production developing in Morro Bay. The primary methods of clam culture employed by these growers has historically been direct-seeding to the substrate under protective netting, tethered bags on groundlines, and seed culture in trays hung from floating rafts.
Abalone Currently, there are less than 10 active commercial facilities raising abalone for sale locally and abroad, while some additional facilities are engaged in research. Culture methods include land-based tanks, floating cages on rafts, and cages under a wharf. The primary species cultured is the red abalone and, to a much lesser extent, green and pink abalone. The white and black abalones, federally listed as endangered, are the object of research and/or recovery activities.
Seaweed Seaweed (also called macroalgae) cultivation in California occurs in intertidal waters, as well as in land-based tanks. Culture methods include land-based facilities and tanks, with some limited operations using floating lines within marine waters. Most current marine seaweed cultivation is conducted on a small-scale or research and development basis in the Monterey, Santa Barbara Channel, and San Diego areas (Table 1-2).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 1-7 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Microalgae are raised primarily as feed for hatchery operations and other market applications (e.g., pharmaceutical, bioenergy). Microalgae cultivation primarily occurs on land in contained vessels, tanks, or ponds and is not included within the scope of this PEIR.
CONTRIBUTION OF MARINE AQUACULTURE TO THE CALIFORNIA ECONOMY
According to the 2013 Census of Aquaculture, aquaculture operations in California numbered 124 farms, up from 118 in 2005. About 59 percent (5,573 acres) of California aquaculture operations occurred in saltwater environments, and 41 percent (3,825 acres) occurred in freshwater. Total sales of aquaculture products were about $83.6 million in 2013, continuing an upward trend from $69.6 million in 2005 and $43.5 million in 1998 (USDA 2006, 2014). In terms of products, food fish accounted for $37.4 million in sales in 2013, followed by mollusks at $20.0 million, miscellaneous products (including ornamental fish, baitfish, and crustaceans) at $23.5 million, and sport fish at $2.7 million (USDA 2014). In 2005, the total number of jobs (both paid and unpaid positions) was estimated at about 660 (USDA 2006). There are 15 licensed California growers farming oysters, clams, and mussels in Agua Hedionda Lagoon (Carlsbad), Morro Bay, Tomales Bay, and Humboldt Bay and offshore in the Santa Barbara Channel. These growers sold an annual average of $16.5 million in live products in 2007 and 2008. Oysters accounted for 84 percent ($13.9 million) of sales by dollar value, followed by clams (mostly seed) at 9.1 percent ($1.5 million) and mussels at 5.7 percent ($945,000). The 15 farms generated an estimated $1.7 million in local, State, and federal taxes and California tideland trust fees. Direct employment on farms and farm-owned retail sites supported an estimated 208 full-time-equivalent jobs, and indirect employment is estimated at more than 1,000 (NOAA 2008). As a comparison to bivalve sales of $16 million, the total value of California’s marine and freshwater aquaculture sector is estimated at around $175 million, and the total value of commercial fishery landings in 2007 was about $119 million (CDFW 2019). If a future marine aquaculture industry in California produced the seafood consumed in the state, it is estimated there will be direct employment for approximately 20,000 people and indirect employment for another 100,000 (NOAA 2008).
1.2 PROGRAM AREA The Program area under consideration in this PEIR is waters of the state from mean high water inland 1,000 yards, and out to 3 nm between Oregon and Mexico. Most aquaculture production would occur in coastal waters, but some land-based support facilities may be developed. Shellfish aquaculture currently occurs primarily in sheltered and protected bays and estuaries, but development within offshore areas is expected to increase. Net-pen culture of finfish is expected to develop offshore, primarily south of Point Conception. The Program area does not include federally administered waters beyond 3 nm offshore, although certain activities in this area may be reviewed by CCC under the authority delegated by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (see Chapter 3). In addition, state waters surrounding islands more than 3 nm offshore (e.g., the Channel Islands) are not part of the Program area. See Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” for additional description and a map of the Program area.
1.3 PURPOSE OF THIS PEIR This draft PEIR for coastal marine aquaculture is being prepared in compliance with SB 201 and in accordance with CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR Section 15000 et seq.). It has been prepared in response to a statutory mandate and not as a result of any contemplated, discretionary act by CDFW or the Commission. Absent the express directive by the legislature to prepare a PEIR, this analysis would be more properly characterized as a planning and feasibility study (see State CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR Section 15262). The purpose of this PEIR is to evaluate the potential effects of the Proposed Program and feasible alternative management frameworks, assuming certain growth scenarios for future aquaculture in the state. Neither the Commission nor CDFW has the authority to approve a future assemblage of aquaculture projects as a program. Because of their site-specific nature, aquaculture projects are necessarily analyzed individually when
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Introduction applicants seek to modify or renew existing leases of state water bottoms or to acquire new leases to establish new facilities. The goal of this PEIR, therefore, is to consider the potential effects of an expanded aquaculture industry along the California coast. This way, the Commission and CDFW can consider modifying their current aquaculture management responsibilities into a new management framework that can ensure protection of the state’s resources as this industry expands and seeks leases of state water bottoms. CDFW has analyzed the effects of an expanded industry under its existing management structure to determine what environmental issues might arise and to consider changes in management framework that would minimize adverse environmental effects as the aquaculture industry expands in the future. This modification of the management framework is the discretionary action and program being considered by the Commission and CDFW. An alternative approach to the proposed management framework has been developed through this process and is described in detail in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapter 4 alongside the No Program Alternative. This document also functions as a PEIR in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(c) for streamlining future projects. According to CCR Section 15168 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a PEIR may be prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and that are related to, among other things, the issuance of general criteria to govern the conduct of a continuing program or to individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory authority, and having generally similar environmental effects that can be mitigated in similar ways. Preparing a PEIR allows for a broader evaluation of the potential physical environmental effects of the program, as a whole, than would be practical in separate EIRs on individual actions and allows for consideration of impacts that might be addressed differently on a case-by-case basis. As noted in Section 15168(c) of the State CEQA Guidelines, a proposed later activity (i.e., aquaculture lease) that is consistent with the Proposed Program would be evaluated in light of the information in this PEIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be prepared. If the Commission finds that, pursuant to Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, no new effects could occur or no new mitigation measures would be required for a later lease application, the lease can be approved as being within the scope of the program covered by this PEIR, and no additional CEQA analysis would be required. If the Commission finds a project to be entirely within the scope of this PEIR, the Commission could use this PEIR for the later project’s CEQA compliance and file a notice of determination when the project is approved. Under this CEQA compliance approach, the Commission must incorporate all requirements relevant to the proposed aquaculture lease and all feasible mitigation measures from this PEIR into the lease, as needed, to address significant or potentially significant effects on the environment. If the Commission finds a project is not entirely within the scope of this PEIR, additional CEQA analysis, including preparation of a project-specific negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or EIR will be required. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168(d), a negative declaration could be prepared if the new impact would be less than significant, or mitigated negative declaration could be prepared if the new impact could be clearly mitigated to less than significant. If a new or substantially more severe significant effect could not be clearly mitigated to less than significant, an EIR would be prepared that would focus on the new or substantially more severe significant impact(s).
1.4 SCOPE OF THIS PEIR Aquaculture, as defined under CDFW’s current management framework and considered in this draft PEIR, includes the culture of finfish, shellfish, and seaweed in state waters off the coast of California. The construction, operation, and decommissioning of land-based and offshore facilities are considered for these three types of aquaculture operations; intertidal and subtidal facilities for shellfish and seaweed have an existing regulatory program and are therefore discussed only in the context of describing existing marine aquaculture, as directed by FGC Section 15008 (SB 201). Additionally, it does not address artificial propagation, rearing, and stocking projects for the purpose of recovery, restoration, or enhancement of native fish stocks carried out under a scientific collecting or research permit issued by CDFW, or the California Ocean Resources Enhancement and Hatchery Program for the enhancement of marine species important to commercial and sport fishing, including white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis). CDFW’s
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 1-9 Introduction Ascent Environmental management framework and this draft PEIR also do not address nonprofit hatcheries and nonprofit artificial propagation projects operated by, or on behalf of, licensed commercial or sport anglers for the purpose of recovery, restoration, or enhancement of California’s native marine fish populations. These types of activities are addressed through separate regulatory programs. For a complete discussion of the Proposed Program, refer to Chapter 2. As described above, this PEIR is being prepared in compliance with SB 201, which states that “the report shall provide a framework for managing marine finfish aquaculture in an environmentally sustainable manner that, at a minimum, adequately considers all of the following factors” (FGC Section 15008[b]). It goes on to list 10 factors, which are identified in Table 1-3, along with how each factor is considered in this PEIR.
Table 1-3 Consideration of Senate Bill 201 Factors in This PEIR
Senate Bill 201 Factors Where Factor Is Addressed in This PEIR
(1) Appropriate areas for siting marine finfish aquaculture operations to Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives” avoid adverse impacts, and minimize unavoidable impacts, on user Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: groups, public trust values, and the marine environment Impacts BIO-1 through -11 Section 3.7, “Recreation”: Impact REC-2 Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography”: Impacts WQ-1 through -5
(2) The effects on sensitive ocean and coastal habitats Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: Impacts BIO-1 through -8, BIO-10
(3) The effects on marine ecosystems, commercial and recreational Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: fishing, and other important ocean uses Impacts BIO-1 through -10 Section 3.7, “Recreation”: Impact REC-2 Chapter 5, “Other Statutory Requirements”
(4) The effects on other plant and animal species, especially species Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: protected or recovering under State and federal law Impacts BIO-1 through -10
(5) The effects of the use of chemical and biological products and Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: pollutants and nutrient wastes on human health and the marine Impacts BIO-1 and -7 environment Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography”: Impacts WQ-1 through -3, WQ-5
(6) The effects of interactions with marine mammals and birds Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: Impacts BIO-4, -8, -10
(7) The cumulative effects of a number of similar finfish aquaculture Section 4.11, “Cumulative Impacts” projects on the ability of the marine environment to support ecologically significant flora and fauna
(8) The effects of feed, fish meal, and fish oil on marine ecosystems Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: Impacts BIO-1 and -9 Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography”: Impacts WQ-2 and -3
(9) The effects of escaped fish on wild fish stocks and the marine Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: environment Impact BIO-9
(10) The design of facilities and farming practices so as to avoid adverse Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives” environmental impacts, and to minimize any unavoidable impacts Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”: Impacts BIO-4 and -9
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Introduction
1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
1.5.1 Notice of Preparation The purpose of the notice of preparation (NOP) is to solicit participation from responsible and coordinating federal, State, and local agencies and from the public in determining the scope of an EIR. The scoping process for this draft PEIR was formally initiated on February 23, 2007, with the submittal of the NOP to the State Clearinghouse in compliance with CEQA. In 2018, due in part to the length of time since the 2007 NOP public review period, CDFW reissued the NOP on March 23, 2018, for a 30-day public review period, during which time various agencies, organizations, and members of the public submitted comments. The 2018 NOP and a summary of comments received during public review of both the 2007 and 2018 NOPs are included in Appendix B.
1.5.2 Scoping “Scoping” refers to the process used to determine the focus and content of an EIR. Scoping solicits input from members of the public and regulatory agencies on the potential topics to be addressed in an EIR, range of alternatives to be considered, and possible mitigation measures. Scoping is also helpful in establishing methods of assessment and in selecting the environmental impacts to be considered in detail. The tools used in scoping this draft PEIR included stakeholder and interagency consultation before NOP circulation, publication of the NOP in 2007 and 2018, and five public scoping meetings (three in 2007 and two in 2018). The first public scoping meeting was held on March 5, 2007, at the Santa Monica Public Library in Santa Monica, California. The second meeting was held on March 6, 2007, at the Monterey Beach Resort in Monterey, California. The third and final scoping meeting in 2007 was held on March 7, 2007, at the Wharfinger Building/Eureka Public Marina in Eureka, California. The 2018 scoping meetings were held on April 10, 2018, at the offices of the Sonoma County Water Agency in Santa Rosa, California, and on April 12, 2018, at the Port of San Diego’s offices in San Diego, California. Notice of the meetings was posted on CDFW’s website for the marine aquaculture PEIR (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Aquaculture/PEIR) and sent to resource agencies and members of the public to help ensure participation. Approximately 100 people in total attended the 2018 meetings, including several regulatory agency representatives. The scoping meetings provided opportunities for attendees to comment on environmental issues of concern that should be discussed in the draft PEIR. Participants also provided written comments during and after the scoping meetings. These comments are summarized in Appendix B.
1.5.3 Public Review of This Draft PEIR This draft PEIR is being circulated to local, State, and federal agencies and to interested organizations and individuals who may wish to review and comment on the report. Its publication marks the beginning of a 45-day public review period. Written comments or questions concerning this draft PEIR should be directed to the name and address listed below: Randy Lovell State Aquaculture Coordinator California Department of Fish and Wildlife PO Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244 916.445.2008 [email protected] This draft PEIR is also available for review online at https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Aquaculture/PEIR. All documents cited in this PEIR can be reviewed on any business day between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. at the CDFW office identified above, as well as other CDFW Marine Region offices and various public libraries. (Call the number above for a full list of locations.)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 1-11 Introduction Ascent Environmental
1.5.4 Final PEIR, Findings, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Written and oral comments received in response to this draft PEIR will be addressed in a responses to comments document that, together with an updated version of the draft PEIR, will constitute the final PEIR. The responses to comments document will include written responses to substantive issues raised during the review period. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program (MMRP) will also be prepared and included with the final PEIR. CEQA requires lead agencies to “adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment” (PRC Section 21002). The MMRP will include the lease requirements and mitigation measures presented in this PEIR. If significant impacts identified in the PEIR cannot be mitigated, a statement of overriding considerations must also be prepared (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[c]).
1.5.5 PEIR Certification and Program Approval Should the Commission release the draft PEIR for formal public review under CEQA and subsequently direct the preparation of a final EIR and other documents required to certify the analysis as consistent with CEQA, the Commission may consider approving the Proposed Program. Doing so would include, among other things, the preparation of findings and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. CDFW, in the context of Commission deliberations regarding approval of the Proposed Program for purposes of CEQA may also provide further recommendations to the Commission regarding the Proposed Program, mitigation measures, and siting considerations, consistent with the legislative requirements of SB 201. The Commission will then consider CDFW recommendations and public and other agency input, along with the final PEIR, and decide whether to certify the EIR and approve the Proposed Program for purposes of CEQA. If the Commission certifies the PEIR consistent with CEQA and SB 201, the mitigation measures detailed in the MMRP could serve as an aquaculture management framework for Commission consideration of future leases.
1.6 TERMINOLOGY USED IN THIS DRAFT PEIR This draft PEIR uses the following terminology to describe environmental impacts of existing and future marine aquaculture under the proposed management strategy:
Thresholds of Significance. Thresholds of significance are used by the lead agency to determine at what level an impact would be considered significant. Thresholds of Significance used in this draft PEIR are based on criteria set forth in the State CEQA Guidelines (or can be discerned from the State CEQA Guidelines); factual or scientific information; and regulatory standards of local, State, and federal agencies.
No impact. No impact is declared if, based on the current environmental setting, the stated impact would not occur (no mitigation required).
Less-than-significant impact. An impact of the Proposed Program is considered less than significant when it does not reach the threshold of significance and would therefore cause no substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environmental setting (no mitigation required). An impact may also be considered less than significant if the adoption of mitigation measures would avoid the impact or reduce it below a level of significance (mitigation required).
Significant impact. An impact of the Proposed Program is considered significant if it would be a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the physical conditions of the environment. Significant impacts are identified by the evaluation of effects in the context of specified significance criteria. Mitigation measures or alternatives are identified to reduce these impacts on the environment.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Introduction
Significant and unavoidable impact. An impact of the Proposed Program is considered significant and unavoidable if a substantial adverse change in the environment cannot be avoided or mitigated to a less-than-significant level if the Proposed Program is implemented.
Significant cumulative impact. When two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects and a cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects Significant cumulative impacts may result even where individual impacts are minor. This draft PEIR analyzes whether existing and future marine aquaculture, under the proposed management strategy, would make a considerable contribution to any significant cumulative impacts. This draft PEIR also identifies particular mitigation measures that are intended to lessen the impacts of marine aquaculture under a future management strategy. As described in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15370, mitigation includes:
avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action;
minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation;
rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the impacted environment;
reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; and
compensating for the impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.
1.7 ORGANIZATION OF THIS PEIR As described below, this draft PEIR consists of an executive summary, nine chapters, and appendices:
Executive Summary. This summary includes a brief description of existing and future marine aquaculture and management authorities, a description of issues of concern and alternatives, and a summary of environmental impacts.
Chapter 1, “Introduction.” This chapter describes background information regarding the types and level of coastal marine aquaculture within California; the characteristics of the study area; the purpose and organization of this draft PEIR; and the draft PEIR preparation, review, and certification process.
Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives.” This chapter outlines the relevant management objectives, describes current and future aquaculture, summarizes CDFW’s current management framework, and describes alternative marine aquaculture management frameworks for CDFW and the Commission to consider.
Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting.” This chapter describes the overall regulatory approval process for marine aquaculture projects in state waters.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures.” This chapter presents the analysis of environmental impacts and describes environmental issues dismissed from further detailed analysis in this draft PEIR. Each section of this chapter addresses a particular topic and describes the existing environmental setting as it relates to that topic, discusses environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Program that relate to that topic, and identifies mitigation measures for each significant (or potentially significant) impact.
Chapter 5, “Other Statutory Requirements.” This chapter discusses cumulative impacts, significant irreversible changes, significant unavoidable impacts, potential user conflicts, and the potential for existing and future marine aquaculture to induce urban growth and development.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 1-13 Introduction Ascent Environmental
Chapter 6, “Alternatives.” This chapter includes further discussion of feasible alternatives to the Proposed Program, in addition to the two described in Chapter 2, as well as alternatives evaluated but rejected from further consideration.
Chapter 7, “Public and Agency Involvement.” This chapter describes the process implemented to involve agencies and the public in Proposed Program development and preparation of the draft PEIR.
Chapter 8, “References.” This chapter provides a list of printed references and persons consulted during the preparation of this draft PEIR.
Chapter 9, “Report Preparers.” This chapter provides the names of the draft PEIR authors and consultants.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR
2 PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ALTERNATIVES
2.1 CHAPTER DESCRIPTION This chapter describes the Proposed Program, as well as an alternative management program and the No Program Alternative. Components of this chapter include:
a description of the geographic location of the Program area,
a list of the Program objectives,
a description of the Proposed Program, and
a description of alternatives to the Proposed Program. Refer to Chapter 1 for Program background and a description of existing marine aquaculture in California. For a description of the existing policies and regulatory authorities that would be applicable to the Program, as well as potential permits and other approvals from other agencies that may be required under the Program, refer to Chapter 3.
2.2 PROGRAM AREA The Program area is limited to California’s coastal area, encompassing waters of the state from mean high water inland 1,000 yards (914.4 meters [m]) and out to 3 nautical miles (nm) (5.556 kilometers [km]) between Oregon and Mexico, as shown in Figure 2-1. While the majority of aquaculture production allowed under the Program is anticipated to occur in coastal waters, some land-based support facilities may also be developed, as noted below, within 1,000 yards (914.4 m) of coastal waters. While the Program area is very broad, with respect to marine finfish aquaculture, weather and sea conditions would likely limit the majority of marine finfish aquaculture operations to the Southern California Bight (Figure 2-1), which extends from Point Conception in Santa Barbara County to the US/Mexico Border (California Sea Grant College Program 2015). Due to the existence of intertidal shellfish aquaculture within California and the associated body of environmental regulatory guidance, the scope of the Program, as evaluated in this PEIR, does not include intertidal facilities, and intertidal areas are not considered part of the Program area. The Program area also does not include federally administered waters beyond 3 nm (5.556 km) offshore, although certain activities in this area may be reviewed by the California Coastal Commission (CCC) under the authority delegated by the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (see Chapter 3). In addition, state waters surrounding islands more than 3 nm (5.556 km) offshore (e.g., the Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary) and in defense-related areas are not part of the Program area.
2.3 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW’s) Program, in the context of this document and in compliance or consistent with various legislated polices, resolutions, and statutes (including those identified below), has the following objectives:
Encourage the expansion of marine aquaculture activities in a sustainable, feasible, and environmentally sound manner. (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 825 et seq.; California Fish and Game Code Section 1700(f); 2014 Assembly Joint Resolution 43 (Chesbro))
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-1 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Source: Prepared by Ascent in 2019
Figure 2-1 Program Area, including Southern California Bight
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
Align the scale and rate of aquaculture development with the State’s capacity to effectively and adaptively manage the Program across the state.1 (California Fish and Game Code Section 13.5 and 703.3)
Substantially reduce reliance on imported shellfish, finfish, and seaweeds to meet the annual seafood demand of the people of California. (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 825 et seq.,)
Substantially reduce the associated carbon footprint and lost economic opportunities associated with imported marine aquaculture product. (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 825 et seq.; California Global Warming Solutions Act (AB 32))
Supplement the sustainable harvest of wild seafood supplies, while ensuring the protection of the state’s natural marine resources. (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 825 et seq.; California Fish and Game Code Section 1700(f))
Expand employment opportunities along the California coast, and promote domestic economic activity. (California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 825 et seq.)
Ensure that the Program does not unreasonably interfere with fishing or other existing maritime uses or public trust values, per SB 201 factors (as codified in FGC Section 15008).
Ensure that the Program does not unreasonably disrupt existing native marine fish and wildlife and their habitats and does not unreasonably harm the marine environment’s ability to support the health and populations of ecologically significant flora and fauna, per SB 201 factors (as codified in FGC Section 15008).
Minimize the risk of introduction or spread of invasive species in California state waters. (California Food and Ag Code Sections 5260 and 7700 et seq.)
2.4 PROPOSED PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES
2.4.1 Overview of State Aquaculture Management Authorities and Framework
AUTHORITIES—CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION AND CDFW
The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) and CDFW are the principal State government entities responsible for the management, protection, and conservation of the state’s fish and wildlife resources. As part of that responsibility, the Commission has the authority to regulate certain aspects of commercial marine aquaculture in the state, with the support and coordination of CDFW’s scientific, enforcement, and administrative resources. The details of the Commission’s and CDFW’s aquaculture management authority are found in three major sources, which are discussed in further detail in Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting”:
California Fish and Game Code (FGC), primarily in Division 12;
regulations adopted pursuant to the FGC, specifically CCR Title 14, Division 1, Subdivision 1, primarily in Chapter 9; and
miscellaneous other sections of the FGC, including Divisions 3 and 6 and the California Coastal Act, found in the California Public Resources Code (PRC), Division 20. More specifically, FGC delegates regulatory authority for commercial marine aquaculture to the Commission and CDFW in four ways:
1 This may include funding and staff capacity, as well as scientific understanding, and may be informed by technological developments, scientific studies and monitoring feedback, and changing oceanographic or market conditions, among other factors. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-3 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Registration: registration of aquaculture operations
Lease of state water bottoms: lease of state water bottoms or the water column for aquaculture activities
Permitting: Permitting, licensing, and otherwise regulating various aquaculture-related activities, including stocking, broodstock collection, transporting, and importation
Disease control: detection, control, and eradication of disease in aquaculture facilities
MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK OVERVIEW
Commercial offshore marine aquaculture operations in California present a challenge in establishing a management program that provides the right balance of precaution regarding environmental impact with the need to allow economically viable projects of a scale that meets development objectives, while allowing for operational adjustments through adaptive management. The proposed framework would provide regulating bodies with discretionary flexibility over individual projects and encourages adaptive management. The Proposed Program and alternatives are described in detail below and considered pursuant to CEQA within this PEIR. The Proposed Program is intended to provide a foundation for review of future offshore lease applications and interagency coordination, as well as environmental impact review and guidance upon which subsequent individual projects may tier their analyses and to which public resource managers may refer. Following the description of the Program alternatives, a more detailed description of the type and scale of potential aquaculture facilities that may occur under the Program is also provided. Environmental reviews would still be required under CEQA for individual projects as applications are submitted under the Program. In addition to the CEQA process, the Commission follows statutorily defined and transparent public processes (e.g., hearings, notices, interagency coordination) as it considers and then approves or denies aquaculture lease applications. The special conditions associated with such lease or other agency permit approvals provide a discretionary “throttle” that underlies various ways in which alternative management frameworks likely would be implemented.
2.4.2 Potential Expansion of Marine Aquaculture in California In general, it is difficult to predict how commercial-scale aquaculture could evolve along California’s coast in the future. A myriad of factors would influence the number, location, type, and size of aquaculture operations, including federal, State, and local regulations; environmental conditions; markets; technology and fish husbandry techniques; economics; and competition for space. The following discussion identifies the assumptions used consistently throughout the analysis of potential environmental impacts that may occur as a result of each Program alternative with respect to the possible expansion of shellfish, seaweed, and future finfish aquaculture and construction, operation and decommissioning of the offshore and associated land-based facilities in California. Of note and per FGC Section 15007, the spawning, incubation, or cultivation of any finfish species of the family Salmonidae, transgenic fish species, or any exotic species of finfish is unlawful in waters of the Pacific Ocean that are regulated by this state. This PEIR assumes any other shellfish, seaweed, and finfish species that are suitable for aquaculture and not prohibited by the State could be considered under any of the Program alternatives on a project- specific basis. Expansion of offshore aquaculture under any of the Program alternatives would also include associated land-based and dock-side infrastructure and support facilities. As noted above, commercial marine finfish aquaculture within the state would likely occur in the Southern California Bight. Appropriate environmental conditions, organizational support, and societal benefits synergistically interact in the Southern California Bight for aquaculture. Offshore operations would require floating or submerged cage technology. Support facilities, such as offices, feed storage and hatcheries on land, as well as docks and boats, would enable the operators to conduct offshore finfish production. Operational visits to offshore facilities would be conducted in cooperation with other offshore activities to ensure safe and efficient marine transport. Marine aquaculture expansion on land would likely occur on private property or granted state lands (e.g., often administered by ports and special harbor districts) and would not require a lease from the Commission. The major California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
regulatory influence is anticipated to be the CCC, either directly or through local coastal programs administered by counties after approval by the CCC, and the regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) with regard to discharge permitting. However, future expansion of land-based marine aquaculture would likely be driven by a combination of regulation and economic factors (beyond the regulatory costs). Smaller-footprint hatchery and early-rearing finfish facilities, shellfish live-holding and depuration, and macroalgae or abalone production may further expand on land, consistent with existing facilities. Notwithstanding improvements in water treatment and recirculation technologies, new land-based facilities for the full grow-out production of finfish (or large-scale shellfish or macroalgae), however, would likely be constrained by the need for a significant seawater supply and discharge system, costly and energy- intensive treatment or recirculating systems, or costly artificially produced or transported seawater. While the majority of existing shellfish operations within the state are located within intertidal areas, which are not considered part of the Program, there is a potential for future shellfish and/or seaweed aquaculture facilities within offshore areas.
2.4.3 Program Alternatives The Program alternatives, including the Proposed Program and as presented herein, meet the Program objectives to varying degrees and provide various strategies to manage environmental impacts. Program limits described for these alternatives may also include defined means to approve variances proposed by individual projects that provide adequate rationale. For example, a lease size limitation may allow for a larger footprint in deeper water to accommodate wider-spread anchoring requirements. The following discussion and Table 2-1 identify the variables under consideration for the Proposed Program and its alternatives.
Table 2-1 Comparison of Program Alternatives
Alternative 1 Alternative 3 Description Alternative 2 (Proposed Program) (No Program) Limit facility size (area at surface*) of individual projects: Yes No NA Offshore finfish ≤ 200 ac (0.8 km2) each No NA Offshore shellfish ≤ 400 ac (1.6 km2) each No NA Offshore seaweed ≤ 400 ac (1.6 km2) each No NA Limit rate of new lease approvals: Yes Yes NA Offshore finfish 2 per 2-year period 2 per 2-year period NA Offshore shellfish 2 per 2-year period 2 per 2-year period NA Offshore seaweed 2 per 2-year period 2 per 2-year period NA Notes: ac = acres; km2 = square kilometers; NA = not applicable.
*Area of actual lease footprint on the seafloor would vary according to depth due to length of anchorages. Integrated systems (e.g., integrated multi-trophic aquaculture or polyculture) and master lease/sublease (or “aggregate”) projects would be subject to special size limit consideration based on impact analyses for those projects.
ALTERNATIVE 1 (PROPOSED PROGRAM): NEW MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK WITH LIMITS ON FACILITY SIZE AND RATE OF EXPANSION
Alternative 1, the Proposed Program, would establish not-to-exceed limit for both the size (in surface acres) of new facilities and the number of new leases that would be approved by the Commission in a given period. Size limits on new facilities would be intended to find a balance between minimizing environmental impact and allowing for project development at a scale that is economically feasible. The size limits identified above in Table 2-1 and carried throughout the analysis were developed in coordination with members of the Aquaculture Development Committee and CDFW staff, as well as proposed projects in the Southern California Bight’s federal waters.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-5 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Under the Proposed Program, the maximum size limit of an offshore finfish facility would be 200 surface acres (0.8 square kilometers [km2]); offshore shellfish and seaweed facilities would be limited to 400 surface acres (1.6 km2) each. These size limitations would not apply to land-based marine aquaculture and support facilities; however, for the purposes of this analysis, land-based facilities supporting offshore operations are anticipated to be up to 10,000 square feet (sq. ft.) (18.6 square meters [m2]) per lease (refer below for further detail regarding this assumption). As a condition of state water bottom lease requirements, tenants are required to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, including laws relating to public health and safety, zoning, resource conservation and environmental protection (e.g., Coastal Zone Act, the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, and CEQA). State water bottom lease requirements also stipulate that tenants shall comply with all applicable resource management and preservation mandates in the conduct of all activities that impact cultural, natural, or scenic resources. Figure 2-2 provides a comparison of potential lease area to surface area for anticipated marine aquaculture facilities, and Figure 2-3 illustrates a potential net pen configuration for a 200-acre (0.8-km2) lease. In addition to size, a limited rate of expansion under the Proposed Program would constrain the number of new offshore leases per 2-year period to no more than two projects of each type: finfish, shellfish, and seaweed, potentially resulting in approvals of up to six new aquaculture leases per 2-year period. By limiting the rate of expansion, Proposed Program capacity may be allowed to grow and manage adaptively as funding, monitoring feedback, and experience indicate. These expansion rate limitations would not apply to land-based support facilities. The limitations on facility size would be governed by the horizontal extent of a project. Facility size is defined by the horizontal dimensions of all surface and submerged fish culture system components not including anchoring and mooring lines, legs, or other devices that tether the culture system to the bottom. The actual state water bottom lease footprint would not be explicitly limited because its size would vary with ocean depth at the project location and would be determined by certain site-specific engineering considerations. Several approaches could be taken by the Commission in its implementation of specific regulations, especially where specific guidance of individual projects would encourage better environmental outcomes. Prototypical or conceptual offshore aquaculture production facilities and their associated land-based support facilities are presented below to frame the assumptions used in the impact analysis for this PEIR.
Reasonably Foreseeable Compliance Response Although this PEIR does not analyze the impacts of actual lease applications for individual facilities or projects, certain assumptions are useful in providing the anticipated scale and typical configurations for a frame of reference in determining the significance of environmental impacts and potential new regulatory frameworks. Conceptual model specifications for hypothetical offshore marine aquaculture facilities are provided below.
Finfish In general, offshore marine finfish aquaculture typically consists of a collection of cages or net-pens that may be fully closed or open above the surface (in either case, collectively referred hereafter as “cages”) that contain the cultured fish through most of the growth cycle from some minimum juvenile size to harvestable market size. Net-pens would primarily be located offshore in the Southern California Bight. Early life stages of fish culture, from egg to some juvenile stocking size, would typically be kept in land-based hatchery facilities, described in the “Fish Handling” section, below. After marine finfish become harvestable, the cage stock would be transferred back to land-based facilities for processing and transport for use/consumption.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
Source: Schuur, pers. comm., 2019
Figure 2-2 Comparison of Lease Area to Surface Area (for contextual illustration only) California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-7 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Source: Schuur, pers. comm., 2019
Figure 2-3 Potential Net-Pen Configuration—200-Acre Lease
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
The cages may float at the ocean surface, be held partly or fully submerged, or be adjusted according to weather or other operational conditions. There are a variety of cage designs used in offshore marine finfish aquaculture (see Figure 2-4), with variations in shape, size, materials, moorings, service access methods, and other configurations. Common to all designs is the reliance on—and the vulnerability to—the surrounding aquatic environment in maintaining suitable water quality and other conditions that influence or support fish culture. Engineering design choices, such as cage style, placement, spacing, density, and orientation, would vary among individual projects and could be influenced by many factors that include operational, business growth capacity, and environmental impact considerations. Because of continuous technological innovation in marine aquaculture engineering and the programmatic nature of this document, detailed discussions of system components and configurations are left to future individual projects. However, to analyze environmental impacts that may result from reasonably foreseeable compliance with the proposed new management framework under the Proposed Program, a conceptual model facility has been provided below, summarized in Table 2-2 and illustrated in Figure 2-5. This conceptual facility consists of an array of fish cages, operational support systems and structures, navigational or operational access spacings, and dock, mooring, attachment, or structural support mechanisms that encompass a typical offshore marine finfish aquaculture facility that, except for the anchor legs attaching the facility to the bottom, would fit within the proposed limit of 200 acres (0.8 km2). Some of these components may be visible at the surface while others would be submerged.
Source: DeCew et al. 2012 Figure 2-4 Offshore Marine Finfish Aquaculture Cage Designs
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-9 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Source:: DeCew et al. 2012. Figure 2-5 Conceptual Model Marine Finfish Aquaculture Facility
Table 2-2 Conceptual Offshore Marine Finfish Facility Summary Per Facility Program Surface acreage* 200 acres (0.8 km2) 2,000 acres (16 km2) Number of cages (assumed) 48 480 130 ft (diameter) x 26 ft (depth) Cage dimensions (assumed) (39.6 m [diameter] x 7.9 m [depth]) 13,520 sq. ft. Surface area footprint per cage (assumed) (1,256 m2) ~353,000 ft3 Volume per cage (assumed) (10,000 m3) ~200 ft Distance between cages (~70 m) Estimated % of surface acreage with cages 7.4% (14.8 acres or 0.06 km2) 7.4% (148 acres or 0.6 km2) Annual Production ~220,500 lb/year Per cage (100,000 kg/year) 10.56 million lb/year Per facility (~4,800,000 kg/year) 105.6 million lb/year Proposed Program total (assumed)** (~48.0 million kg/year) Notes: ft = feet; ft3 = cubic feet; kg/year = kilograms per year; km2 = square kilometers; lb/year = pounds per year; m = meters; m2 = square meters; m3 = cubic meters; sq. ft. = square feet.
*Area of actual lease footprint on the seafloor would vary according to depth due to length of anchorages. The EIR generally assesses state water bottom acreage would be up to 500 acres per facility and 10,000 for the entire program.
** Assumed total is based on one lease per year per type for a period of 10 years. This assumption is based on the current lack of marine aquaculture operations, as well as the frequency with which new applications for other operations are considered by the Commission.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
The purpose of anchors/moorings for marine finfish aquaculture cage arrays is to provide a stable, durable structure that attaches the array to a fixed sea bottom location and that maintains an interval between the cages in the array. The moorings are essential structural elements for maintaining position and safety in highly variable sea conditions, including tidal ranges of 12 feet (3.66 m) or more and concurrent ocean swells that may exceed 25 feet (7.62 m) with a margin of safety for exceptional sea conditions. The number and design characteristics of moorings and the lines (ropes and/or cables) that attach them to the sea bottom and attach the cage array and the cages to one another necessarily require a highly flexible configuration that at the same time provides overall structural integrity. All these components and appurtenant hardware must meet strict structural strength standards to withstand the forces applied to the structure and provide the durability required by constant and occasionally violent sea conditions. Some lighting of offshore facilities, consistent with applicable requirements including 33 CFR Section 67.05-25, would be required for safety purposes to alert mariners of the offshore facility and to prevent collisions. As an example, a farm array perimeter would be surrounded with heavy moorings (concrete or steel anchors, partially imbedded in the sea bottom). In this design approach, an individual mooring would be placed adjacent to each cage on the perimeter of the array. Assuming 48 cages arranged in six rows of eight cages each, no fewer than 28 (6 + 8 x 2) moorings along the perimeter would be required. The perimeter moorings would maintain a distance-to-depth ratio of between five and seven times that of the water depth. The distance-to-depth ratio, also known as anchor scope, is necessary to multiply the holding power of the anchor. Cages would also be connected internally with adjacent cages. In this example, a “bridle,” a fitting that fastens a line from each of the four adjacent cages, would provide a stable and flexible connection between the four cages and would also be moored/anchored. Assuming a 48-cage array, 35 intersections would be employed, each one of them anchored to a smaller mooring directly below the bridle. In total, a 48-cage facility would require 28 perimeter and 35 internal anchor mooring points with the sea bottom.
Facility Layout In this conceptual 200-acre (0.8-km2) facility (of which there could be many variations), 48 circular fish cages ~130 feet (ft) in diameter by ~26 ft in depth (~40 m in diameter by ~8 m in depth) could be arranged on the ocean surface in four rows of 12 and would likely be installed in a phased approach. Each cage would have a surface area footprint of 13,520 sq. ft. (1,256 m2) and a volume of approximately 353,000 cubic feet (ft3) (10,000 cubic meters [m3]). Cages placed on 330-foot (100-meter) centers would be separated by 197 ft (60 meters). Considering a facility footprint limited to 200 acres (0.8 km2), this could represent approximately 7.4 percent coverage of the facility by cages exposed at the ocean surface. While not universal, this composite, conceptual configuration of cage size, shape, and layout resembles actual facilities in production outside of California and was developed in consultation with members of the Aquaculture Development Committee, established as part of the provisions of SB 201. As such, it is considered a suitably representative example for purposes of the environmental analyses in this document because it could be implemented in California.
Farm Production Capacity and Fish Inventory For purposes of this document, the model farm capacity is defined by an annual production rate of 0.62 pounds per cubic foot (lb/ft3) (10 kilograms per cubic meter [kg/m3]) of cage volume. For a cage volume of 353,000 ft3 (~10,000 m3), the annual weight produced from an average cage is then ~220,500 lb/year (~100,000 kg/year) or ~10,560,000 lb/year (~4,800,000 kg/year) for a 48-cage farm. This is a consensus production capacity estimate based on performance of a variety of fish species, business goals, and the typical environmental characteristics of state waters in the Southern California Bight, including typical depth (100 to 300 feet [30 to 91 m]) and current velocity values (4 to 19.7 inches/second [10 to 50 centimeters/second]) (Schuur, pers. comm., 2019; Dailey et al. 1993). In contrast to the annual harvest capacity of the farm, the average standing farm fish inventory is significantly less. The allocation of inventory (or loading) among individual cages is a dynamic management activity. Because the metabolism, specific growth rate, and feeding rate of smaller fish is much higher than larger fish at harvest, the density of fish in cages would vary widely, and the maximum harvest density of fish (e.g., 0.62 lb/ft3 [10 kg/m3]) would be attained only in the production cycle shortly before harvesting. As a result, the typical farm inventory weight
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-11 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
would be as little as 50 percent to about 80 percent of the harvest capacity. Much of the inventory is smaller fish held at a lower density, growing at a rate much faster than the fish approaching harvest size.
Feed and Feeding Marine finfish aquaculture, like almost all fish aquaculture, requires provision of prepared feeds that account for the largest single cost. Feeding also plays a major role in determining important environmental impact factors, including deposition of particulate organic solids and water quality effects resulting from consumption of oxygen and excretion of metabolites, such as ammonia. Feeding behavior is monitored closely by the operator as it reflects fish appetite, health, and concerns about waste. Consequently, the essential farm management objective of any successful venture is to use the least feed in the most efficient way to grow marketable fish and minimize environmental effects. For purposes of analyzing potential impacts from a conceptual finfish facility’s feeding, a reasonable estimation of feed demand is needed. A universal metric of feeding efficiency is the Feed Conversion Ratio (FCR). FCR is the cumulative total amount of dry feed consumed by fish that results in an incremental gain of wet fish weight. Daily feeding rates are another useful production metric, expressing the amount of feed fed as a percentage of fish body weight. Despite the metabolic factors that result in specific feeding rates that vary between as much as 10 percent of body weight in small fish (e.g., 0.2 lb [100 grams]) and as little as 1.5 percent of body weight in harvestable market-size fish and the inverse relationship of FCR to fish size, the FCR is a valid and accurate means of determining the overall feeding efficiency of a fish production cycle. In practice, an FCR for marketable whole fish products varies from about 1.3 to about 2.2 pounds of feed per pound of fish harvested. A typical (i.e., industry-standard) target for production management is an FCR of about 1.5 to 1.8 depending on fish species, water temperature, and feed quality. A conservative value of 1.8 is suggested as a value for determining feed consumption in a model farm (Boyd et al. 2007). The quantity of feed consumed in a commercial-scale facility highlights the importance of feed logistics. The proposed model with an annual production of 10,560,000 lb/year (~4,800,000 kg/year) and an FCR of 1.8 would consume approximately 19 million pounds (~8,600,000 kg) of feed per year, or an average of about 26 tons, or 52,000 pounds (~23,600 kg), per day. Feed is typically transported in bulk quantities from its sources (feed mills or distribution centers) to dockside transfer stations by rail and truck and is further transported from dockside to offshore facilities by vessel. In a farm of this scope, it is highly probable that the bulk feed would be transported from a local port in a vessel with sufficient displacement to carry multiple days of feed supply or by larger barges that would also serve as on-site feed storage before distribution to cages. Feed distribution methods at the site vary and can range from highly manual to highly mechanized. Smaller craft using blower-driven broadcasting devices can deliver the feed on a daily basis to the cages, with typical net capacity of 3–5 tons of feed. Alternatively, as widely practiced in Europe and Chile, feed could be distributed by forced air and piping to each of the cages with a central distribution system. These central systems are equipped with sophisticated controls that meter rations to every cage, often with video camera monitoring and feedback systems. Feed is accurately delivered in small increments and can be ceased if feed is not consumed, thus preventing wasted feed pellets from falling through the bottom of the cage. Recent innovations could also enable the entire feeding system to be managed from an onshore office where wireless video links and feed routing controls are monitored by an operator. Such systems routinely accomplish 1.3 FCR rates in commercial production.
Feed Formulation Numerous academic and commercial research centers have improved fish feed formulations, substantially reducing and replacing fish meal components with alternative feed commodities, including soybeans, cereal grains, dried distillers’ grain, chicken and other animal byproducts, and insect meals. Whereas two decades ago typical carnivorous fish diets contained 30–40 percent fish meal that originated from wild baitfish fisheries, that content has been cut almost in half and is still declining (NOAA 2011). Continuing research and development and active participation by fish food manufacturing companies are actively formulating additional feed innovations. Other research has produced very large improvements in the concentration of essential amino acids in plant crops, such as soy and corn. Numerous fish diets are now available that are free of fish meal altogether. The incentive for continued improvements in diet formulation is driven by strong environmental pressure to relieve pressure on wild fish stocks and the very high price of fish meal (NOAA 2011).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
Fish Handling Existing regulations (refer to Chapter 3) require individual operations to implement measures to prevent loss of fish stocks during handling to prevent unintended escape or any form of uncontrolled release. The Program would provide guidance regarding how best to comply with existing regulations as they relate to fish handling (i.e., the transportation of primary material for stocking in cages, transfer of fish between and among farm cages, and the harvesting of mature market-size fish for transportation to land-based facilities for processing and introduction into the marketing chain for distribution of fish to consumers). This could involve the use of specialized watercraft and mechanized equipment that are specific to a particular operation and that are products of the project-specific engineering and design process, similar to the offshore cages and supporting land-based facilities. In moving fish through the production cycle, there are points at which stock would be transported between land- based and offshore facilities. The first step is transportation from a hatchery source (likely land-based) as a juvenile fish to a rearing facility that is designed for rearing juveniles that might be less than 1 inch in length and weigh less than 10 grams to a size suitable for stocking in ocean cages. Typically, but not necessarily, this would happen in adjacent facilities not requiring transport tanks and trucking. Rearing juvenile fish within an offshore facility is problematic for several reasons, including the required labor intensity and close environmental control of temperature and other variables. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that juvenile rearing to a viable stocking size (approximately 2–4 inches in length and weighing between 0.05 and 0.2 lb) would likely be accomplished in intensive land-based tanks at a “stocker” facility or within the land-based facilities associated with a specific offshore marine finfish operation. Juvenile fish with optimal temperature control and a controlled feeding regime grow fast and may spend 1–3 months in the stocker facility after which they can be transported to a site where they can be transferred to commercial cages. These fish may be loaded and unloaded at this stage using commercial fish pumps to a dockside mobile tank truck and then later to a watercraft with fish transport tanks in the hold for later transfer to offshore cages via a similar fish pump. Fish stock may also be transferred between cages, based on size and weight. An important operating procedure is to stock fish at each stage at a density that promotes good growth and water quality conditions. Periodically, offshore fish within cages may be captured, usually by crowding them briefly with a net drawn through the cage to the intake of another fish pump located on watercraft, and transferred to other cages where they may continue growing with fish similar in length and weight under optimal conditions. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that every harvested fish would be transferred two or three times within the farm before being harvested after about 1.5 to 2 years. Market-size fish, at harvest, would be loaded into a watercraft that hauls the crop ashore from the cage using a craft- based fish pump. However, at harvest, there are options for collection/processing that may be used, depending on the individual facility. One option involves the grading/separation of fish into size categories on marine watercraft. A grading device on the harvest boat receives the fish from the pump and then has a system of gates on a stainless- steel ramp from which the smallest fish fall out and down a chute to either a box where it is iced, or into an oxygen injected tank if live delivery to the port is preferred. The process is then repeated at the dock where iced fish boxes are loaded into delivery truck to haul the harvest to a fish dealer for further processing and sales distribution. Alternatively, sorting and processing may solely be conducted within land-based facilities.
Dockside and Other Land-Based Support Facilities As described above, major onshore logistic elements of a project are staging, storage, and operational facilities needed to support offshore activities. Feed storage is almost certainly the most extensive of these needs, and its dimensions are directly related to rate of feed consumption and the required feed reserve needed to ensure a constant supply of feed to the cages offshore. Assuming a 2-week feed supply is sufficient and weekly feed deliveries, a basic warehouse capacity for roughly 546 tons (26 tons x 21 days) is necessary. Assuming storage of 3 tons per m2, a net storage area of 182 m2 is indicated. With ample forklift access, a 60 percent space utilization factor is applied to the net area, bringing the square footage of the warehouse to about 300 m2 (3,228 sq. ft.). Ideally, a warehouse adjacent to the docking facilities would also include shops, administrative offices, crew quarters and canteen facilities, restrooms, and wireless feed control system computers, increasing land-based facilities by approximately 2,000 sq. ft. In addition, primary material production (i.e., hatchery) and sorting/processing (see “Fish Handling,” above) operations may also be provided within land-based facilities for individual operations. With respect to hatchery
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-13 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
operations, existing marine finfish hatcheries often use fiberglass or plastic tanks (5,000–10,000 liters in size) for larvae production (Lee and Ostrowski 2001). For the purposes of this analysis and because of the potential need for land- based hatchery and sorting/processing support per operation, it is assumed that an additional 4,500 sq. ft. of land- based support facilities may be required, bringing the total, assumed, land-based facility size to 10,000 sq. ft. per operation. Onshore facilities would include on-site lighting for security purposes consistent with applicable local requirements. Dockside facilities (for the loading and unloading of watercraft needed to operate the offshore facility) would require a minimum of 100 feet of water frontage with mechanized loading equipment (crane or gantry) capable of lifting and loading 5-ton pallets. It is considered likely that most leases under the Proposed Program would involve the use of existing marina/dock facilities, however it is possible that additional dockside facilities may be necessary. Given that a single, contiguous dockside site for such a facility may be difficult to acquire in coastal California, a combination of sites may have to be assembled with additional rolling stock to accomplish logistic needs.
Primary Material Production (Hatchery) Primary material production begins with the conditioning, spawning, and larva culture of broodstock. A marine finfish aquaculture facility may depend on sources other than its own facilities for primary material, but for a potential new industry in California, operators may need to develop their own primary material production facility. As noted above, existing rearing facilities for marine finfish use fiberglass tanks. Hatcheries typically require closed system technology to provide the necessary control of conditions required for optimal hatchery operation, including permanent broodstock maintenance, broodstock production conditioning. spawning laboratories, egg incubation, algal and vertebrate larval feed production, larval rearing, and finally fingerling production. It is possible that hatcheries may be developed within land-based facilities that could support multiple offshore facilities; however, the size and scope of such a facility is considered speculative and is not evaluated as part of this PEIR. As noted above, operation-specific hatchery operations are assumed within this PEIR as part of land-based facilities.
Decommissioning Decommissioning or dismantling of the marine aquaculture facility involves the removal of installed components/features of a marine aquaculture facility. Facilities that are constructed to be safe and durable with a service life of decades are conversely costly and difficult to remove and require substantial engineering planning to facilitate without unintended consequences. A principle technical aspect of decommissioning is that anchors must be removed by breaking them from their location, often embedded partially in the sea floor, by detaching them from the bottom and hoisting them vertically to a surface vessel with a mechanical lifting device with the capacity to load them onto the vessel or a barge for removal to an acceptable site. This is accomplished in much the same way as a conventional sailboat or other watercraft weighs anchor. The surface vessel hauls on the anchor line until it is vertical below and then hauls the anchor line in, lifting the anchor to the surface. The functioning anchor is intentionally placed by a line that provides a slope of roughly five to seven parts of horizontal distance in proportion to the depth of the anchor. This slope is necessary to create a horizontal force vector on the anchor that increases its “holding power” or resistance to movement of the tethered vessel several times that of an anchor directly below the vessel (or cage). When the anchor line is detached from the vessel or cage and moved to a vertical position, the holding resistance of the anchor is much reduced, and it may then be possible to bring the anchor to the surface. Under optimal conditions, the anchor would break loose and could be hauled to the surface. In many cases, however, the anchor after decades in same position would be covered with constantly moving sediment and not break loose from the bottom. The most direct solution to this problem is to require that all anchor types and hardware be evaluated by a structural engineering specialist to ensure that criteria for extraction of anchors are included in project engineering plans. To comply with approval conditions, criteria for all mooring apparatus must be established that specify material strength and durability of fastening systems that can withstand decades of submersion in worst-case conditions, yet permit complete decommissioning without extraordinary expense. Another consideration in decommissioning is satisfactory salvage and/or disposal of the facility parts. The surface facility is relatively easy to disassemble and then remove to conventional salvage purposes. Anchors, many of them weighing several tons, would be disposed of in accordance with regulations permitted by the proper authorities (e.g.,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). In special circumstances, the removal of certain anchors may pose more harm through their removal than measures to reduce their emergent profile and leave in place. As part of the Proposed Program and as discussed below, applicants would be required to establish a fund for the decommissioning of their respective operation upon closure to ensure the appropriate removal and disposal/repurposing of aquaculture related components.
Shellfish and Seaweed Offshore bivalve shellfish and seaweed cultivation systems have many similarities and are combined for comparison and contrast of the features of each. In both cases (as shown in Figure 2-6), a typical offshore conceptual model system may consist of submerged longlines that are anchored at both ends of a stout backbone rope that is held up in the water column horizontally and tensioned using floats of various size and buoyancy. From the backbone, subcomponents (e.g., fuzzy ropes for mussels; cages or nets for oysters, scallops, and clams); or direct-to-the- backbone connections (e.g., for seaweed) are attached and hold the culture organism in place.
Source: Commission 2018 Figure 2-6 Conceptual Offshore Shellfish and Seaweed Cultivation
These conceptual farming operations are conducted from a boat designed to install and handle the longlines throughout the farming process and would include boat visits to the farm on a regular basis. A combination of specialized machinery and manual labor is employed to accomplish on-board operations. Regular site visits consist of routine maintenance and inspections of the longlines, including buoyancy and tension adjustments, seeding, grading and reseeding, cleaning, harvesting operations, and monitoring for entanglements or structural problems. Operational times and frequency would vary depending on the type and species but typically would take place throughout the year. In the cases of bivalve shellfish (which filter planktonic food) and seaweeds (which absorb nutrients from the water column), feed not already in the environment would not be necessary for these organisms. Shellfish seed or seaweed spores may be obtained from land-based hatcheries or collected from the wild using various collection strategies. Seed or spores that are purchased must be from State-approved sources to satisfy disease management concerns. After planting, during the midproduction cycle, shellfish may be temporarily removed from their culture lines or enclosures, graded, cleaned, and replanted to maintain size uniformity within groups for harvests of marketable product. Shellfish take about 1 year to reach market size; seaweed production varies according to species, planting, harvesting, and marketing strategies and market demand but generally follows shorter crop cycles. Not all shellfish longlines are harvested every year, depending on size in their growth cycle. Some lines may also lie fallow between harvest and reseeding, for varying periods of time, often resulting in a cross-section of biomass inventory spread throughout the operation in time and space.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-15 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
For the purposes of this analysis and based on spacing at existing facilities (Commission 2018), it is assumed that shellfish lines would be located approximately 100 feet from the next line on either side. Seaweed facility lines could be located closer together or involve longer, heavy tension lines at 100 feet with smaller grid lines every 10 feet (Roesijadi et al 2008). Installation of these longline systems may be accomplished by the farm operator or may require specialized experience or equipment, as in the case of helical screw anchors (as shown in Figure 2-7, below). Routine tensioning of longlines and their maintenance can often be done by the operator. However, longline system design engineering should include specifications for anchoring strength, storm ratings, maintenance requirements, and gear life expectancy.
Blade or Stingray (upper left), concrete block (lower left), and helical screw (right). Source: C. Price (unpublished). Figure 2-7 Anchoring Components Typical of Offshore Longline Shellfish and Seaweed Cultivation Systems
Similar to finfish facilities, some lighting of offshore facilities, consistent with applicable requirements including 33 CFR Section 67.05-25, would be required for safety purposes to alert mariners of the offshore facility and to prevent collisions. Onshore facilities would include on-site lighting for security purposes consistent with applicable local requirements. Decommissioning would depend on anchoring methods; again, helical screw or concrete block anchors may require specialized vessels, equipment, and hoist capacities. Similar to marine finfish decommissioning, future seaweed/shellfish operations would be required to establish a fund equivalent to the estimated cost of decommissioning, specific to the design of and lease for that particular operation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
Employment Because the Proposed Program may introduce a new/expanded industry along the California coast, it would create additional job opportunities. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that up to 50 employees would be required per operation under the Proposed Program, including finfish, shellfish, and seaweed. Assuming up to 10 of each facility would occur under the Proposed Program, up to 1,500 jobs would be created.
ALTERNATIVE 2: NEW MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK WITH LIMIT ON RATE OF EXPANSION ONLY (NO LIMIT ON FACILITY SIZE)
Proposed New Requirements (Specific to Alternative 2) Alternative 2 would limit the rate at which new leases would be approved by the Commission in a given period but would not limit the size of new facilities. A limited rate of expansion under Alternative 2 would constrain the number of new offshore leases per 2-year period to no more than two projects of each type: finfish, shellfish, and seaweed, potentially resulting in approvals of up to six new aquaculture leases per 2-year period. By limiting the rate of expansion, the Program capacity may be allowed to grow and manage adaptively as funding, monitoring feedback, and experience indicate. These expansion rate limitations would not apply to land-based support facilities. Although the rate of expansion would be limited, the size of an individual facility would not be limited by means other than the existing reviews, checks, and considerations already in place for individual proposed projects. This is to say that the reality of siting a facility larger than the limit proposed in other alternatives in the state waters off California would meet inherent constraints posed (at least) by the environment, proximity to port and support facilities, and competing ocean uses. Prototypical or conceptual offshore aquaculture production facilities that are not constrained by explicit regulatory size limits would nonetheless face limits as various aspects of proposed operations are expanded. Those aspects are presented below to frame the assumptions used in the impact analysis for this alternative.
Reasonably Foreseeable Compliance Response A reasonably foreseeable compliance response to the management framework under Alternative 2 would include many of the same characteristics that are illustrated in the conceptual model assumptions for hypothetical offshore marine aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program. However, a scenario of proposed facilities that are not constrained by size would likely manifest through the factors indicated below for finfish, shellfish, and seaweed culture operations.
Finfish
Conceptual Model Assumptions for Offshore Marine Finfish Aquaculture (Not Size-Limited) An offshore marine finfish aquaculture facility that faces no regulatory size limit may propose larger facilities that incorporate a variety of factors that would vary by individual project, such as:
additional production capacity (more cages), which translates into more feed delivered and fed, and related outcomes resulting from this increased loading or activity (e.g., vessel trips, workforce size, particulate organic solids, nutrient loading, oxygen demand); and
additional acreage or space, which may or may not be occupied by additional cages but may be justified by the need for modified spacing, on-site support systems and facilities, or other engineering considerations.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-17 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Shellfish and Seaweed
Conceptual Model Assumptions for Shellfish and Seaweed Production in Offshore Setting (Not Size-Limited) An offshore shellfish or seaweed aquaculture facility that faces no regulatory size limit may propose larger facilities that incorporate a variety of factors that would vary by individual project, such as:
additional production capacity (more longlines or other culture gear), which translates into more cultured biomass and phytoplankton/nutrient consumption/absorption and related outcomes resulting from this increased loading or activity (e.g., vessel trips, workforce size, benthic impacts or wildlife interactions); and
additional acreage or space, which may or may not be occupied by additional cages but may be justified by the need for modified spacing, on-site support systems and facilities, or other engineering considerations.
ALTERNATIVE 3: NO NEW MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK (NO PROGRAM)
Proposed New Requirements (Specific to Alternative 3) Under Alternative 3, no new requirements would be added to the existing regulatory framework. Modifications to existing or development of new offshore facilities would be made through leases issued under the existing management framework afforded to CDFW and the Commission, as identified above.
Reasonably Foreseeable Compliance Response The current management framework and supporting regulations do not allow for the leasing of state water bottoms for marine finfish aquaculture. Therefore, under Alternative 3, if new finfish facilities were to be developed, they would be limited to locations on land or in federal waters. Shellfish and seaweed culture facilities proposed under Alternative 3 would be subject to the existing reviews, checks, and considerations already in place.
2.4.4 Lease Requirements Common across Program Alternatives Although all the Program alternatives have unique approaches, there are some aspects that are common to each of them (except in certain circumstances, under the No Program Alternative). For example, all proposed facilities would undergo their own permitting and CEQA compliance processes to evaluate potential project-specific and cumulative impacts for specific lease applications. Discussion of the concepts of adaptive management, Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP), and siting criteria in the context of natural resource management and aquaculture oversight are included as rationale for various application and compliance requirements, whether part of the existing or a proposed future management framework. Pursuant to FGC Section 15400(b), as amended by SB 201, leases and regulations adopted by the Commission for marine finfish aquaculture shall meet, but are not limited to, all of the following standards, which are integrated into the requirements of the Program: 1. The lease site is considered appropriate for marine finfish aquaculture in the PEIR if prepared and approved by the Commission pursuant to Section 15008. 2. A lease shall not unreasonably interfere with fishing or other uses or public trust values, unreasonably disrupt wildlife and marine habitats, or unreasonably harm the ability of the marine environment to support ecologically significant flora and fauna. A lease shall not have significant adverse cumulative impacts. 3. To reduce adverse effects on global ocean ecosystems, the use of fish meal and fish oil shall be minimized. Where feasible, alternatives to fish meal and fish oil, or fish meal and fish oil made from seafood harvesting byproducts, shall be used, taking into account factors that include, but need not be limited to, the nutritional needs of the fish being raised and the availability of alternative ingredients.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-18 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
4. Lessees shall establish best management practices, approved by the Commission, for each lease site. Approved best management practices shall include a regular monitoring, reporting, and site inspection program that requires at least annual monitoring of lease sites to ensure that the operations are in compliance with best management practices related to fish disease, escapement, and environmental stewardship and that operations are meeting the requirements of this section. The Commission may remove fish stocks, close facilities, or terminate the lease if it finds that the lessee is not in compliance with best management practices, that the lessee’s activities have damaged or are damaging the marine environment, or that the lessee is not in compliance with this section. The Commission shall take immediate remedial action to avoid or eliminate significant damage, or the threat of significant damage, to the marine environment. 5. Before issuance of the lease, the lessee shall provide baseline benthic habitat and community assessments of the proposed lease site to the applicable RWQCB or the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and shall monitor the benthic habitat and community during the operation of the lease in a manner determined by the RWQCB or SWRCB. The RWQCB and SWRCB may establish and impose reasonable permit fees to pay for the costs of administering and conducting the assessment and monitoring program. 6. Finfish numbers and density shall be limited to what can be safely raised while protecting the marine environment, as specified by the terms of the lease, subject to review and amendment by the Commission. 7. The use of all drugs, chemicals, and antibiotics, and the amounts used and applied, shall be minimized. All drugs, therapeutic substances, and antibiotics shall be used and applied only as approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for marine finfish aquaculture. The lessee shall report that use and application to the Commission on a regular schedule, as determined by the Commission, but no less than annually, that shall be included in the terms of the lease. The Commission shall review those reports on a regular basis and at least annually. 8. The Commission shall require all farmed fish to be marked, tagged, or otherwise identified as belonging to the lessee in a manner determined appropriate by the Commission, unless the Commission determines that identifying farmed fish is unnecessary for protecting wild fish stocks, the marine environment, or other ocean uses. 9. All facilities and operations shall be designed to prevent the escape of farmed fish into the marine environment and to withstand severe weather conditions and marine accidents. The lessee shall maintain records on all escapes in a manner determined by the Commission. In the event of more than de minimis escapement, the number of escaped fish and the circumstances surrounding the incident shall be reported immediately to the Commission, and the lessee shall be responsible for damages to the marine environment caused by those escaped fish, as determined by the Commission. 10. The lessee shall, at a minimum, meet all applicable requirements imposed by SWRCB and the RWQCBs and shall prevent discharges to the maximum extent possible. Monitoring and testing of water quality shall be required on a regular basis as deemed appropriate by SWRCB or the RWQCBs. All inspection and monitoring reports and other records, and all data on the discharge of chemical and biological pollutants shall be kept on file and available for public review. In addition, and as noted above, lessees would be required to establish a fund for the decommissioning of their respective operation upon closure to ensure the appropriate removal and disposal/repurposing of aquaculture related components. Verification of fund establishment would be required at the time of lease application consideration by the Commission.
ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
Adaptive management is a decision-making process promoting flexible management such that actions can be adjusted as a result of monitoring and learning, thus increasing understanding and reducing uncertainty (Williams et al. 2007). As shown in Figure 2-8, the iterative process moves through time as management actions are adjusted based on that increased understanding.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-19 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Source: Williams 2011 Figure 2-8 Adaptive Management
Uncertainty would lie in aspects of operational or production system performance, variability of environmental conditions (including those associated with the effects of climate change), and the extent and specifics of permitting and monitoring requirements governing new projects. Monitoring requirements can be costly (both administratively and monetarily), especially if proven to be unnecessary or misaligned with actual scientific management needs. Systems and practices that are poorly designed, constructed, maintained, or executed may also be costly (both monetarily and environmentally) and would require continual management and oversight that is adaptive and qualified. Although commercial offshore aquaculture is largely a new activity in California, a rapidly growing body of data and engineering and management experience have been accumulating globally and form the foundation of the impact analyses and new management components of the Program (DeCew et al 2012, Price and Morris 2013, Rust et al. 2014). Uncertainty and natural variability associated with open water ecosystems and the responses to new offshore aquaculture operations would require flexibility and adaptability to change, both operationally and from a regulatory or management standpoint. Changes may occur in the offshore marine environment, in technological or operational developments, or because of evolving market demands, societal priorities, or a variety of other factors. The adaptive management approach can reduce reactionary responses and strengthen the management, viability, and sustainability of offshore marine aquaculture (IUCN 2007). It is also defined and directed by Fish and Game Code.1 To adaptively manage the Program in California, CDFW would provide recommendations to the Commission based on information received and data collected during monitoring of permitted/leased operations. Based on information collected, the Commission could amend the outcomes required of best management practice (BMP) plans to be employed at marine aquaculture facilities based on its review of:
annual expected aquaculture production levels;
whether or not the condition and status of wild stocks, marine mammals, protected resources, and other resources are adversely affected by aquaculture through:
new or regulated pathogens,
organic and benthic loading and changes in water quality,
1 FGC §13.5: “Adaptive management,” unless otherwise specified in this code, means management that improves the management of biological resources over time by using new information gathered through monitoring, evaluation, and other credible sources as they become available, and adjusts management strategies and practices to assist in meeting conservation and management goals. Under adaptive management, program actions are viewed as tools for learning to inform future actions. FGC § 703.3: It is the policy of the state that the department and commission use ecosystem-based management informed by credible science in all resource management decisions to the extent feasible. It is further the policy of the state that scientific professionals at the department and commission, and all resource management decisions of the department and commission, be governed by a scientific quality assurance and integrity policy, and follow well-established standard protocols of the scientific profession, including, but not limited to, the use of peer review, publication, and science review panels where appropriate. Resource management decisions of the department and commission should also incorporate adaptive management to the extent possible. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-20 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
entanglements and interactions,
escapement of cultured fish,
escapement and spread of nonnative cultured shellfish,
minimization of the use of fishmeal and fish oil, or
other factors;
economic and social considerations of offshore marine aquaculture in state waters as they relate to fishing communities; and
management measures for regulating aquaculture, including:
permit application requirements;
aquaculture operational requirements and restrictions, including monitoring;
allowable aquaculture system requirements;
siting requirements; and
recordkeeping and reporting requirements.
HAZARD ANALYSIS AND CRITICAL CONTROL POINT PLANS AS A MANAGEMENT TOOL
A variety of strategies to assess, reduce, and manage risk (or hazards) are used in regulatory frameworks and may also be applied to the management of offshore marine aquaculture. Initially developed to address food safety concerns, HACCP is a systematic preventive approach that identifies where hazards might occur in production processes (identifying critical control points) and puts into place stringent actions to take that prevent the hazards from occurring or reducing hazard risks to a safe level. By strictly monitoring and controlling each step of the process, there is less chance for hazards to occur. In this manner, HACCP attempts to avoid hazards rather than attempting to inspect finished products for the effects of those hazards. HACCP has been adopted in a variety of food safety regulatory applications, including seafood processing that is regulated by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The National Academy of Sciences, National Advisory Committee for Microbiological Criteria for Foods, and the Codex Alimentarius have endorsed HACCP as the best process control system for food safety available today. Applications of the HACCP concept in aquaculture and resource management have included controlling the spread of aquatic invasive species and managing aquatic animal health. Since HACCP plans are site specific, the effectiveness of the HACCP approach relies on knowledgeable engagement by both the operator and regulator to thoroughly identify the hazards and critical control points throughout the production process and to formulate appropriate responses. In order to be effective, the use of HACCP as a regulatory tool would come with an ongoing commitment of State staff resources to aid in development, review, updating, and enforcement of such plans. As noted previously, the above-identified limits on the rate of expansion are intended to allow the program to grow but maintain necessary and effective management by CDFW and other state agency staff. Most aspects of the Proposed Program, including initial review and approval of projects, along with ongoing adaptive management, oversight by CDFW and Commission staffs, and interagency coordination, rely on additional staff capacity and cannot be implemented without it.
SITING CRITERIA
Sound management of offshore aquaculture begins with appropriate siting of facilities. Some criteria for suitable siting of marine aquaculture facilities originate in the existing local, State, and federal regulatory framework and the public trust doctrine; other criteria are provided by the legislative mandate of SB 201 explicitly (see above); and still other criteria may arise from stakeholder or environmental impact concerns.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-21 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Individually proposed projects would be subject to more detailed consideration, including the existing regulatory framework for aquaculture leasing and the additional direction provided by SB 201, as codified in FGC Sections 15008 and 15400, calling for a framework for managing finfish aquaculture in an environmentally sustainable manner by considering “appropriate areas for siting marine finfish aquaculture operations to avoid adverse impacts, and minimize any unavoidable impacts on user groups, public trust values, and the marine environment.” It is not within the scope of this programmatic document to attempt a siting analysis for all potential sites or areas where offshore aquaculture projects should be located or premapped due to the number of variables and differences in conditions within the program area. However, it is essential, in the context of a management framework, to provide guidance on the criteria that helps define appropriate offshore aquaculture site locations to avoid and minimize environmental impacts and for the benefit of future project proponents and resource managers.
Preliminary Site Screening Using Existing Regulatory Framework Currently, siting constraints/considerations are spread among multiple agencies and regulations within the existing regulatory framework. Under the Program, these constraints would be compiled and considered as preliminary screening criteria for suitability, including those listed below. Additional factors would consider the avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of environmental impacts that may influence siting choices. Additional factors to consider in screening for a suitable location are discussed later in this section. A lease site may be appropriate under the following conditions:
The associated aquaculture activities would not significantly harm the ability of the marine environment to support ecologically significant flora and fauna.2 Specifically, leases will avoid: aggregating and breeding areas, and migratory routes of specially protected marine species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, and listed species protected under federal or State law, Essential Fish Habitat, eelgrass, kelp stands, rocky bottom settings, and habitat forming invertebrates, such as sea pens.
The associated aquaculture activities would not significantly interfere with commercial or recreational fishing or shellfishing activities, nor with public access to state waters for purpose of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation.3
It is not within areas that are or have in the past been designated for disposal of munitions or toxic materials, consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Military Munitions Rule and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requirements.
It is not within areas that are designated for disposal of dredged materials.
It is not within areas that are closed to access by federal or State government action, including within shipping lanes designated by the U.S. Coast Guard or defense-related closed areas defined by the U.S. Navy (e.g., de facto marine protected areas). This is partially addressed by CCR Title 14 Section 237(b)(3) through the Commission’s check-in with State Lands Commission as an existing screening step.
Further Site Screening Using Other Environmental Factors Offshore aquaculture operations are essentially in situ flow-through systems that rely on natural water movements instead of pumped water. Their performance is as reliant on the characteristics of the surrounding environment as their impact is on that surrounding environment. Characteristics that affect the potential performance and impact of offshore operations on host aquatic ecosystems include water depth and quality; current speed and flow patterns; storm exposure and maximum sea states; substrate type; background nutrient and light levels; primary productivity; temperature, oxygen, and salinity profiles; natural predator, pest, and pathogen distribution and population levels;
2 Per FGC Section 15400(b)(2): “A lease shall not…significantly harm the ability of the marine environment to support ecologically significant flora and fauna.” Eelgrass and kelp beds are examples of ecologically significant flora that would be considered under this criterion. 3 Per FGC Section 15401: “Areas used by the public for digging clams shall not be leased.” Also, FGC 15411: “Lessees under a state water bottom lease may not significantly impede public access to state waters for purpose of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation.” California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-22 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Program Description and Alternatives
and nearby human activities (Belle and Nash 2008). Good site selection and facility configuration, including system design and engineering, can minimize many environmental concerns (Kapetsky et al. 2013). In addition to the screening criteria explicitly cited above in the regulatory framework, factors imparting certain obvious environmental impacts may, de facto, eliminate certain sites from further consideration. Although examined in more detail throughout this document, the following criteria should result in immediate dismissal of a proposed lease site. A proposed lease site may be dismissed under any of the following conditions:
It is proximate to a point of waste discharge or the area is otherwise unsafe to harvest finfish, shellfish, or seaweed for human consumption.
It is not separated by an appropriate minimum distance from other aquaculture leases. The minimum distance between leases should be sufficient to avoid cumulative impacts on water quality and wildlife interactions that could be caused by interactive effects between multiple aquaculture facilities. This consideration would be site specific and depend on multiple oceanographic and biological factors.
It is located within a Marine Protected Area, as established through the Marine Life Protection Act, or an Area of Special Biological Significance, as established by the California Ocean Plan.
Predictive Modeling and Baseline Site Surveys Environmental impact models now allow potential lessees and regulators to assess the suitability of sites, understand the potential risks and benefits of proposed net-pen operations, and estimate the limits of acceptable farm biomass before they are permitted. The National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science website provides a portal to easily access coastal planning tools designed to assist the planning of sustainable aquaculture development (NCCOS 2017). For example, models such as Depomod or AquaModel may be used to examine near and far field effects of farms in the coastal shelf where nearshore or open-ocean aquaculture may develop. Modeling tools are useful during the initial screening of potential sites, but they do not replace the need for actual site surveys and should not be a regulatory requirement without further testing, sensitivity analyses, and validation studies. As part of the lease application process, applicants may be required to submit site-specific baseline studies for review by CDFW during consideration of the lease application to ascertain the appropriateness of the requested site for marine aquaculture. Baseline studies would be required to include an assessment of seasonal variations and include multiple sampling stations that extend to all areas of the proposed lease area and at least one reference site. Collection of enough replicate samples at each station to provide a statistically valid sample would also be required. This would depend on the size of the proposed site and degree of variation in conditions over the site. Site characteristics, in particular current patterns and speeds, would affect the efficiency of feed utilization/waste production and, thus, the accumulation or dispersal of wastes. Therefore, surveys of proposed sites would be required to describe and understand the habitat on and around the site, the prevailing meteorological and hydrographic conditions, depth profile measurements, temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, and turbidity. Water circulation patterns can be mapped with drogues and a Global Positioning System (Belle and Nash 2008) and documented, along with water depths and substrate types. A map depicting the bottom sediment type to determine deposition and erosion within the proposed site would be required. In general, hard sand, gravel, or cobble indicates erosional sites, while soft mud or clay indicates deposition. Current velocities on erosional sites should not cause anchor scouring that may increase the risk of mooring failure. Also, current velocities at the erosional sites should not exceed the swimming speed of the fish in the net-pen. Water depth should be at least twice that of the net-pen to provide adequate space for good water flow and solid waste dispersal. A characterization of species composition, diversity, and the abundance of benthic infauna and epibenthic macrofauna and flora at all sampling stations would be required. Phillips (2005) reported that impacts on the benthic communities generally occur within 50 m of the cages, depending on flushing flows and feed management. Beveridge (2004) recommends that cages are at least to 10 to 13 ft (4 to 5 m) above sediment to ensure maximum wind fetch for all compass directions. Wave heights should be calculated based on fetch, water depth, and a range of
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 2-23 Program Description and Alternatives Ascent Environmental
expected maximum wind speeds and durations. Drogue, current-speed, and weather-pattern data should be analyzed carefully to determine the probability that strong winds and currents may occur in opposing directions. Waves generated by opposing wind and current directions tend to be of short duration, but very steep and very destructive. Sites with frequent or extreme weather or sea-state conditions should be avoided. Extreme conditions also can limit physical access to the farm.
2.4.5 Compliance with Regulatory Framework and Potential Permits As noted above, CDFW and the Commission are the principal State government entities responsible for the management, protection, and conservation of the state’s marine fish and wildlife resources. As noted in Chapter 3, current application requirements for new leases for the cultivation of species other than marine finfish on or over state water bottoms are established and described in CCR Title 14 Sec. 237. In addition, FGC and other federal and State agencies have jurisdiction over various aspects of marine aquaculture through various federal and State regulations and requirements. These are identified in Chapter 3 and include:
conditions imposed under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit;
conditions imposed under a Clean Water Act Section 401 water quality certification;
conditions imposed under a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit;
conditions imposed under a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit;
conditions imposed under a Coastal Act Coastal Development Permit;
conservation measures identified in a biological assessment, and/or terms and conditions imposed by a biological opinion under the federal Endangered Species Act; and
terms of an incidental harassment authorization granted pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act.
2.4.6 Potential New Lease Requirements As the Program would be implemented, additional lease requirements may be adopted by the Commission. These requirements may include additional reporting applicable to all leases under the Program. Currently, many of the potential new lease requirements under consideration are already covered by existing regulations and requirements; however, the need to which CDFW should or could oversee compliance with such regulations and requirements has yet to be determined. Lease requirements that may be implemented could include, but would not be limited to:
preparing a site-specific marine wildlife protection plan,
limiting the use of aquaculture drugs and treatment chemicals to only those therapeutants approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration,
preparing a site-specific finfish escape prevention and response plan, and
meeting site-specific engineering design requirements or obtaining certification. Additionally, mitigation measures recommended in this PEIR (refer to Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures”) to reduce environmental impacts, if adopted by the Commission, would become new rulemaking recommendations or lease requirements, as applicable.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2-24 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
3 REGULATORY SETTING
This chapter presents the current policies, management authorities and framework for aquaculture facilities that may occur under the Program. It also identified potential permitting needs for individual facilities, and other applicable regulations, policies, and plans that will be considered and complied with, where appropriate, during the planning and design of individual facilities.
3.1 POLICIES, MANAGEMENT AUTHORITIES AND FRAMEWORK
3.1.1 National Policy As noted in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” wild catches of seafood have stabilized or declined over the past 30 years, while population growth has continued to contribute to increased demand. The increase in demand has been, and still is recognized by the federal government and the aquaculture industry as a strong opportunity for future industry growth and food security. In the National Aquaculture Act of 1980, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) stated, “It is, therefore, in the national interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage the development of aquaculture in the United States.” U.S. aquaculture is ruled by environmental laws such as the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), Endangered Species Act (ESA), and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). NOAA supports a systematic, ecosystem-based approach to aquaculture management that mimics fishery management. Aquaculture management utilizing an ecosystem-based approach identifies a geographically-specified area that contributes to resilience and sustainability of the ecosystem. Resiliency means there are choices and is crucial to our food security, recognizes the physical, biological, economic and social interactions among the affected aquaculture and fishery related components of the ecosystem (including humans) and optimizes benefits amongst a diversity of societal goals. The Report on the Implementation of the National Ocean Policy highlighted progress and milestones made in developing the aquaculture industry in the U.S. Some of these included a guide to help shellfish growers navigate the permitting process and first-ever permit for commercial shellfish production in Federal waters was issued in California (White House 2015). In June 2018, the Trump Administration issued a new executive order establishing an interagency Ocean Policy Committee, which replaced the Obama National Ocean Council and nine regional planning bodies. The Committee is co-chaired within the Executive Office of the President by the Council on Environmental Quality and the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. NMFS is an office of NOAA within the Department of Commerce. NOAA provides vital services for the nation: productive and sustainable fisheries, safe sources of seafood, the recovery and conservation of protected resources, and healthy ecosystems. Within the Marine Aquaculture Strategic Plan 2016-2020, NOAA’s vision sees “an aquaculture sector that creates jobs, provides sustainable seafood, and supports healthy oceans” (NOAA 2016), as illustrated in Figure 3-1. Their mission will “provide science, services, and policies to support the significant expansion and sustainability of U.S. marine aquaculture.” They define sustainable aquaculture to encompass the “triple bottom line” of environmental, economic, and social sustainability. To achieve their 2020 target for increased marine aquaculture by 50 percent (or 8 percent per year from 2016 through 2020), NOAA will focus on four strategic goals: regulatory efficiency, tools for sustainable management, technology development and transfer, and an informed public. A primary objective of federal aquaculture policy is to develop more efficient permitting processes to promote industry development while setting standards for environmentally safe operations. Federal support, engagement and authorities span several agencies: the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Interagency collaboration and cooperation can help promote the development of new technologies that improve sustainability as well as improve the efficiency of the permitting pathways.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-1 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
Source: NCCOS 2015
Figure 3-1 Aquaculture Industry Infographic
3.1.2 State Policies PRC Section 826 states that “it is in the interest of the people of the state that the practice of aquaculture be encouraged in order to augment food supplies, expand employment, promote economic activity, increase native fish stocks, enhance commercial and recreational fishing, and protect and better use the land and water resources of the state. Further, FGC Section 1700 declares a statewide policy to encourage the conservation, maintenance and utilization of the ocean and waters under the jurisdiction of the state for the benefit of the state citizenry and development of fisheries, including commercial aquaculture. As noted in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” CDFW and the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) are the principal state government entities responsible for the management, protection, and conservation of the state’s fish and wildlife resources. Through implementation of these policies, the Commission has the authority to regulate certain aspects of commercial marine aquaculture on state lands or in state waters, while CDFW has management responsibility pursuant to the Aquaculture Development Act of 1979. Refer to Chapter 1, “Introduction,” for further information regarding state policies related to marine aquaculture.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
3.2 REGULATORY OVERVIEW CDFW is responsible for many of the approvals required to establish and operate an aquaculture facility within the Program area (see Chapter 2). However, there are numerous other federal, State, and local agencies that also provide approvals or permits for aquaculture activities. Depending upon the location and the nature of the activity, regulatory approvals or permits may be required from the agencies listed in Table 3-1. Each of these agencies and its regulatory authority is discussed briefly below. Greater detail is provided in Appendix E. Following the discussion of general regulatory authorities, the permitting and approval sequences for different types and locations of aquaculture facilities are described. These are typical scenarios and may not be appropriate for every new project. Nonetheless, they illustrate the complexity of establishing and operating aquaculture facilities and provide some guidance to future aquaculturists as they consider the establishment of new and/or expanded operations in the state.
3.2.1 Federal Agencies with Regulatory/Permit Authority
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
USACE regulates wetlands and other waters of the United States per the CWA. The CWA is the primary federal law that regulates water resources. Several sections of the CWA may apply to aquaculture activities depending on specific aspects of the operation. Those CWA provisions include Section 401 (Water Quality Certification), Section 402 (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]), Section 403 (Ocean Discharge Criteria), and Section 404 (Discharges of Dredge or Fill Material). Nationwide Permit 48 (Existing Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities) authorizes discharges of dredged or fill material necessary for shellfish seeding, rearing, cultivating, transplanting, and harvesting activities. Issuance of USACE permits under the CWA is likely to require consultation with NMFS under terms of ESA and the Magnuson-Stevens Act. NMFS authorities are described later in this section. Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (Ch 425, 30 Stat. 1121) requires a permit for activities in or affecting the navigable waters of the United States including installations or other devices permanently or temporarily attached to the seabed. The permit program, administered by USACE, is typically combined with the CWA Section 404 permit process in those instances where a CWA Section 404 permit is required. USACE also administers the Ocean Dumping Ban Act for dredged materials, enacted in 1988 as an amendment to the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. This act regulates the dumping of waste into waters of the United States. See Appendix E for more detail regarding USACE’s regulatory authority.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
USFWS is responsible for protecting and conserving freshwater fisheries, marine ground fisheries, wildlife (birds and most mammals), and their habitats for the benefit of the public. USFWS has jurisdiction over freshwater and estuarine fishes and a regulatory role concerning federal activities with potential impact on certain marine mammals (southern sea otter, manatee/dugong, polar bear, walrus), migratory birds, sea turtles on shore, freshwater fishes, and endangered species onshore or within national wildlife refuges. Any aquaculture activities that would result in the take of federally threatened or endangered species (except for marine and anadromous fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles, which are protected by NMFS, see below) require permitting by USFWS under the ESA. Take is defined to mean harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect or attempt to engage in such conduct. Take may also include significant habitat modification or degradation that actually kills or injures fish or wildlife. Aquaculture activities in California’s coastal waters are required to be consistent with the requirements of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), also administered by USFWS. See Appendix E for more detail regarding USFWS’s regulatory authority.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-3 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
Table 3-1 Local, State, and Federal Involvement in Establishing Aquaculture Facilities in the Program Area Agency Jurisdiction Permit or Statutory Authority Subject Federal U.S. Army Corps of Waters of the United Section 404, Clean Water Act (CWA) Placement of dredge or fill material, including structures, in jurisdictional waters Engineers (USACE) States Nationwide Permit 48, Existing Commercial Shellfish of the United States Aquaculture Activities Section 10, Rivers and Harbors Act Placement of materials in navigable waters U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Federally listed wildlife Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation regarding harm to or take of listed wildlife and plant (USFWS) and plant species species, including certain marine species NOAA National Marine Federally listed marine Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation regarding harm to or take of listed species Fisheries Service (NMFS) and anadromous fish, Marine Mammal Protection Act Incidental harassment authorization or letter of authorization regarding harm of sea turtles and marine marine mammals mammals Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Designates and protects Essential Fish Habitat via a requirement for interagency Management Act consultation. Issue exempted fishing permit or other authorization to grow federally managed species in the exclusive economic zone. NOAA National Ocean National marine National Marine Sanctuaries Act Consultation requirement (similar to ESA Section Service sanctuaries 7) regarding management and trust responsibilities for National Marine Sanctuaries U.S. Coast Guard Navigable waters of the Private Aids to Navigation Permit Responsible for obstructions or aids to navigation in waters of the United States United States State California Fish and Wildlife State water bottoms Lease of State Water Bottom, Fish and Game Code Use of State-owned tidelands (Sovereign Lands) Commission California Department of Fish and wildlife Aquaculture Registration, Fish and Game Code Registration of aquaculture facilities Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) State-listed fish and California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Take of State-listed species wildlife species Letter of Authorization Placing or planting of any live fish, fresh or saltwater animal, or aquatic plant within a water of the state Standard Live Fish Importation Permit Importation of most live aquatic species Long-Term Live Fish Importation Permits Importation of aquatic species on an ongoing basis that do not represent a significant concern for potential impacts on state wildlife resources Importation of aquatic species Health Certificate by appropriate out-of-state agency Generally required for aquaculture products stocked in the state, except for sales between aquaculturists registered with CDFW for the species in question Wild Broodstock Collection Permit Permission to collect wild stock for use in developing a domestic broodstock
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
Table 3-1 Local, State, and Federal Involvement in Establishing Aquaculture Facilities in the Program Area Agency Jurisdiction Permit or Statutory Authority Subject Restricted Species Permit Certain species identified in FGC Section 2118 that are not established in California or listed as detrimental Addition of species to individual certificates of registration Adding species to current registration list Aquarium Dealers Permit Aquarium dealers wishing to sell certain species of fish; must be obtained from registered aquaculturists and sold as pets Incidental Take Permit, (CESA) Take of listed species Marine Life Protection Act Designates Marine Protected Areas; develops plans for their management; reviews proposed developments for consistency California Coastal Coastal zone Coastal Development Permit (CDP), California Coastal Act Development activities within the California coastal zone Commission (CCC) Federal waters beyond Coastal Zone Management Act, federal consistency Development activities beyond the coastal zone coastal zone determination or certification (in the case of a federal activity) Regional Water Quality Waters of the state Section 401 Water Quality Certification, CWA As part of Section 404 permit process, ensure that project would meet State Control Boards (RWQCBs) water quality standards California State Water Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Discharges to waters of the United States Resources Control Board System (NPDES) Permit, CWA (SWRCB) Waste Discharge Requirements, Porter-Cologne Water Discharges to waters of the state Quality Control Act Approvals specific to Areas of Special Biological Areas of Special Biological Significance are 34 ocean areas monitored and Significance maintained for water quality by SWRCB. Within these areas, NDPES permits are not issued unless the RWQCB grants a special exemption. California Department of Health of California Certification of Growing Water All shellfish harvested commercially for human consumption Health Services residents Shellfish Handling and Marketing Certificate Shellfish dealers California Department of Agricultural operations Weighmaster Registration Those selling aquaculture products by weight Food and Agriculture California State Lands State-owned Review of CDFW leases Ensure lands leased by CDFW for aquaculture are not otherwise used Commission (CSLC) submerged tidelands California State Historic Historic structures Compliance with Section 106 of National Historic As part of Section 404 permit process, ensure that project would not adversely Preservation Office Preservation Act (NHPA) as part of USACE Section 404 affect historic properties permit Local or Regional Cities, Counties, Special Program area Land Use Permit and/or CEQA review Compliance with local regulations and State environmental review requirements Districts Type of approval varies by planning area
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-5 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
NMFS administers the ESA for marine and anadromous fish, marine mammals, and sea turtles. Under the ESA, agencies must consult with NMFS regarding any actions that could potentially result in take of threatened and endangered species. See Appendix E for more detail regarding NMFS’s regulatory authority under the ESA. NMFS is responsible for administering the MMPA specific to whales and dolphins (cetaceans) and pinnipeds other than the walrus. This legislation is the basis for policies preventing the harassment, capture, injury, or killing of all species of whales, dolphins, seals, and sea lions—as well as walruses, manatees, dugongs, sea otters, and polar bears. The act establishes a management regime to reduce marine mammal mortalities and injuries from interactions with fisheries (such as gear entanglement) and regulates the import and export of marine mammals and their products. NMFS is also responsible for implementation of elements of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. The Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) provisions of the act require consultation with federal agencies for proposed actions that may adversely affect EFH. The term “adverse effect” is defined as any impact that reduces quality and/or quantity of EFH. EFH is defined as those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity. The components of this definition are interpreted as chemical and biological properties that are used by fish and may include sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological communities; “necessary” means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and “spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity” covers a species’ full life cycle. In addition, estuaries, canopy kelp, seagrass, and rocky reefs are designated as EFH habitat areas of particular concern (HAPC) for various fish species within the Pacific Groundfish Fishery Management Plan. HAPC are described in the regulations as subsets of EFH that are rare, particularly susceptible to human-induced degradation, especially ecologically important, or located in an environmentally stressed area. Designated HAPC are not afforded additional regulatory protection under the Magnuson-Stevens Act; however, federal projects with potential adverse impacts on HAPC are more carefully scrutinized during the consultation process. The NMFS has authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act to issue an Exempted Fishing Permit or other authorization to grow federally managed species in the exclusive economic zone. Even in the absence of a comprehensive management program for aquaculture in federal waters, it is possible to apply for permits under existing federal regulations.
U.S. COAST GUARD
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) is the primary maritime law enforcement agency. It requires that aquaculture-related structures located in navigable waters be marked with lights and signals to ensure navigational safety. Per the Code of Federal Regulations (33 CFR 66.01-5), the USCG issues a Private Aids to Navigation Permit to applicants who demonstrate that their projects do not interfere with navigation.
3.2.2 State Agencies with Regulatory/Permit Authority
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME COMMISSION AND CDFW
The California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) and CDFW are the principal State government entities responsible for the management, protection, and conservation of the state’s fish and wildlife resources. As part of that responsibility, the Commission has the authority to regulate certain aspects of commercial marine aquaculture in the state, with the support and coordination of CDFW’s scientific, enforcement, and administrative resources. The Aquaculture Development Act of 1979 included the enactment of PRC 833, originally establishing CDFW as the CEQA lead agency for issuance of permits related to aquaculture. However, PRC 833 was repealed in 1996 (SB2073), removing CDFW from this CEQA lead agency status. Nonetheless, the Commission continues to act as CEQA lead agency under its authority to issue state water bottom leases, which is often the first of many permits or entitlements
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
needed for marine aquaculture projects. CDFW issues certain permits, as listed in Table 3-1, and implements aquaculture registrations (including the review of locations and culture species), and enforces regulations related to stocking, transportation, importations, wild broodstock collection, restricted species possession and cultivation, and disease control for aquaculture facilities under the FGC and CCR Title 14. CDFW administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), which provides State-level protection to animals and plants listed as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, agencies must consult with CDFW regarding any actions that could potentially result in take of State-listed threatened and endangered species. Aquaculture activities that may require permitting by CDFW under the CESA include any that would result in the take of State-listed threatened or endangered species. CDFW is responsible for implementing the Marine Life Protection Act, which establishes Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) in California waters to protect habitats and preserve ecosystem integrity. Aquaculture activities would not be allowed within no-take MPAs and may be limited within other types of MPAs. A list of MPAs in California waters is contained in CCR Title 14 Section 632.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION
The California Coastal Commission (CCC) implements the California Coastal Act, which provides long-term protection of California’s coastline for the benefit of current and future generations. Under the California Coastal Act, aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone must obtain a Coastal Development Permit (CDP) from CCC, or if a local government has a certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), it can issue CDPs within its onshore jurisdiction. CCC considers marine aquaculture to be a coastal-dependent use under the California Coastal Act and considers this a higher priority use of the coastal zone than other uses. This designation can streamline the LCP process for some aquaculture facilities. CCC is also responsible for administering the federally approved California Coastal Management Program pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. As stated on CCC’s website (http://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html): The most significant provisions of the federal [Coastal Zone Management Act] give state coastal management agencies regulatory control (federal consistency review authority) over all federal activities and federally licensed, permitted or assisted activities, wherever they may occur (i.e., landward or seaward of the respective coastal zone boundaries fixed under state law) if the activity affects coastal resources. Examples of such federal activities include outer continental shelf oil and gas leasing, exploration and development; designation of dredge material disposal sites in the ocean; military projects at coastal locations; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers fill permits; certain U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits; national park projects; highway improvement projects assisted with federal funds; and commercial space launch projects on federal lands. Federal consistency is an important coastal management tool because it is often the only review authority over federal activities affecting coastal resources given to any state agency. The Coastal Zone Management Act gives the CCC federal consistency review authority over federal actions out to the limits of federal waters, 12 nautical miles (nm) offshore of the coast.
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARDS
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the nine regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) establish water quality standards pursuant to the requirements of the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act) and the federal CWA for the State of California. Aquaculture activities may require both a Water Quality Certification and an NPDES permit per Sections 401 and 402 of the CWA, respectively. Aquaculture activities that involve discharges must also obtain Waste Discharge Requirements, per the Porter-Cologne Act. In addition, SWRCB is responsible for adopting the Ocean Plan, which prohibits waste discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance, unless an exception is granted. Under the Ocean Plan, discharges must be located a sufficient distance from Areas of Special Biological Significance to ensure maintenance of natural water quality conditions in
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-7 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
these areas. The RWQCBs are responsible for interpretation and implementation of the Ocean Plan through issuance of NPDES permits and follow-up enforcement activity. See Appendix E for more detail regarding the RWQCB and SWRCB’s regulatory authority under the Porter-Cologne Act and the CWA.
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
The California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has leasing jurisdiction over nearly all of California's tide and submerged lands, beds of naturally navigable rivers and lakes (each of which are sovereign lands), swamp and overflow lands, and school lands (proprietary lands). While permitting and leasing of sovereign state tide and submerged lands for the purposes of aquaculture are under the jurisdiction of CDFW, CSLC reviews all such permits and leases to ensure that the lands are not otherwise used.
CALIFORNIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
The State Historic Preservation Officer ensures compliance with regulations protecting cultural resources, such as Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This act applies to land-based or marine-based aquaculture projects that have the potential to affect cultural resources.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
The California Department of Public Health (CDPH) regulates the growing, harvesting, processing, shipping, and marketing of bivalve shellfish (including oysters, mussels, clams, and scallops) intended for sale for human consumption (Health and Safety Code Section 112150 et seq.). CDPH participates in the National Sanitation Shellfish Program (NSSP). The NSSP is the federal and state cooperative program recognized by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Interstate Shellfish Sanitation Conference (ISSC), for the sanitary control of shellfish. The purpose of the NSSP is to promote and improve the sanitation of shellfish moving in interstate commerce through federal and state cooperation and uniformity of State shellfish programs. Within CDPH, the shellfish sanitation program is divided into two main components: Preharvest (administered under Environmental Management Branch) and Postharvest (administered under Food and Drug Branch). A shellfish growing area certificate is required for the cultivation and harvesting of oysters, clams, or mussels for sale for human consumption (CCR Title 17, Section 7706). The application is reviewed to assure that growing water meets standards of cleanliness, and requires the analysis of water samples, the evaluation of the watershed, and the ongoing submission of water quality data. A shellfish handling and marketing certification is required for all facilities and equipment used for handling, shucking, storing, packaging and shipping of shellfish after harvest (CCR Title 17, Section 7711).
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
The California Department of Food and Agriculture, Division of Measurement Standards, issues a weighmaster license that is required for weighing, measuring, or counting any commodity and issuing a statement used as the basis for either the purchase or sale of that commodity or charge for service. (Business and Professional Code Sections 12700–12736.)
3.2.3 Local Agencies with Regulatory/Permit Authority CCC describes California’s coastal management program as “a partnership between State and local governments. Implementation of Coastal Act policies is accomplished primarily through the preparation of LCPs that are required to be completed by each of the 15 counties and 60 cities located in whole or in part in the coastal zone. Completed LCPs must be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for review and approval. An LCP includes a land use California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
plan which may be the relevant portion of the local general plan, including any maps necessary to administer it, zoning ordinances, zoning district maps, and other legal instruments necessary to implement the land use plan. Coastal Act policies are the standards by which the Commission evaluates the adequacy of LCPs” (CCC 2018). In addition to participating in the coastal management program, counties, cities and other local land use jurisdictions would ensure that all aquaculture activities would comply with applicable land use permits and that CEQA review is adequately completed.
3.3 PERMITTING PROCESS FOR LAND-BASED FACILITIES 3.3.1 Description of Facilities Land-based facilities include the construction and use of any structures that might be associated with an aquaculture operation on dry land. Depending on the type of aquaculture method and species reared, the structures could include office, storage and warehouse-type buildings; enclosed or outdoor tanks, raceways or circulating troughs; water storage, treatment and pumping facilities; and parking facilities. If the facility is designed to extract water from or discharge water to creeks or the ocean, pipelines and pumping stations may also be needed. The process for permitting a typical land-based facility and an example time frame is outlined in greater detail on the following pages. The process for permitting in-water facilities that may be related to land-based operations is also described.
3.3.2 Potential Permitting Sequence
LAND-BASED FACILITIES WITH NO DISCHARGE TO STATE OR FEDERAL WATERS
CDFW’s role in managing new land-based aquaculture facilities is initiated by the aquaculture registration process as specified in CCR Title 14, Section 235. Individuals or companies wishing to register a new facility must provide CDFW with information about the location, type of facility and species to be reared. This registration process is exempt from CEQA (FGC Section 15101[c]), so it can be undertaken independently of other regulatory and permitting processes. The principal regulatory step for a new land-based facility within the coastal zone is application for a CDP in compliance with the California Coastal Act. This is not a CDFW action. Depending on the location along the coast, this permit must be obtained from either the local city or county government, or CCC. If the local government has a certified LCP, it would be responsible for reviewing a CDP application. If there is no certified LCP, CCC would be the permitting entity. For a local government entity, this discretionary action would trigger project review under CEQA. While other local or State approvals may be needed for construction and operation of a new facility, it is this CDP permitting entity that would likely be the CEQA lead agency. Other agencies with discretionary authority over aspect(s) of a project could choose to use the local government CEQA document for their own discretionary actions or prepare additional analysis. If CCC is responsible for issuing the CDP, the CEQA process is not triggered. The permitting process is considered a CEQA-equivalent process; the CCC staff report supporting a permitting decision contains the CEQA-equivalent impact analysis. Other parties that might be interested in the project are encouraged to submit their concerns to the CEQA lead agency or CCC during the equivalent process. Other agencies that might be involved include:
local government building departments that would issue building and grading permits;
local government road departments that would issue roadway encroachment permits (if local roads would be modified to allow access to the new facility);
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) that would issue state highway encroachment permits (if state highways would be modified to allow access to the new facility);
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-9 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
CDFW that would issue permits for farming exotic or restricted species, importing live fish, or collecting wild broodstock;
California Department of Public Health that would issue a certification of bivalve shellfish growing water and a shellfish handling and marketing certificate; and
California Department of Food and Agriculture that would provide a weighmaster registration. Other agencies could become involved in the approval process through CEQA, depending on the resources potentially affected by the new aquaculture facility. If species that are State-listed or federally-listed as threatened or endangered may be affected by either construction or operation, these potential effects would need to be addressed in the CEQA document. If significant impacts are anticipated, the CEQA lead agency would need to consult with USFWS, NMFS, and/or CDFW to comply with the ESA and CESA. This process would likely be funded by the aquaculture applicant. This consultation process should be initiated early enough for the CEQA document to reflect the initial findings of these resource agencies. It may also be necessary to develop a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document to support consultation under ESA. The federal lead for NEPA compliance would depend on what federal agencies ultimately have discretion over the land-based project. It is possible that USACE would be involved if facilities construction would result in fill of inland jurisdictional waters of the United States or placement of material in inland navigable waters. This process is discussed in greater detail below. Applications for federal permits, and therefore development of NEPA documents, should occur simultaneously with the CEQA process if possible. A joint CEQA/NEPA process should be considered where it is clear at the outset there will be both State and federal approvals needed to establish an inland aquaculture facility.
LAND-BASED FACILITIES WITH A DISCHARGE TO STATE OR FEDERAL WATERS
The approval process for land-based aquaculture facilities that would include construction and use of an ocean water intake or ocean discharge structure would be similar to that described above. Aquaculture facility registration would be independent of other approvals and the principal effort would be obtaining a CDP. However, construction activity in and discharge of waste to State or federal waters would generate a new group of regulatory agency participants. These agencies should be identified at the outset of the CDP process, especially if CEQA or NEPA is involved. The agencies could be encouraged to become responsible agencies through these processes. The other agencies that may be involved and their authorities include:
the CDFW would issue (and CSLC would confirm) a lease for use of sovereign lands (state water bottoms) if structures were to be constructed on ocean bottom;
CDFW may also issue a streambed alteration agreement for water diverted from surface sources and/or discharges into certain state waters;
an RWQCB would issue a CWA Section 401 water quality certification and if a waste discharge was to occur, a NPDES permit (Section 402 of the CWA) per the waste discharge requirements of the Porter-Cologne Act;
NMFS and USFWS would be consulted under the ESA if the construction or operation of an ocean intake or outfall might adversely affect marine mammals or other marine native species;
USACE would issue a CWA Section 404 permit and a Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 permit for deposit of dredged or fill material in navigable waters of the United States; and
the USCG would issue a private aids to navigation permit for placement of a structure in waters of the United States. Similar to the land-based facilities, there may be a requirement to complete a NEPA document to support federal approval processes. Compliance with NEPA would also require compliance with ESA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
3.4 PERMITTING PROCESS FOR FACILITIES IN STATE WATERS 3.4.1 Description of Facilities As described in Chapter 2, future marine aquaculture facilities may occur primarily in the ocean. Although some of the facilities may include ancillary operations on land, the focus of the discussion below is on water-based facilities. In-water facilities consist of a variety of structure types. The principal characteristics are that they have no physical attachment to dry land, they are in some way anchored to the ocean bottom, and they must be accessed by boat or by wading. The physical structures include helical anchors, piles, bolts, or frames driven into the ocean bottom and heavy anchors placed on the ocean bottom. Because these structures would disturb water bottoms, a separate set of permitting requirements must be fulfilled for moored facilities.
3.4.2 Potential Permitting Sequence The joint Commission/CDFW role in approving proposed in-water aquaculture facilities is greater than that for approving land-based facilities, assuming the new facility is to overlay state water bottoms. CDFW’s role in permitting a water-based aquaculture facility would likely start with the aquaculture registration process and the review of a new state water bottom lease component of the overall proposal. Through the Aquaculture Permit Counter online portal 1, the State Aquaculture Coordinator would facilitate early, informal consultations between applicants and permitting agency representatives to refine project proposals to comply with interagency regulatory requirements2 and presumably avoid surprises in subsequent permit approvals with those agencies. The CDFW registration process would remain independent of other actions, but the Commission/CDFW role in issuing leases for aquaculture facilities that overlay state water bottoms would typically make the Commission the CEQA lead agency. In certain localities, local entities (e.g., harbor districts) may hold the lease-issuing jurisdiction granted from the State and would take on the CEQA lead agency role. In addition to the CEQA process, the Commission follows a set of legislatively defined notification and procedural steps (per FGC Section 15400 et seq.) in the consideration of aquaculture lease applications through which public stakeholders, tribes, and responsible trustee agencies may provide input. The CDP process for in-water facilities is managed by CCC and city and county governments would not issue land use approvals for in-water facilities. The CDP and water bottom leasing processes should occur simultaneously to the extent possible. It is CCC policy, however, to refrain from accepting a CDP application as complete until the applicant establishes standing with regard to entitlement to the space proposed for development (e.g., title as owner or holder of a lease or equivalent permit issued by the appropriate authority). This approach is used to minimize staff involvement in projects that ultimately don’t achieve the necessary standing. The result is that the CDP issuance may lag from one to six months beyond the completion of the CEQA process that supports the Commission’s leasing decision. As with land-based facility approval, the other agency reviews and approvals should be closely timed and linked to the CEQA and NEPA processes. NEPA evaluation would be needed because mooring facilities on the ocean bottom would require USACE Section 404 and/or Section 10 involvement, USCG navigation effects review and possibly NMFS and USFWS consultation for ESA issues. These federal actions also have a logical sequence. Consultation with the USFWS and NMFS under ESA must be completed before the NEPA process can end with the signing of a record of decision. USACE cannot issue its 404 permit until CCC has made its California Coastal Act consistency determination and the NEPA process is complete.
1 Aquaculture Permit Counter (https://permits.aquaculturematters.ca.gov/) 2 Included in the duties of the Aquaculture Coordinator: “…Provide advice to the owner of a registered aquaculture facility on project siting and facility design, as necessary, to comply with regulatory requirements” FGC §15100 (d). California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-11 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
A joint CEQA/NEPA document should be considered if it is clear at the outset of the approval process that federal approvals are needed. The RWQCB could use the CEQA evaluation as a decision-making tool for water quality reviews regarding discharges of waste to state waters.
3.5 PERMITTING PROCESS FOR COMBINED LAND-BASED AND IN- WATER FACILITIES
3.5.1 Description of Facilities Most existing shellfish aquaculture operations in the coastal zone have both an in-water and land-based component. It is then reasonable to assume that future aquaculture proposals, whether for shellfish or finfish, would have both on-land and in-water components. The specific nature of the facilities would vary based on a number of factors, but would primarily depend on the species to be cultured. Geographic location, local physical conditions, proposed culture technology, and intended size of operation would also affect the nature of the facilities. The various types of facilities are described in detail in Chapter 2.
3.5.2 Potential Permitting Sequence CDFW’s role in permitting a combined land- and water-based aquaculture facility would likely start with the aquaculture registration process and the review of a new state water bottom lease component of the overall proposal. As in the previous case, the State Aquaculture Coordinator would facilitate early, informal consultations between applicants and permitting agency representatives to refine project proposals to comply with regulatory requirements utilizing the online Aquaculture Permit Counter. Location, jurisdictional circumstances, and the sequencing of securing land- or water-based facility entitlements might dictate which agency would assume CEQA lead agency roles, drawing on the descriptions listed in the previous sections. If the in-water element of the proposed project were to overlay state water bottoms, the Commission would likely be the CEQA lead agency for a combined land- and water-based facility. As noted above, CCC has retained the CDP responsibility for all in-water aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone (vs. local city and county governments), but CCC does not typically undertake a CEQA process during the CDP review effort. However, in the case of a land- based facility being proposed (permit applications submitted) first, within a jurisdiction covered by an LCP, the local city or county government could potentially take the CEQA lead agency role before the Commission receives a lease application for the in-water component. As with strictly in-water facilities, it would be most efficient if the CDP and leasing processes were to occur as simultaneously as possible and the two approval agencies were to coordinate their environmental review efforts. Because USACE and USCG approvals would be needed for the in-water features, there would also be a NEPA evaluation to support these federal actions. As with the other scenarios above, a joint CEQA/NEPA document should be considered to shorten and simplify the approval process. The other State and federal agencies with some approval authority over a combined facility should be encouraged to act as responsible agencies in the CEQA/NEPA review process to minimize the overall approval timeline.
3.6 PERMITTING PROCESS FOR FACILITIES IN OFFSHORE WATERS Offshore waters occurring outside of 3 nm from the mean high tide line are not waters of the state and are not within the Program area for this PEIR. CCC has regulatory authority over some actions occurring within this zone and may invoke consistency review and approval authority over certain federal permits proposed in offshore waters under the Coastal Zone Management Act. CDFW would have regulatory authority over offshore operations if they included transport of live organisms through waters of the state or collection of wild broodstock in state waters. In addition, several other agencies regulate actions occurring in offshore waters. These are summarized in Table 3-2 below.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
Table 3-2 Federal, State, and Local Agency Involvement in Establishing Aquaculture Facilities in Offshore Waters
Agency Jurisdiction Permit or Approval Subjects Federal U.S. Army Corps of Waters of the United States Section 10 Permit, Rivers and Harbors Act and Section 404 of Review of obstructions to navigation Engineers the CWA if discharge of dredge or fill material is required Review of discharges of dredged or fill material to waters of the United States U.S. Environmental Waters of the United States Sections 401, 402, and 403 of the CWA compliance Discharge into waters of the United States Protection Agency Bureau of Ocean Energy Ocean bottom beyond the 3 Energy Policy Act compliance Review of changes in use. Management nautical mile State jurisdiction Considering regulations for alternate uses of oil and gas Authorization to issue a lease, easement, or right-of-way on Energy facilities in the open platforms the outer continental shelf for activities that use energy ocean facilities for other (non-energy related) marine-related purposes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Federally listed wildlife and Incidental Take Permit, ESA Harm to or take of listed wildlife and plant species, including Service (USFWS) plant species MBTA compliance certain marine species Migratory birds Harm to migratory birds National Marine Fisheries Federally listed marine and Incidental Take Permit, ESA Harm to or take of listed species Service (NMFS) anadromous fish and marine Marine Mammal Protection Act Harm of marine mammals mammal species Magnuson-Stevens Act Designates and protects Essential Fish Habitat via a National marine sanctuaries National Marine Sanctuaries Act requirement for interagency consultation Federal waters Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Consultation requirement (similar to ESA Section 7) regarding Act management and trust responsibilities for National Marine Sanctuaries Exempted fishing permit, authorization to grow federally managed species in the exclusive economic zone U.S. Coast Guard Navigable waters of the Private Aids to Navigation Permit Responsible for obstructions or aids to navigation in waters of United States the United States
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-13 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
3.7 OTHER REGULATORY SETTING The following describes other federal, State, and local regulations that may be applicable to proposed lease agreements and development under the Program.
3.7.1 Federal
BALD EAGLE AND GOLDEN EAGLE PROTECTION ACT
The Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with limited exceptions. Under the Act, it is a violation to “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald eagle commonly known as the American eagle, or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg, thereof.” “Take” is defined to include pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, and disturb.
CALIFORNIA TOXICS RULE
In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other provisions for water quality standards to be applied to certain waters in California. This rule, known as the California Toxics Rule, is based on the EPA administrator’s determination that the numeric criteria are necessary in California to protect human health and the environment. The rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a State court overturned the State’s water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. California was thus without numeric water quality criteria for many priority toxic pollutants as required by the CWA, necessitating this action by EPA. These federal criteria are legally applicable in California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and marine estuaries under the CWA.
CLEAN AIR ACT
EPA carries out the provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA), originally passed in 1963 and amended six times, most recently in 1990. EPA implements programs under the CAA that focus on reducing ambient air pollutant concentrations, reducing emissions of toxic pollutants, and phasing out production and use of chemicals that destroy stratospheric ozone. EPA sets ambient air limits, the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for six “criteria pollutants”: particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), sulfur oxides, ground-level ozone, and lead. The NAAQS are presented in Table 3-3 (EPA 2011).
Table 3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards Comparison
California Standards1 National Standards2 Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 0.09 ppm (180 1 hour 3 — µg/m ) Ultraviolet Same as primary Ultraviolet Ozone (O3) 0.070 ppm (137 photometry 0.075 ppm (147 standard photometry 8 hour µg/m3) µg/m3)
3 3 Respirable 24 hour 50 µg/m 150 µg/m Inertial separation Gravimetric or Same as primary particulate Annual arithmetic and gravimetric 20 µg/m3 beta attenuation — standard matter (PM10) mean analysis
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
Table 3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards Comparison
California Standards1 National Standards2 Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7 Same as primary 24 hour — — 35 µg/m3 Fine standard Inertial separation particulate and gravimetric Annual arithmetic Gravimetric or matter (PM2.5) 12 µg/m3 12 µg/m3 15 µg/m3 analysis mean beta attenuation 1 hour 20 ppm (23 mg/m3) Nondispersive 35 ppm (40 mg/m3) — Carbon Nondispersive infrared monoxide 8 hour 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) 9 ppm (10 mg/m3) — infrared photometry (CO) photometry (NDIR) 8 hour (Lake Tahoe) 6 ppm (7 mg/m3) (NDIR) — —
0.18 ppm (339 3 1 hour 3 Gas phase 100 ppb (188 µg/m ) — Nitrogen µg/m ) Gas phase chemi- 9 chemi- dioxide (NO2) luminescence Annual arithmetic 0.030 ppm (57 luminescence 0.053 ppm (100 Same as primary mean µg/m3) µg/m3) standard 0.25 ppm (665 1 hour 75 ppb (196 µg/m3) — µg/m3) Ultraviolet 0.5 ppm fluorescence, 3 hour — — 3 Sulfur dioxide Ultraviolet (1,300 µg/m ) spectro- 10 (SO2) 0.04 ppm (105 fluorescence photometry 24 hour — — µg/m3) (Paraosanline Method) Annual arithmetic — — — mean 30-day average 1.5 µg/m3 — — 1.5 µg/m3 High volume Calendar quarter — Atomic Lead11,12 (for certain areas)12 sampler and absorption Same as primary atomic absorption Rolling 3-month standard — 0.15 µg/m3 average Beta attenuation Extinction coefficient Visibility- and of 0.23 per reducing 8 hour transmittance kilometer—visibility particles13 through filter of 10 mile or more tape No Ion Sulfates 24 hour 25 µg/m3 National chromatography Standards Hydrogen Ultraviolet 1 hour 0.03 ppm (42 µg/m3) sulfide fluorescence Gas Vinyl chloride11 24 hour 0.01 ppm (26 µg/m3) chromatography Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million.
1. California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility-reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations.
2. National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-15 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
Table 3-3 Ambient Air Quality Standards Comparison
California Standards1 National Standards2 Pollutant Averaging Time Concentration3 Method4 Primary3,5 Secondary3,6 Method7
3 average concentration above 150 µg/m is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5, the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact EPA for further clarification and current national policies.
3. Concentration expressed first in units in which it was promulgated. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based upon a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas.
4. Any equivalent measurement method which can be shown to the satisfaction of CARB to give equivalent results at or near the level of the air quality standard may be used.
5. National Primary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health.
6. National Secondary Standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.
7. Reference method as described by EPA. An “equivalent method” of measurement may be used but must have a “consistent relationship to the reference method” and must be approved by EPA.
8. On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
9. 3 On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m3 to 12.0 μg/m . The existing national 24-hour 3 3 PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m , as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m . The existing 24-hour 3 PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m also were retained. The form of the annual primary and secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
10. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 98th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 100 ppb. Note that the national 1-hour standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the national 1-hour standard to the California standards the units can be converted from ppb to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 100 ppb is identical to 0.100 ppm.
11. On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum concentrations at each site must not exceed 75 ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards, the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved. Note that the 1-hour national standard is in units of parts per billion (ppb). California standards are in units of parts per million (ppm). To directly compare the 1-hour national standard to the California standard the units can be converted to ppm. In this case, the national standard of 75 ppb is identical to 0.075 ppm.
12. The CARB has identified lead and vinyl chloride as 'toxic air contaminants' with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants.
13. On The national standard for lead was revised on October 15, 2008 to a rolling 3-month average. The 1978 lead standard (1.5 μg/m3 as a quarterly average) remains in effect until 1 year after an area is designated for the 2008 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1978 standard, the 1978 standard remains in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2008 standard are approved.
14. In 1989, the CARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to instrumental equivalents, which are “extinction of 0.23 per kilometer” and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
Source: CARB 2019a
Areas that meet the primary standards are considered in “attainment” while areas with air quality not meeting the primary standards are in “nonattainment.” Of the six criteria pollutants, PM and ground-level ozone pose the most widespread threat to human health. Particle pollution poses the greatest threat to sensitive receptors, including children, the elderly, and asthmatics, as it impairs lung function. Particle pollution includes very fine soot and dust.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
CLEAN WATER ACT
The 1972 amendments to the federal Water Pollution Control Act (known as the Clean Water Act) provide the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point and nonpoint sources to waters of the United States. Several sections of the CWA pertain to regulating impacts on coastal and marine waters of the United States. Section 303 regulates total pollutant loads for impaired water bodies, including nearshore waters. Section 401 (Certification) delineates the requirements for water quality certification for federal permits and specifies additional requirements for permit review, typically at the State level. Section 402 of the CWA specifically requires EPA to develop and implement the NPDES. The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States is subject to permitting specified under Section 404 (Discharges of Dredge or Fill Material).
Section 303 CWA Section 303 and California’s Porter-Cologne Act (described below) require the State to adopt water quality standards to protect beneficial uses of state waters. CWA Section 303(d) established the total maximum daily load (TMDL) process to guide the application of State water quality standards (see a discussion of State water quality standards below). A TMDL is an estimate of the total load of pollutants from point, nonpoint, and natural sources that a water body may receive without exceeding applicable water quality standards (including a safety factor). Once established, the TMDL is allocated among current and future pollutant sources to the water body. TMDL candidate water bodies are identified from a list of surface water bodies that qualify as impaired as a result of the presence of certain pollutant(s). This is called a 303(d) list and represents a standardized inventory, updated biennially, of water quality-limited surface water bodies.
Section 401 CWA Section 401 requires that an applicant pursuing a federal permit to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge of a pollutant to obtain a water quality certification (or waiver). Water quality certifications are issued by the RWQCBs in California. Under the CWA, the State (via the applicable RWQCB) must issue or waive Section 401 water quality certification for any project permitted under Section 404. Water quality certification imposes project-specific conditions on development. A Section 401 waiver establishes standard conditions that apply to any project that qualifies for a waiver.
Section 402 Section 402 of the CWA established the NPDES permit program to control discharges of pollutants from point sources. The 1987 amendments to the CWA created a new section of the CWA devoted to stormwater permitting (Section 402[p]). The NPDES program is the primary federal program that regulates point-source and nonpoint- source discharges to waters of the United States. EPA has granted the State of California (SWRCB and the RWQCBs) primacy in administering and enforcing the provisions of the NPDES program.
Section 404 Areas meeting the regulatory definition of waters of the United States are subject to the jurisdiction of USACE. These waters may include all waters “used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (e.g., intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, and natural ponds), all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, tributaries of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, the territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to waters of the United States” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). USACE, under provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (1972) and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899), has jurisdiction over waters of the United States. Waters thus regulated are termed “jurisdictional waters.” Impacts to jurisdictional waters, including wetlands (a special category of water of the United States), require a permit from USACE and typically require mitigation. Impacts to wetlands often require compensation in-kind to ensure no net loss of extent and function of wetlands.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-17 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT
The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources and strives to balance economic development with environmental conservation. The Coastal Programs Division within NOAA’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management administers the program at the federal level. Since the federal approval of California’s Coastal Management Program, CCC manages development along the coast except for the San Francisco Bay, where the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) oversees development. CCC has the authority within the State of California to review federally licensed, permitted, or assisted activities in federal waters for consistency with the California Coastal Act if the activity affects coastal resources.
INTERNATIONAL RULES ACT
International Navigation Rules (Rules) were formalized in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGS) of 1972, and were adopted by Congress as the International Rules Act of 1977. The Rules include rules on steering and sailing, lookout, safe speed, risk of collision and actions to avoid collision, TSSs, conduct of vessels in sight of one another, and conduct of vessels in restricted visibility. The Rules also include specific requirements for vessels engaged in fishing, and vessels restricted in their maneuverability. These Rules are applicable on waters outside of established navigational lines of demarcation. The lines are called COLREGS Demarcation Lines and delineate those waters on which mariners must comply with inland and international rules. COLREGS Demarcation lines are contained in 33 CFR 80, the Navigation Rules manual.
CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, TITLE 33
The CFR is divided into 50 titles that represent broad subject areas subject to federal regulation. Title 33 governs Navigation and Navigable Waters within the United States. It is divided into three sections to reflect the three regulatory entities involved: the USCG, USACE, and Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. USCG is responsible for vessel inspection, marine terminal operations safety, coordination of federal responses to marine emergencies, enforcement of marine pollution statues, marine safety (navigation aids), and operation of the National Response Center for spill response and is the lead agency for offshore spill response. USACE regulations enforce navigational rules for vessel traffic near/in danger zones, restricted areas, and disposal and dumping areas. Federal regulations are codified in CFR Title 33, Navigation and Navigable Waters. Key elements applicable to California coastal waters are summarized as follows.
Demarcation Lines Lines of demarcation delineate those waters in which mariners must comply with COLREGS, and those waters in which mariners must comply with the Rules. The waters shoreward of the demarcation lines are regulated under the Rules; the waters ocean-ward of the lines are regulated under COLREGS. Demarcation lines have been established at the following locations along the California coast.
Santa Catalina Island (CFR 33 80.1102) Port Hueneme (CFR 33 80.1120)
San Diego Harbor, CA (CFR 33 80.1104) Channel Islands Harbor (CFR 33 80.1122)
Mission Bay (CFR 33 80.1106) Ventura Marina (CFR 33 80.1124)
Oceanside Harbor (CFR 33 80.1108) Santa Barbara Harbor (CFR 33 80.1126)
Dana Point Harbor (CFR 33 80.1110) San Luis Obispo Bay (CFR 33 80.1130)
Newport Bay (CFR 33 80.1112) Estero-Morro Bay (CFR 33 80.1132)
San Pedro Bay-Anaheim Bay (CFR 33 80.1114) Monterey Harbor (CFR 33 80.1134)
Redondo Harbor (CFR 33 80.1116) Moss Landing Harbor (CFR 33 80.1136)
Marina Del Rey (CFR 33 80.1118) Santa Cruz Harbor (CFR 33 80.1138) California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-18 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
Pillar Point Harbor (CFR 33 80.1140) Arcata-Humboldt Bay (CFR 33 80.1150)
San Francisco Harbor (CFR 33 80.1142) Crescent City Harbor (CFR 33 80.1152)
Bodega and Tomales Bay (CFR 33 80.1144)
Vessel Traffic Services and Movement Reporting Systems The national system of Vessel Traffic Services (VTS), which is operated by the USCG, has been established under 33 CFR 161 to enhance navigation, vessel safety, and marine environmental protection, and to promote safe vessel movement by reducing the potential for collisions, rammings, and groundings, and the loss of lives and property associated with these incidents. VTS provides mariners with information related to the safe navigation of a waterway gained through movement reporting systems. A vessel movement reporting system is a system used to monitor and track vessel movements within a specified area. Information is gathered from vessels that are required to provide information under established procedures set forth by the USCG. This information, coupled with the mariner’s compliance with the provisions set forth 33 CFR 161, enhances the safe routing of vessels through congested waterways or waterways of particular hazard. Under certain circumstances, VTS may issue directions to control the movement of vessels in order to minimize the risk of collision between vessels, or damage to property or the environment. The owner, operator, charterer, master, or person directing the movement of a vessel remains at all times responsible for the manner in which the vessel is operated and maneuvered and is responsible for the safe navigation of the vessel under all circumstances. Compliance with these rules or with a direction of the VTS is at all times contingent on the exigencies of safe navigation.
Regulated Navigation, Safety, and Security Zones The purposes of Regulated Navigation, Safety, and Security Zones (33 CFR 165) are to:
prescribe procedures for establishing different types of limited or controlled access areas and regulated navigation areas (RNAs),
prescribe general regulations for different types of limited or controlled access areas and RNAs,
prescribe specific requirements for established areas, and
list special navigation areas and their boundaries.
Shipping Safety Fairways The purpose of Shipping Safety Fairways (33 CFR 166) is to establish and designate shipping fairways and fairway anchorages to provide unobstructed approaches for vessels using United States ports. Offshore waters in high traffic areas are designated as safety fairways, which are frequently located between a port and a traffic separation scheme (TSS). Placement of surface structures, such as oil platforms, is prohibited within safety fairways to ensure safe navigation. USACE is prohibited from issuing permits for surface structures in offshore waters demarcated as safety fairways.
Traffic Separation Schemes A TSS is an internationally recognized vessel routing designation that separates opposing flows of vessel traffic into lanes, including a zone between lanes where traffic is to be avoided. TSSs have been designated to help direct vessel traffic offshore and along portions of the California coastline. Vessels are not required by law to use any designated TSS, but failure to use one, if available, would be a major factor for determining liability in the event of a collision. TSS designations in state and federal waters are proposed by the USCG, but must be approved by the International Maritime Organization, which is part of the United Nations. TSSs include the elements listed below. Area to be avoided: A routing measure comprising an area within defined limits in which navigation is particularly hazardous or discouraged to avoid casualties. The area should be avoided by all ships or certain classes of ships. Traffic lane: An area within defined limits in which one-way traffic is established. Natural obstacles, including those forming separation zones, may constitute a boundary. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-19 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
Separation zone or line: A zone or line separating the traffic lanes in which ships are proceeding in opposite or nearly opposite directions, separating a traffic lane from the adjacent sea area, or separating traffic lanes designated for particular classes of ships proceeding in the same direction. Precautionary area: A routing measure comprising an area within defined limits where ships must navigate with particular caution and within which the direction of traffic flow may be recommended. Deep-water route: An internationally recognized routing measure primarily intended for use by ships that, because of their draft in relation to the available depth of water in the area concerned, require the use of such a route. Two-way route: A route within defined limits inside which two-way traffic is established, aimed at providing safe passage of ships through waters where navigation is difficult or dangerous. TSSs are in place in the San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles/Long Beach areas (33 CFR 167).
Navigation Light Certification Requirements The purpose of Navigation Light Certification Requirements (33 CFR 183.810) are to establish navigation lighting standards for all vessels. Specification for lights vary depending upon the type of vessel but regardless of the light source:
Recreation vessel and uninspected commercial vessel navigation lights must meet American Boat & Yacht Council standard A-16, in accordance with specifications within 33 CFR 183.810 and 46 CFR 25.10-3.
Commercial inspected vessels must be outfitted with navigation lights that meet or exceed specification standards as stated in 46 CFR 111.75-17.
Lights and Warning Devices The purpose of Lights and Warning Devices (33 CFR 143.15) is to establish lighting and warning requirements for all facilities located within the outer continental shelf (all submerged land). All facilities must meet the lights and warning devices requirements under 33 CFR Part 67 concerning aids to navigation. Pursuant to Section 67.05-25, whenever a structure is erected in a position on or adjacent to the edges of navigable channels and fairways, or lines of demarcation, the District Commander is authorized to require the structure to be marked by the lights which in his judgment are necessary for the safety of marine commerce.
CONCENTRATED AQUATIC ANIMAL PRODUCTION NPDES REQUIREMENTS
In August 2004, EPA promulgated the Effluent Limitations Guidelines and New Source Performance Standards for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category (CAAP). These EPA-defined effluent limitations establish minimum standards that are enforced through the NPDES permitting system for CAAP facilities. The CAAP regulation establishes national technology-based effluent discharge requirements for aquaculture flow-through and recirculating systems and for net pens based on best practicable control technology currently available; best control technology for conventional pollutants; best available technology economically achievable; and new source performance standards. The EPA rule sets qualitative total suspended solids limitations in the form of solids control best management practice requirements. It does not include numeric effluent limitations for unconventional and toxic constituents, such as aquaculture drugs and chemicals, but instead relies on narrative limitations to address these constituents. The rule applies to discharges of wastewater from all aquaculture facilities in the marine environment that produce at least 20,000 pounds of cold-water fish, or 100,000 pounds of warm-water fish a year via (1) flow- through and recirculating systems that discharge wastewater at least 30 days a year, or (2) net pens or submerged cage systems (EPA 2006). Requirements of the rule state:
that all applicable facilities must:
prevent discharge of drugs and pesticides and minimize discharges of excess feed;
regularly maintain production and wastewater treatment systems;
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-20 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
keep records on numbers and weights of animals, amounts of feed, and frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repairs;
train staff to prevent and respond to spills and to properly operate and maintain production and wastewater treatment systems;
report the use of experimental animal drugs or drugs that are not used in accordance with FDA-approved requirements;
report failure of or damage to a containment system; and
develop, certify, and maintain a Best Management Practice plan that describes how the facility will meet these requirements.
that flow-through and recirculating discharge facilities must minimize the discharge of solids such as uneaten feed, settled solids, and animal carcasses into receiving waters; and
that open water system facilities must:
use active feed monitoring and other management strategies to allow only the least possible uneaten feed to accumulate beneath the nets;
properly dispose of feed bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and netting;
limit wastewater discharges resulting from the transport or harvest of animals; and
prevent the discharge of dead animals in the wastewater.
CORPORATE AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY
In October 2012, EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, on behalf of the U.S. Department of Transportation, issued final rules to further reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and improve corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for light-duty vehicles for model years 2017 and beyond (77 FR 62624). These rules would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon, limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of carbon dioxide per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025 (77 FR 62630). However, on April 2, 2018, the EPA administrator announced a final determination that the current standards are not appropriate and should be revised. It is not yet known what revisions will be adopted or when they will be implemented (EPA 2018).
ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT, AND CAFE STANDARDS
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 established nationwide fuel economy standards to conserve oil. Pursuant to this Act, the National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration, part of the U.S. Department of Transportation, is responsible for revising existing fuel economy standards and establishing new vehicle economy standards. The CAFE program was established to determine vehicle manufacturer compliance with the government’s fuel economy standards. Compliance with CAFE standards is determined based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy for the portion of their vehicles produced for sale in the United States. EPA calculates a CAFE value for each manufacturer based on the city and highway fuel economy test results and vehicle sales. The CAFE values are a weighted harmonic average of the EPA city and highway fuel economy test results. Based on information generated under the CAFE program, the U.S. Department of Transportation is authorized to assess penalties for noncompliance. Under the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (described below), the CAFE standards were revised for the first time in 30 years.
ENERGY POLICY ACT (1992 AND 2005) AND ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND SECURITY ACT OF 2007
The Energy Policy Act of 1992 was passed to reduce the country’s dependence on foreign petroleum and improve air quality. It includes several parts intended to build an inventory of alternative fuel vehicles in large, centrally-fueled California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-21 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
fleets in metropolitan areas. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy. The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 increased the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels; and reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020—an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent. By addressing renewable fuels and CAFE standards, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 will build on progress made by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 in setting out a comprehensive national energy strategy for the 21st century.
EPA EMISSIONS CONTROLS
All nonroad engines that are purchased in the United States must be tested by the manufacturer and certified by EPA. The emission limits are set to decrease in the future, and the emission limits are tiered according to manufacture date and the size of the engine.
Marine Vessels Marine diesel engines are used in a variety of different types of vessels ranging in size and application from small recreational boat to large ocean-going vessels. New marine diesel engines must meet increasingly stringent emissions requirements, yet these engines continue to emit significant amounts of NOX and PM, both of which contribute to serious public health problems (Title 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter C). In May 2004, as part of the Non-Road Diesel Tier 4 Rule, EPA finalized new requirements that decrease the allowable levels of sulfur in marine diesel fuel by 99 percent. These fuel improvements, which began to take effect in 2007, are creating significant environmental and public health benefits by reducing PM from new and existing engines (Title 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter U). In March 2008, EPA finalized a three-part program that further reduces emissions from marine diesel engines with per-cylinder displacement below 30 liters. These include marine propulsion engines used on vessels from recreational and small fishing boats to towboats, tugboats and Great Lake freighters, and marine auxiliary engines ranging from small generator sets to large generator sets on ocean-going vessels. The rule will cut PM emissions from these engines by as much as 90 percent and NOx emissions by as much as 80 percent when fully implemented (Title 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter C). The 2008 final rule includes the first-ever national emission standards for existing commercial marine diesel engines, applying to engines larger than 600 kilowatts when they are remanufactured (EPA 2009). The rule also sets Tier 3 emissions standards for newly built engines that are phasing in from 2009. Finally, the rule establishes Tier 4 standards for newly built commercial marine diesel engines above 600 kilowatts, based on the application of high- efficiency catalytic after treatment technology, phasing in beginning in 2014 (Title 40 CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter U).
FEDERAL ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY
The federal antidegradation policy is designed to protect existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect these uses, as well as environmental water quality and national water resources. The federal policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions (40 CFR 131.12):
Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.
Where the quality of waters exceed levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the State finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the State’s continuing
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-22 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.
Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national and state parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected.
FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Pursuant to the ESA (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.), USFWS or NMFS regulates the taking of species listed in the ESA as threatened or endangered. In general, persons subject to the ESA (including private parties) are prohibited from “taking” endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species on private property and from “taking” endangered or threatened plants in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of State law. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS and NMFS have also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in take. Section 10 of the ESA applies if a nonfederal agency is the lead agency for an action that results in take and no other federal agencies are involved in permitting the action. Section 7 of the ESA applies if a federal discretionary action is required (e.g., a federal agency must issue a permit), in which case the involved federal agency consults with USFWS or NMFS.
FEDERAL MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT
The MBTA, first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. Under the MBTA, “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities.” A take does not include habitat destruction or alteration, as long as there is not a direct taking of birds, nests, eggs, or parts thereof. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in CFR 50 10.13. The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States.
MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT
The MMPA (16 USC Chapter 31), first enacted in 1972, provides for protection of all marine mammals (whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions) in the United States. The MMPA provides that it shall be unlawful, with certain permitted exceptions, to take a marine mammal in waters of the United States. Under the MMPA, “take” is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill any marine mammal.”
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT
The federal Magnuson-Stevens Act (16 USC Section 1801 et seq.) is the primary law governing management of commercial and recreational marine fisheries in the United States. The purpose of this federal law is sevenfold: conserve fishery resources, support enforcement of international fishing agreements, promote fishing in line with conservation principles, provide for the implementation of fishery management plans to achieve optimal yield, establish regional fishery management councils to steward fishery resources, develop underutilized fisheries, and protect EFH. The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires federal agencies to consult with NMFS when a project has the potential to adversely affect EFH. State agencies are not required to consult with NMFS; however, NMFS is required to develop EFH conservation recommendations for any State agency activity that would affect EFH. Similar in concept to Critical
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-23 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
Habitat in the ESA, EFH protection measures recommended by NMFS or a regional fisheries management council are advisory and not prescriptive.
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT
Among those statutes enacted by Congress that affect historic properties, the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) is the most significant law that addresses historic preservation. One of the most important provisions of the NHPA is the establishment of the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the official designation of historical resources. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects are eligible for listing in the Register. Nominations are listed if they are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture. The NRHP is administered by the National Park Service. The NRHP is the nation’s master inventory of known historic resources. It includes listings of buildings, structures, sites, objects, and districts that possess historic, architectural, engineering, archaeological, and cultural value. Listing in the NRHP does not entail specific protection or assistance for a property but it does guarantee recognition in planning for federal or federally-assisted projects, eligibility for federal tax benefits, and qualification for federal historic preservation assistance. Additionally, project effects on properties listed in the NRHP must be evaluated under CEQA.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Federal protection of cultural resources is legislated by (a) the NHPA of 1966 as amended by 16 U.S. Code 470, (b) the Archaeological Resource Protection Act of 1979, and (c) the Advisory Council on Historical Preservation. Section 106 of the NHPA and accompanying regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 800) constitute the main federal regulatory framework guiding cultural resources investigations and require consideration of effects on properties that are listed in, or may be eligible for listing in the NRHP. These laws and organizations maintain processes for determination of the effects on historical properties eligible for listing in the NRHP. Listing on the NRHP and compliance with Section 106 is relevant to future projects requiring federal permitting.
NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION
NOAA manages 13 national marine sanctuaries and two marine national monuments in the United States. The West Coast Regional office manages five MPAs that encompass 15,333 square miles along the western coast. California marine sanctuaries include the Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, and Monterey Bay. Each of the California marine sanctuaries provides comprehensive and coordinated conservation management through the implementation of a management plan. Each management plan includes a policy framework that guides current and future activities within the sanctuary. Future aquaculture operations seeking permits to operate within a sanctuary, would be assessed by the sanctuary administrator and be required to comply with that sanctuary’s specific regulations and interagency coordination agreements with the State
NATIONAL SCENIC BYWAYS PROGRAM
Several highways along the California coast are designated as either National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads under the National Scenic Byway Program, implemented by the Federal Highway Administration. Roadways are designated as National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads based on their scenic, historic, recreational, cultural, archaeological, or natural intrinsic qualities. Roads must meet criteria for at least one of these qualities to be considered a National Scenic Byway. The All- American Roads designation requires that the criteria be met for multiple intrinsic qualities. Designation of a highway for inclusion in the National Scenic Byways Program requires the preparation at the local level of a corridor management plan for the preservation and enhancement of the road’s scenic qualities and the promotion of tourism and economic development. Local authorities are also responsible for implementing development regulations within the corridor, such as zoning, to preserve its scenic qualities (Federal Highway Administration 1995).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-24 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM
USFWS manages the 150-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes 40 refuge and management areas in California. The National Wildlife Refuge System sets aside public lands and waters as refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants. These lands provide for certain recreational uses. USFWS manages these refuges under the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act. This act gives refuge managers discretion to decide on proper uses of the refuges. However, USFWS regulations state that private economic use of natural resources in a wildlife refuge must contribute to achieving “national wildlife refuge purposes or the National Wildlife Refuge System mission (50 CFR Section 29.1).
REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS
An RNA is a region of water where the local district commander has the authority to regulate vessels deemed to be hazardous or facing hazardous conditions. RNAs are defined by USCG. They can incorporate a variety of subregions, such as Safety Zones, Defense Areas, Security Zones, and Regulated Areas. Within an RNA, the local district commander has the authority to regulate vessels deemed to be hazardous or facing hazardous conditions. Regulations include vessel size, speed, draft limitations, and other operating conditions, as well as times of entry, exit, and specific movements. The district commander’s authority includes a formalized TSS that helps to maintain and control commercial and large vessel two‐way movements through a series of designated and adjoining lanes and turnabout locations. VTS is a complementary program that provides advice, control, and management of participating vessels. A primary distinction between the two programs is that the TSS is a physically mapped suite of locations, subject to Rule 10 of the Rules, while the VTS is a staffed facility that communicates with crews of the vessels to facilitate their safe passage.
RIVERS AND HARBORS ACT SECTION 10
The Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 (33 USC 403), commonly known as the Rivers and Harbors Act, prohibits construction of certain structures over or in navigable waterways of the United States without congressional approval. Under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, USACE is authorized to permit structures or work in navigable waters. The construction and placement of aquaculture structures such as shellfish culture rafts or net pens in navigable waters requires USACE approval (Section 10 permit). When reviewing applications for Section 10 permits, USACE reviews proposals for consistency with maintaining established navigation channels.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations. A wide range of sources, from industrial plants to motor vehicles, emit TACs. The health effects associated with TACs are quite diverse and generally are assessed locally, rather than regionally. TACs can cause long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, bronchitis or genetic damage; or short-term acute affects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation (a cough), running nose, throat pain, and headaches. For evaluation purposes, TACs are separated into carcinogens and noncarcinogens based on the nature of the physiological effects associated with exposure to the pollutant. Carcinogens are assumed to have no safe threshold below which health impacts would not occur. This contrasts with criteria air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and for which the ambient standards have been established (Table 3-3). Cancer risk from TACs is expressed as excess cancer cases per 1 million exposed individuals, typically over a lifetime of exposure.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-25 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
EPA and, in California, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum available control technology or best available control technology for toxics to limit emissions.
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES PRESERVATION ACT
Enacted as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (2009), the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise. The PRPA includes specific provisions addressing management of these resources by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, USFWS, and the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. The PRPA affirms the authority for many of the policies the federal land managing agencies already have in place for the management of paleontological resources, such as issuing permits for collecting paleontological resources, curation of paleontological resources, and confidentiality of locality data.
U.S. BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT PUBLIC LANDS
BLM manages 15.2 million acres of public lands in California. BLM lands allow for a variety of recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, boating, hang-gliding, mountain biking, and bird-watching. BLM administers the King Range National Conservation Area along the Humboldt County and Mendocino County coast, the rocks and islands off the entire California coast as the California Coastal National Monument, and a number of other small coastal properties. Aquaculture operations or incidental structures proposed in these areas would have to work closely with the BLM to determine project feasibility and comply with BLM’s limitations.
U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION
The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM) regulates the manufacture, distribution, and use of animal drugs. CVM approves the use of new animal drugs based on data provided by a sponsor (usually a drug company). To be approved by CVM, an animal drug must be safe and effective when used as directed for treated animals, persons administering the treatment, and the environment, including non-target organisms. New animal drugs approved by FDA for use on certain fish species are intended for specific disease conditions, dosages, and withdrawal times. Product withdrawal times must be observed to ensure that any product used on animals at a concentrated aquatic animal production facility does not exceed legal tolerance levels in the animal tissue. FDA has screened these drugs to determine whether they cause significant adverse public health or environmental impacts when used in accordance with label instructions. New animal drugs approved for use in aquaculture include:
antibiotics, of which the only approved drugs that could be used in California marine waters are oxytetracycline hydrochloride, oxytetracycline dehydrate, florfenicol, and sulphadimethoxine and ormetoprim;
chorionic gonadotropin, used to induce spawning;
tricaine methanesulfonate, an anesthetic; and
formalin, used as a fungus and parasite treatment. A second category of therapeutants, identified as “investigational new animal drugs” (INAD), can be used only under an exemption. INAD exemptions are granted by FDA to permit the use of unapproved drugs for investigational purposes and must be renewed each year. Numerous FDA requirements must be met for the establishment and maintenance of INAD drugs. FDA reviews test protocols, authorizes specific conditions of use, and closely monitors drug use under an INAD exemption. Data recording and reporting are required under the INAD exemption to support the approval of a new animal drug or an extension of approval for new uses of the drug.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-26 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
A third category of drugs is comprised of unapproved new animal drugs classified as low regulatory priority (LRP). LRP drugs do not require a new animal drug application or INAD exemptions from the FDA. Further regulatory action is unlikely to be taken by FDA on LRP drugs as long as (1) an appropriate grade of the drug or chemical is used, (2) drugs are used for the prescribed uses and dosages, (3) good management practices are followed, and 4) local environmental requirements are met. Example LRP drugs are:
acetic acid (parasite dip used on fish that breaks down into water and carbon dioxide),
PVP iodine (disinfectant used for fish eggs),
carbon dioxide gas or sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) (an anesthetic), and
sodium chloride (salt) (osmotic regulation and to reduce stress and shock). A fourth category of chemicals is deferred decision chemicals, which include those already approved by EPA as algaecides in aquaculture settings. Examples of deferred decision chemicals include:
copper sulfate, and
potassium permanganate.
3.7.2 State
BASIN PLAN DESIGNATED BENEFICIAL USES AND WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Each RWQCB is guided by a basin plan that identifies designated beneficial uses of the surface water bodies and groundwater basins, water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses, and implementation plans and policies for water quality protection. Basin plans are required to be updated every 3 years and provide the technical basis for permitting waste discharges and taking enforcement actions. The basin plans contain specific numeric surface water quality objectives for bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, pesticides, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, temperature, turbidity, and trace elements, as well as numerous qualitative water quality objectives.
CALIFORNIA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL LAWS
CARB was established in 1967. It has set California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), presented in Table 3-3 (CARB 2019a), that are more stringent than the NAAQS for most contaminants. These include standards for additional contaminants not covered in the NAAQS, including visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The California Clean Air Act was passed in 1988 and requires that nonattainment areas achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest time practicable, and local air districts to develop attainment plans for State standards. CARB regulates mobile source emissions in the state, while local air quality management district’s permit stationary sources. For commercial harbor craft, CARB conducts regulatory activities to reduce diesel PM, NOX, and reactive organic gases (ROG). Specific regulations implemented by CARB pertain to engine specifications and fuel use requirements.
CALIFORNIA COASTAL ACT
The California Coastal Act regulates development in the coastal zone, which covers the area between 3 nm seaward and up to 5 miles inland of the mean high tide line. Development in this zone requires a CDP, granted by either CCC or a city or county that has adopted an approved LCP. Section 30222.5 of the California Coastal Act states that land suitable for coastal dependent aquaculture shall be protected for that use, and proposals for aquaculture use on those lands shall be given priority, except over other coastal dependent developments and uses. Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act requires that permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. Development permitted under a CDP is required to be sited and designed to protect views of the ocean and scenic
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-27 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
coastal areas and to minimize alteration of the existing scenic setting. CCC also has the authority to review federal and private permit applications in offshore waters for consistency with the federal Coastal Zone Management Act.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
California Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks) manages more than 280 park units, including underwater preserves, reserves, parks, and state beaches. California State Parks is responsible for managing a large segment of California’s scenic coastline, including coastal wetlands, estuaries, beaches, and dune systems. Its jurisdiction includes more than 280 miles of coastline. California State Parks is charged with preparing and adopting a park general plan for each facility. The park general plan directs the long-range development and management of a park by providing broad policy and program guidance. Many of these facilities are located within or near key shellfish aquaculture areas, including Humboldt, Tomales, and Morro Bays.
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Pursuant to CESA, a permit from CDFW is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the State as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species but does not include “harm” or “harass,” as does the federal definition. As a result, the threshold for take is higher under CESA than under ESA. Authorization for take of State- listed species can be obtained through a California Fish and Game Code Section 2081 incidental take permit.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “historical resources,” “unique archaeological resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Pursuant to PRC Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 21083.2 requires agencies to determine whether projects would have effects on unique archaeological resources.
Historical Resources Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (PRC Section 21084.1; determining significant impacts to historical and archaeological resources is described in the State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.5[a] and [b]). Under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a), historical resources include the following:
A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (PRC Section 5024.1).
A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the Public Resources Code, will be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies must treat any such resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally significant.
Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California may be considered to be a historical resource, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. Generally, a resource will be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC, Section 5024.1), including the following:
Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;
Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-28 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values;
Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history; or
The fact that a resource is not listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, not included in a local register of historical resources (pursuant to PRC Section 5020.1[k]), or identified in a historical resources survey (meeting the criteria in PRC Section 5024.1[g]) does not preclude a lead agency from determining that the resource may be an historical resource as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(j) or 5024.1.
Unique Archaeological Resources CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact unique archaeological resources. PRC Section 21083.2, subdivision (g), states that unique archaeological resource means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: 1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
Tribal Cultural Resources CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will impact tribal cultural resources. PRC Section 21074 states the following: Tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:
Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.
Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1.
A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape.
A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it conforms with the criteria of subdivision (a).
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Caltrans manages the state highway system and ramp interchange intersections. Caltrans is also responsible for highway, bridge, and rail transportation planning, construction, and maintenance. Federal highway standards for interstate highways are implemented in California by Caltrans. Environmental planning for transportation improvement projects involving California state highways follow the procedures set forth in the agency’s Standard Environmental Reference and Section V of Guidance for Compliance Environmental Handbook. This guidance is intended for transportation-specific improvement projects where Caltrans operates as the CEQA lead agency but can also be used by local agencies for ideas supplemental to their own procedures.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-29 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
Caltrans provides guidance to local agencies on assessing the performance of rural roadways to enhance safety, mobility, accessibility and productivity under continued use. Caltrans requires transportation permits for the movement of vehicles or loads exceeding the limitations on the size and weight contained in Division 15, Chapter 5, Article 1, Section 35551, of the California Vehicle Code.
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE SECTIONS 3503 AND 3503.5—PROTECTION OF BIRD NESTS AND RAPTORS
FGC Section 3503 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. FGC Section 3503.5 states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests as a result of tree removal or disturbance caused by project construction or other activities that cause the adults to abandon the nest, resulting in loss of eggs and/or young.
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE SECTION 1602
Activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream, substantially change its bed, channel or bank, or utilize any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed, require that the lease applicant enter into a Streambed Alteration Agreement with CDFW pursuant to FGC Section 1602. The definition of streams includes “intermittent and ephemeral streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue-line streams, and watercourses with subsurface flows.” Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance can also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife.
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE SECTIONS 15000–15703—AQUACULTURE
FGC Sections 15000 through 15703 (Division 12) provide a framework for regulation of aquaculture operations in California. The Code includes regulations for brood stock acquisition, leasing of state water bottoms, disease control, and importation of shellfish and finfish. Pursuant to FGC Section 15400, the commission may lease state water bottoms or the water column to any person for aquaculture, including, but not limited to, marine finfish aquaculture. No state leases shall be issued, unless the commission determines that the lease is in the public interest in a public hearing conducted in a fair and transparent manner, with notice and comment, in accordance with commission procedures. In addition, pursuant to Section 15411 lessees may not unreasonably impede public access to state waters for purpose of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation. The lessee may, however, limit public access to the extent necessary to avoid damage to the leasehold and the aquatic life culture therein.
CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS
CCR Title 24, Part 6 is California’s Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Non-Residential Buildings. Title 24 Part 6 was established by the California Energy Commission (CEC) in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy-efficiency standards for residential and nonresidential buildings. In 2016, CEC updated Title 24 standards again, effective January 1, 2017. The 2019 Title 24 Part 6 Building Energy Efficiency Standards were adopted by CEC on May 9, 2018 and will take effect on January 1, 2020. The standards are designed to move the state closer to its zero net energy goals for new residential development. Nonresidential buildings are anticipated to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent compared to the 2016 standards primarily through prescriptive requirements for high-efficacy lighting (CEC 2018). The building efficiency standards are enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary in response to local climatologic, geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards are demonstrated to be cost effective and exceed the energy performance required by Title 24 Part 6.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-30 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
CALIFORNIA HARBORS AND NAVIGATION CODE
The California Harbors and Navigation Code provides local regulations related to marine vessel navigation of California coastal waters. The code, which is administered by the California Department of Boating and Waterways, establishes regulations covering equipment and the operations of vessels on all state waters. The code governs aspects of boating from liens to operation of equipment and vessels, crews, cargo, and pilot licensing.
CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES
This California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is published by the State of California, Caltrans and is issued to adopt uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California. The addressed temporary traffic control (TTC), which applies when the normal function of the roadway, or a private road open to public travel, is suspended and is intended to provide for the reasonably safe and effective movement of road users through or around TTC zones while reasonably protecting road users, workers, responders to traffic incidents, and equipment. TTC planning provides for continuity of the movement of motor vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic (including accessible passage); transit operations; and access to property and utilities. TTC plans should be prepared by persons knowledgeable about the fundamental principles of TTC and work activities to be performed, and the design, selection, and placement of TTC devices for a TTC plan should be based on engineering judgment.
CALIFORNIA OCEAN PLAN
The California Ocean Plan, also known as Water Quality Control Plan for Ocean Waters of California, was formulated and adopted by SWRCB with the goal of protection of the quality of the ocean waters for use and enjoyment by the people of the state by requiring control of the discharge of waste into ocean waters. As part of the California Ocean Plan, the SWRCB-designated Areas of Special Biological Significance within ocean areas requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that maintenance of natural water quality is assured. Thirty-four Areas of Special Biological Significance have been designated by SWRCB off the coast of California because the areas support an unusual variety of aquatic life, and often host unique species.
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
All properties in California that are listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are eligible for the CRHR. The CRHR is a listing of State of California resources that are significant within the context of California’s history. The CRHR is a statewide program of similar scope and with similar criteria for inclusion as those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR. A historic resource must be significant at the local, State, or national level under one or more of the criteria defined in the California Code of Regulations Title 15, Chapter 11.5, Section 4850 to be included in the CRHR. The CRHR criteria are similar to the NRHP criteria and are tied to CEQA because any resource that meets the criteria below is considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. As noted above, all resources listed in or formally determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically listed in the CRHR. The CRHR uses four evaluation criteria: 1. Is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2. Is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. 4. Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California or the nation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-31 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
CALIFORNIA SCENIC HIGHWAY PROGRAM
The California Scenic Highways Program was created by the California Scenic Highway Law in 1963 with the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic highway corridors from any change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State Scenic Highways are those highways that are either officially designated by Caltrans or are eligible for designation. The statewide system of scenic highways is part of the Master Plan of State Highways Eligible for Official State Designation as Scenic Highways. Scenic highway nominations are evaluated using the following criteria:
The proposed scenic highway is principally within an unspoiled native habitat and showcases the unique aspects of the landscape, agriculture, or man-made water features.
Existing visual intrusions do not significantly impact the scenic corridor.
Strong local support for the proposed scenic highway designation is demonstrated.
The length of the proposed scenic highway is not short or segmented. A highway’s status changes from “eligible” to “officially designated” when the local jurisdiction adopts a Scenic Corridor Protection Program, applies to Caltrans for scenic highway approval, and receives notification from Caltrans that the highway has been designated as an official State Scenic Highway. Once a scenic highway is designated, the responsibility lies with the local jurisdiction to regulate development within the scenic highway corridor where the local agency has land use jurisdiction.
CALIFORNIA STATE LANDS COMMISSION
The CSLC has jurisdiction over a 3-nm-wide section of tidal and submerged lands adjacent to the coast and offshore islands. These lands include bays, estuaries, and lagoons, as well as the waters and underlying beds of lakes, rivers, streams, and sloughs. CSLC may grant permits and issue land use leases for activities within its jurisdiction. The agency does not have a comprehensive use plan but manages lands according to State laws and regulations. It does not have direct leasing jurisdiction over aquaculture, as that was legislatively granted to CDFW, but would review aquaculture projects for potential conflicts with other uses approved by CSLC.
CALIFORNIA STATUTES DEALING WITH HUMAN REMAINS
The disturbance of human remains without the authority of law is considered a felony (California Health and Safety Code Section 7052). If human remains are Native American in origin, they are within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (California Health and Safety Code Section 7052.5c, PRC Section 5097.98). According to State law (California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, PRC Section 5097.98), if human remains are discovered or recognized in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there will be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until:
the county coroner has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required, and
if the remains are of Native American origin,
the descendants from the deceased Native Americans have made a recommendation to the landowner or person responsible for the excavation work for means of treating or disposing of with appropriate dignity the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98, or
Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendent or the descendent failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified. According to the California Health and Safety Code, six or more human burials at one location constitute a cemetery (Section 8100), and disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony (Section 7052).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-32 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
CARB’S PROGRAMS AND STANDARDS
As part of its Advanced Clean Cars program, CARB established more stringent GHG emission standards and fuel efficiency standards for fossil fuel–powered on-road vehicles. In addition, the program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025 (CARB 2016a:15). By 2025, when the rules will be fully implemented, GHG emissions from the statewide fleet of new cars and light-duty trucks will be reduced by 34 percent and cars will emit 75 percent less smog-forming pollution than the statewide fleet in 2016 (CARB 2016b:1). Executive Order B-48-18, signed into law in January 2018, requires all State entities to work with the private sector to have at least 5 million zero-emission vehicles on the road by 2030, as well as 200 hydrogen fueling stations and 250,000 electric vehicle–charging stations installed by 2025. It specifies that 10,000 of these charging stations must be direct-current fast chargers. CARB adopted the Low Carbon Fuel Standard in 2007 to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels. The standard applies to fuels used by on-road motor vehicles and by off-road vehicles, including construction equipment (Wade, pers. comm., 2017).
COMMUNICATION AND CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
AB 52, signed by the California Governor in September of 2014, established a new class of resources under CEQA: “tribal cultural resources,” defined in PRC 21074. Pursuant to PRC Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3, state that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation before the release of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration. As stated in PRC Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2, the lead agency must provide formal notification, in writing, to the tribes that have requested notification of proposed projects in the lead agency’s jurisdiction within 14 days of determining that a project application is complete or to undertake a particular project. If it wishes to engage in consultation on the project, the tribe must respond to the lead agency within 30 days of receipt of the formal notification. The lead agency must begin the consultation process with the tribes that have requested consultation within 30 days of receiving the request for consultation. Consultation concludes when either: 1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a tribal cultural resource, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a tribal cultural resource, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, provisions under PRC Section 21084.3 (b) describe mitigation measures that may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts.
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, and the above-mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard- setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to attain and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and area-wide emission sources and provides air districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-33 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
EXECUTIVE ORDER S-06-06
Executive Order S-06-06, signed on April 25, 2006, establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower, and directs State agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. The Executive Order establishes the following target to increase the production and use of bioenergy, including ethanol and biodiesel fuels made from renewable resources: produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels within California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. As of 2015, 3.2 percent of the total electricity system power in California was derived from biomass.
FULLY PROTECTED SPECIES UNDER THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
Protection of fully protected species is described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species and do not provide for authorization of incidental take.
LEGISLATION ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTRICITY GENERATION
The State has passed legislation requiring the increasing use of renewables to produce electricity for consumers. California utilities are required to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011); 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018); 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018); and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018).
MARINE LIFE MANAGEMENT ACT
The Marine Life Management Act (FGC Sections 90 through 99.5, 105, 7050 through 7090, 8585 through 8589.7, 8842, and 9001.7) established an ecosystem-based fisheries management system and delegated greater management authority to the FGC and to CDFW. It required CDFW to prepare fishery management plans for abalone, herring, lobster, nearshore fisheries, sea urchin, squid, and white seabass and a master plan to prioritize fisheries according to the need for comprehensive management through fishery management plans. Fishery management plans were prepared and a master plan was subsequently completed and provided to the FGC in 2018.
MARINE LIFE PROTECTION ACT
The Marine Life Protection Act (FGC Section 2850 et seq.) requires CDFW to develop a master plan for modification of existing and designation of new MPAs. MPAs function as a network to increase coherence and effectiveness in protecting the state’s marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as to improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems subject to minimal human disturbance. MPAs have been established in the Northern California, North Central California, Central California, and Southern California regions.
MCATEER PETRIS ACT
The McAteer-Petris Act was enacted in 1965 to prevent uncoordinated, haphazard filling in San Francisco Bay. It established BCDC and recognized that water-oriented land uses along the bay shoreline are essential to the public welfare of the bay area. The McAteer-Petris Act enables BCDC to manage the coastal zone of the San Francisco Bay and gives BCDC jurisdiction over areas subject to tidal action including submerged lands and the shoreline up to 100 feet inland. Thus, CCC’s jurisdiction does not extend into or around the San Francisco Bay. Under the direction of the McAteer-Petris Act, BCDC completed and adopted the San Francisco Bay Plan, which outlines the policies to guide future uses of the Bay and shoreline. Under the McAteer-Petris Act and with guidance from the Bay Plan, BCDC regulates land use through a permitting system.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-34 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF TOXICS STANDARDS FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS, ENCLOSED BAYS, AND ESTUARIES OF CALIFORNIA
In 1994, SWRCB and EPA agreed to a coordinated approach for addressing priority toxic pollutants in inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries. In March 2000, SWRCB adopted the Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California, commonly referred to as the state implementation plan (SIP) for priority toxic pollutant water quality criteria contained in the California Toxics Rule. The SIP also implements National Toxics Rule criteria and applicable priority pollutant objectives in the basin plans. EPA established the California Toxics Rule in May 2000. In combination, the California Toxics Rule, National Toxics Rule, applicable basin plan objectives, existing RWQCB beneficial use designations, and the SIP compose water quality standards and implementation procedures for priority toxic pollutants in non-open surface waters in California.
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, passed in 1969, implements the CWA in California. It established SWRCB and divided the state into nine regions, each overseen by a RWQCB. Six of the RWQCBs (North Coast, San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego) adjoin marine waters and have the authority to regulate marine aquaculture. SWRCB is the primary State agency responsible for protecting the quality of the state’s surface water and groundwater supplies, but much of its routine implementation authority is delegated to the RWQCBs. In general, SWRCB manages water rights and statewide regulation of water quality, while the RWQCBs focus exclusively on water quality in their regions.
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE, SECTION 5097.9 (NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE)
PRC Section 5097.9 states that no public agency or private party on a public property shall “interfere with the free expression or exercise of Native American Religion.” It also states, “No such agency or party [shall] cause severe or irreparable damage to any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or sacred shrine….”
SENATE BILL 100: CALIFORNIA RENEWABLES PORTFOLIO STANDARD PROGRAM
SB 100 requires that all California utilities, including independently-owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators, supply 44 percent of retail sales from renewable resources by December 31, 2024, 50 percent of all electricity sold by December 31, 2026, 52 percent by December 31, 2027, and 60 percent by December 31, 2030. Finally, the law requires that eligible renewable energy resources and zero-carbon resources supply 100 percent of retail sales of electricity to California end-use customers and 100 percent of electricity procured to serve all State agencies by December 31, 2045.
SENATE BILL 375
In addition to regulations that address tailpipe emissions and transportation fuels, the State legislature has passed regulations to address the amount of driving by on-road vehicles. Since passage of SB 375 in 2008, CARB requires metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to adopt plans showing reductions in GHG emissions from passenger cars and light trucks in their respective regions for 2020 and 2035 (CARB 2018a:1). These plans link land use and housing allocation to transportation planning and related mobile-source emissions. In March 2018, CARB promulgated revised targets tasking MPOs to achieve further GHG reductions by 2020 and 2035, with specific targets for each MPO (CARB 2018a:1).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-35 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
SENATE BILL 743
SB 743, passed in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. As stated in the legislation, upon adoption of the new guidelines, “automobile delay, as described solely by LOS or similar measures of vehicular capacity or traffic congestion shall not be considered a significant impact on the environment pursuant to this division, except in locations specifically identified in the guidelines, if any.” OPR published its proposal for the comprehensive updates to the CEQA Guidelines in November 2017 which included proposed updates related to analyzing transportation impacts pursuant to Senate Bill 743. These updates indicated that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) be the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts. In December of 2018, OPR published the most recent version of the Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts (December 2018) which provides guidance for VMT analysis. The Office of Administrative Law approved the updated CEQA Guidelines and lead agencies will have an opt-in period until July 1, 2020 to implement the updated guidelines. As noted in the updated guidelines, agencies are directed to choose metrics that are appropriate for their jurisdiction to evaluate the potential impacts of a project in terms of VMT. The guidance provided thus far relative to VMT significance criteria is focused on residences, offices, and retail uses which would not generally apply to marine aquaculture uses associated with the Proposed Program. For rural land uses, OPR guidance states that for projects in rural areas outside of an MPO, as in the case of many locations of the treatable landscape, fewer options may be available for reducing VMT and significance thresholds may be best determined on a case-by-case basis
STATE NONDEGRADATION POLICY
In 1968, as required under the federal antidegradation policy described previously, SWRCB adopted a nondegradation policy aimed at maintaining high quality for waters in California. The nondegradation policy states that the disposal of wastes into state waters shall be regulated to achieve the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and to promote the peace, health, safety, and welfare of the people of the state. The policy states:
Where the existing quality of water is better than required under existing water quality control plans, such quality would be maintained until it has been demonstrated that any change would be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state and would not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial uses of such water.
Any activity which produces waste or increases the volume or concentration of waste and which discharges to existing high-quality waters would be required to meet waste discharge requirements.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. Research, public participation, and scientific peer review are required before CARB can designate a substance as a TAC. To date, CARB has identified more than 21 TACs and adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, PM exhaust from diesel engines (diesel PM) was added to CARB’s list of TACs. After a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts a control measure for applicable sources. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate best available control technology to minimize TAC emissions. The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare an inventory of toxic emissions, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-36 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
AB 617 of 2017 aims to help protect air quality and public health in communities around industries subject to the State’s cap-and-trade program for GHG emissions. AB 617 imposes a new State-mandated local program to address nonvehicular sources (e.g., refineries, manufacturing facilities) of criteria air pollutants and TACs. AB 617 requires CARB to identify high-pollution areas and directs air districts to focus air quality improvement efforts through adoption of community emission reduction programs within these identified areas. Currently, air districts review individual sources and impose emissions limits on emitters based on best available control technology, pollutant type, and proximity to nearby existing land uses. This bill addresses the cumulative and additive nature of air pollutant health effects by requiring communitywide air quality assessment and emission reduction planning. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportation-related mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). Over time, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile-source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1-3- butadiene, diesel PM) have been reduced significantly over the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., low-emission vehicle/clean fuels and Phase II reformulated gasoline regulations) and control technologies. With implementation of CARB’s Risk Reduction Plan, it is expected that diesel PM concentrations will be 85 percent less in 2020 in comparison to year 2000 (CARB 2000). Adopted regulations are also expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions emitted by cars and light-duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions will also be reduced.
REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL HARBOR CRAFT
In 2007, CARB adopted the commercial harbor craft regulation, which requires engines on all new vessels to meet applicable EPA marine engine emission standards at the time the vessel is acquired (CARB 2019b). The regulation is intended to reduce emissions of PM, NOX, and ROG from diesel engines used on commercial harbor craft operated in regulated California waters (within 24 nm of the California coast). The rule will be fully implemented by the end of 2022 (CARB 2019b). See the “EPA Emissions Controls” section in the federal regulations section for a more detailed discussion of EPA marine engine emission standards.
STATEWIDE GHG EMISSION TARGETS AND THE CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN
Reducing GHG emissions in California has been the focus of the State government for approximately two decades (State of California 2018). GHG emission targets established by the State legislature include reducing statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (AB 32 of 2006) and reducing them to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 (SB 32 of 2016). Executive Order S-3-05 calls for statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Executive Order B-55-18 calls for California to achieve carbon neutrality by 2045 and achieve and maintain net negative GHG emissions thereafter. These targets are in line with the scientifically established levels needed in the United States to limit the rise in global temperature to no more than 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions, such as super droughts and rising sea levels, are projected; these targets also pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5 degrees Celsius (United Nations 2015:3). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, prepared by CARB, outlines the main strategies California will implement to achieve the legislated GHG emission target for 2030 and “substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goals” (CARB 2017:1, 3, 5, 20, 25–26). It identifies the reductions needed by each GHG emission sector (e.g., transportation, industry, electricity generation, agriculture, commercial and residential, pollutants with high global warming potential, and recycling and waste). CARB and other State agencies are currently developing a Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan consistent with the carbon neutrality goal of Executive Order B-55-18.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-37 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
3.7.3 Local
AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT AGENCIES
The following local air quality management agencies have jurisdiction in the study region: the North Coast Unified Air Pollution Control District, Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD), Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). EPA has established NAAQS for which CARB and these districts have primary implementation responsibility. CARB and the districts are also responsible for ensuring that CAAQS are met. The districts are responsible for helping achieve emissions reductions in line with the SIPs for specific pollutants through implementation of strategies for reducing emissions of specific pollutants for the which the district is in nonattainment. The districts are also responsible for recommending mitigation measures for new growth and development in their air quality plans to ensure consistency with the SIPs. Any person or public entity proposing to construct, modify, or operate a facility or equipment that may emit pollutants from a stationary source into the atmosphere must obtain an Authority to Construct from the regional air pollution control district (APCD) or air quality management district (AQMD), collectively referred to as air districts. Air districts issue permits and monitor new and modified sources of air pollution to ensure compliance with federal, State, and local emission standards. Each air district determines which emission sources and levels have significant impacts on air quality and, therefore, are exempt from permit requirements. Local air districts also determine appropriate best available technology that must be applied to specific equipment, and/or other mitigation measures that must be applied. All future aquaculture projects would be required to assess air quality impacts under project-specific CEQA determinations. All of the above air districts have established CEQA Guidelines establishing either qualitative or numerical thresholds for CEQA significance. In some cases, the air districts’ CEQA guidelines require proscriptive mitigation measures that must be implemented if the project would result in a significant air quality impact based on its emissions. Below is a brief discussion of the significance thresholds developed by each of the districts in which new aquaculture facilities could be built.
North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District The NCUAQMD has not developed formal CEQA air quality guidance to specify significance thresholds. The NCUAQMD advises that CEQA significance for a project should be triggered if the project’s emissions exceed the New Source Review significant emission rates listed in the NCUAQMD’s Rule 101 (NCUAQMD 2009). The significant emission rates for pollutants relevant to aquaculture projects are presented in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4 North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds
Significance Thresholds Pollutant Daily (pounds per day) Annual (per year) Carbon monoxide 500 100 Oxides of nitrogen 50 40
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 80 15
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 50 10 Reactive organic gases 50 40 Source: NCUAQMD 2009
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-38 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
Mendocino County Air Quality Management District The air district adopted CEQA significance thresholds for air quality on June 2, 2010 (MCAQMD 2010) (Table 3-5). Impacts should be considered significant if the project’s emissions exceed any of the following thresholds:
Estimated ambient concentrations of any criteria air pollutant exceed one half the Prevention of Significant Deterioration increment as defined in Regulation 1 of the AQMD regulation.
The release of air toxics causing a cancer risk exceeds 10 in 1 million or a Hazard Index value of 0.1 for acute or chronic toxicity.
Table 3-5 Mendocino County Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day) Pollutant Construction Operation Reactive organic gases 54 180 Oxides of nitrogen 54 42
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 82 82
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 54 54 Local carbon monoxide NA 125 (tons per year) Source: MCAQMD 2010
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District This small APCD covers the northern portion of Sonoma County, which is mainly rural. The more urbanized southern portion of Sonoma County is included with the BAAQMD. The Northern Sonoma County APCD has not developed formal CEQA guidance to specify significance thresholds. In the absence of specific guidance, CEQA significance for a project should be triggered if the project’s emissions exceed the New Source Review significant emission rates listed in the district’s Rule 130 (CARB 2018b). The CEQA emission thresholds for pollutants relevant to aquaculture projects are as follows:
CO: 100 tons per year,
NOX: 40 tons per year,
ROG: 40 tons per year,
respirable particulate matter (PM10): 15 tons per year, and
fine particulate matter (PM2.5): 10 tons per year. In addition, the air district rules include Appendix A, “Procedures for Environmental Impact Review.” This appendix provides broad guidance directing the Control Office to determine “whether or not a project may have a significant effect on the environment,” specifying the determination shall be made on a case-by-case basis “due to the circumstances peculiar to the specific project.”
Bay Area Air Quality Management District CEQA emission thresholds and required emission control best management practices are contained in the BAAQMD’s CEQA Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017). A project within the BAAQMD would have a significant impact, if it would exceed any of the thresholds in Table 3-6 or if:
a project would cause local emissions of local CO emissions to exceed the 1- and 8-hour CAAQS of 20.0 parts per million (ppm) and 9.0 ppm or
result in carcinogenic TAC emissions that cause an increased cancer risk exceeding 10 per million or result in noncarcinogenic TAC emissions that cause a hazard index exceeding 1.0.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-39 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
Table 3-6 Bay Area Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds
Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day) Pollutant Construction Operation Reactive organic gases 54 54 Oxides of nitrogen 54 54
1 Respirable particulate matter (PM10) (exhaust) 82 82
1 Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) (exhaust) 54 54
2 2 PM10/PM2.5 (fugitive dust) NA NA 1. Exhaust emissions only.
2. Best management practices defined in the BAAQMD Air Quality Guidelines (BAAQMD 2017) would be implemented.
Source: BAAQMD 2017
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Additional emission thresholds are contained in the MBUAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Guidelines (MBUAPCD 2008). A project within this APCD would have a significant impact, if it would:
result in construction-related emissions exceeding 82 pounds per day (ppd) of PM10,
result in operational emissions exceeding 82 ppd of PM10,
result in operational emissions exceeding 137 ppd of ROG,
result in operational emissions exceeding 137 ppd of NOX,
result in operational emissions exceeding 550 ppd of CO,
result in operational emissions exceeding 150 ppd of sulfur dioxide, or
emit carcinogenic TACs at rates high enough to cause a cancer risk exceeding 10 per million.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Additional emission thresholds are contained in the SLOCAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLOCAPCD 2012). A project within this APCD, would have a significant impact, if it would:
result in temporary construction emissions exceeding 137 ppd of combined ROG/NOX, 2.5 tons per year of combined ROG/NOX over one quarter of the year which would require Tier 1 mitigation, or 6.3 tons per year of combined ROG/NOX over one quarter of the year which would require Tier 2 mitigation;
result in temporary construction emissions exceeding 2.5 tons per year of fugitive PM10 over one quarter of the year which would require Tier 1 mitigation;
result in operational emissions exceeding 25 ppd of combined ROG/NOX,
result in operational emissions exceeding 25 ppd of fugitive PM10,
result in operational emissions exceeding 550 ppd of CO;
result in operational emissions exceeding 1.25 ppd of diesel PM;
result in inconsistency with the most recent Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County;
result in ambient pollutant concentrations exceeding State and federal health standards, when applicable;
result in release of air toxics causing a cancer risk to exceed 10 in 1 million;
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-40 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
result in release of air toxics causing a cancer risk exceeding 89 in 1 million for projects proposed in close proximity to toxic sources as defined in the SLOCAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook; or
have the potential to cause an odor or other nuisance problem, which could impact a considerable number of people.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Additional emission thresholds are contained in the SBCAPCD’s Environmental Review Guidelines (SBCAPCD 2015). A project within SBCAPCD would result in a significant impact, if it would:
emit from all project sources (mobile and stationary) more than the daily trigger for offsets set in the SBCAPCD New Source Review Rule, for any pollutant;
emit 25 ppd or more of NOX or ROG from motor vehicle trips only;
cause or contribute to a violation of any CAAQS or NAAQS (except ozone);
exceed the SBCAPCD health risk public notification thresholds adopted by the SBCAPCD Board; or
be inconsistent with the adopted federal and State air quality plans.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District CEQA significance thresholds are defined by the Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines (VCAPCD 2003). A project within the VCAPCD would result in a significant impact, if it would:
emit more than 25 ppd of either NOX or ROG;
emit TACs that caused a lifetime cancer risk greater than 10 per million; or
emit fugitive dust at rates high enough to cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of people, or high enough to cause a modeled exceedance of an ambient particulate standard.
South Coast Air Quality Management District SCAQMD has published guidance on conducting air quality analyses under CEQA for equipment and activities that are not required to obtain air quality permits (SCAQMD 1993). SCAQMD has established thresholds of significance for regional impacts, which are summarized in Table 3-7 for criteria pollutant emissions during construction activities and project operation. A project is considered to have a regional air quality impact if emissions from its construction and/or operational activities exceed the corresponding SCAQMD significance thresholds.
Table 3-7 South Coast Air Quality Management District Significance Thresholds for Regional Impacts
Mass Daily Thresholds (Pounds/Day) Pollutant Construction Operation Oxides of nitrogen 100 55 Volatile organic compounds 75 55
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 150 150
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 55 55 Sulfur oxides 150 150 Carbon monoxide 550 550 Lead 3 3 Source: SCAQMD 2015a
Additionally, for TAC emissions, a project would have a significant impact if it resulted in the release of air toxics causing a cancer risk to exceed 10 in 1 million for any sensitive receptors.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-41 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
SCAQMD has also published guidance on determining the localized significance of emissions from localized activity. Table 3-8 shows the localized significance thresholds, which are expressed as short-term ambient concentrations. SCAQMD has developed a series of lookup tables that define localized significance threshold emission rates from individual, small sites that would satisfy the ambient impact thresholds.
Table 3-8 South Coast Air Quality Management District Localized Ambient Air Quality Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Averaging Time Threshold Concentration Nitrogen dioxide 1 hour 0.18 ppm
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 24 hours 10.4 μg/m³
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 24 hours 10.4 μg/m³ 1 hour 20 ppm Carbon monoxide 24 hours 9.0 ppm Notes: μg/m³ = micrograms per square meter; ppm = parts per million.
Source: SCAQMD 2015b
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District The air district has developed CEQA significance thresholds through their document titled the County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements: Air Quality (San Diego County Land Use and Environmental Group 2007). The thresholds developed by the San Diego County Land Use and Environmental Group are used to define levels of significance for new projects. A project would be significant if its emissions exceed the following screening level thresholds:
PM10 emissions: 100 ppd or 15 tons per year,
PM2.5 emissions: 55 ppd or 10 tons per year,
NOx emissions: 250 ppd or 40 tons per year,
ROG emissions: 75 ppd or 13.7 tons per year,
CO emissions: 550 ppd or 100 tons per year, or
diesel PM emissions: causing a cancer risk exceeding 1 per million.
BAY MANAGEMENT PLANS
Bay management plans identify policies to guide development in and around the bay areas. Examples of bay management plans include the San Francisco Bay Plan adopted by BCDC, the Humboldt Bay Management Plan adopted by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District (Humboldt District), and the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for San Diego Bay adopted by the Port of San Diego and the U.S. Navy. In areas where bay management plans have been adopted, the local agency has decision-making authority that must be reconciled with other federal, State, and local plans, including CCC permitting. For example, the Humboldt District, established in 1970, is charged with managing Humboldt Bay for the promotion of commerce, navigation, fisheries, recreation, and the protection of natural resources, and to acquire, construct, maintain, operate, develop and regulate harbor works. The policy framework in the Humboldt Bay Management Plan serves to strike a balance among potentially conflicting uses within Humboldt Bay. The Humboldt District’s Board of Commissioners exercises development authority over every development project proposed in Humboldt Bay; in many cases, the Board of Commissioners is also the lead agency for compliance with the requirements of CEQA (Humboldt District 2007:22).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-42 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Regulatory Setting
COUNTY AND CITY EMERGENCY PLANS
Cities and counties have ordinances that establish an emergency organization and local disaster council. The ordinances provide for the development of an emergency plan establishing responsibilities for emergency management operations and specifying the officials authorized to proclaim a local emergency. All local governments with a certified disaster council are required to develop Emergency Operation Plans for their jurisdiction that meet State and federal requirements and are in accordance with California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Local Planning Guidance. When there is an immediate threat or actual emergency, local governments implement emergency plans and take actions to mitigate or reduce the emergency threat. Actions may include deploying field-level emergency response personnel, activating emergency operations centers, and issuing orders to protect the public. All accessible and applicable local, State, and federal resources will be committed to protect lives, property, and the environment.
COUNTY AND CITY GENERAL PLANS AND ZONING
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65300, each county and city must adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development, as well as conservation, of their jurisdiction. County and city general plans define the long-term physical development objectives of each county and city and contain goals, policies, programs, and implementation measures to guide future development. All subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions must be consistent with the general plan. Pursuant to Section 65302 of the California Government Code, the preparation of a land use, circulation, conservation, open space, noise, safety, and air quality elements are required of every general plan. Each jurisdiction is also required to adopt a zoning ordinance. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the policies of the general plan; therefore, all zoning designations must comply with the general plan. Land-based or nearshore aquaculture facilities would be subject to a variety of city and county general plan policies and zoning requirements depending on the specific location of the project. Consistency with local plans will require that proposed land-based structures be constructed in compliance with local development regulations, including any design guidelines and zoning standards.
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAMS
Under the California Coastal Act, authority to regulate development in the coastal zone can be delegated from CCC to cities and counties that have adopted an approved LCP. LCPs contain a land use plan and implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas they govern. LCPs allow the unique characteristics of local coastal geographies to be addressed while maintaining consistency with the statewide goals of the Coastal Act, including the protection of scenic qualities. Many of California’s 76 coastal counties and cities have elected to divide their coastal zone and inland jurisdictions into separate geographic segments, resulting in 126 separate LCP segments. As of 2016 approximately 73 percent of these segments have certified LCPs, representing close to 87 percent of the geographic area of the coastal zone; local governments are responsible for issuing CDPs in these areas. A total of 20 counties have land use jurisdiction along the 1,100-mile coastline. Of these 20 counties, 15 are identified by CCC as coastal counties, and the other five counties have jurisdiction along the borders of San Francisco Bay, but not the open ocean. CCC delegates authority to regulate development in the coastal zone to cities and counties that have adopted an approved LCP. LCPs contain a land use plan and implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas they govern. LCPs allow the unique characteristics of local coastal geographies to be addressed while maintaining consistency with the statewide goals of the Coastal Act, including the protection of scenic qualities. Any future aquaculture proposals within a county jurisdictions having adopted LCPs would need to be consistent with any policies in the respective LCPs.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 3-43 Regulatory Setting Ascent Environmental
REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANS
Each MPO and Regional Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) in California is required to prepare a Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) pursuant to Section 65080 of the California Government Code. An TRP is a long-range plan that provides a transportation planning framework that promotes an integrated, multi-modal, and cooperative planning process. Caltrans is charged with adopting the RTP Guidelines in cooperation with the 18 MPOs and 26 RTPAs located throughout the state.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION
BCDC was created in 1965 to plan for the long-term use and responsible management of San Francisco Bay and its associated marshes, mudflats, waterways, and wetlands. BCDC reviews permit applications for filling, dredging, and shoreline projects in these areas, both as a State agency enforcing the California Coastal Act and as a federally designated coastal management agency under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Activities occurring within the San Francisco Bay segment of the California coastal zone require review and permitting by BCDC to ensure consistency with the California Coastal Act and the policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan, including aesthetics (BCDC 2019).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3-44 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
4.1 INTRODUCTION AND SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS This PEIR has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of SB 201, which amended FGC Section 15008 and directs PEIR preparation and the subject of its analysis: existing and potential future marine aquaculture (including finfish aquaculture) within the state. FGC Section 15008 provides guidance related to the preparation of the PEIR, identifying factors pertaining to siting of marine finfish aquaculture operations and the potential effects on various aspects of marine ecosystems. Refer to Section 1.4 in Chapter 1, “Introduction.” This chapter describes the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Program and alternatives and identifies mitigation measures to reduce those impacts. It also describes why some of these impacts have been dismissed from detailed consideration in this PEIR.
4.1.1 Program Area This PEIR considers marine aquaculture, including both offshore and onshore facilities, within California’s coastal area, which includes waters of the state from mean high water inland up to 1,000 yards (914.4 meters) and out to 3 nautical miles (nm) (5.556 kilometers) between Oregon and Mexico. This coastal area is the Program area for this PEIR. The Program area does not include waters beyond 3 nm offshore (i.e., federal waters).
4.1.2 Scope of PEIR Analysis The technical discussions and resource areas addressed in this chapter are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and FGC Section 15008. Sections 4.2 through 4.11 provide resource-specific discussions of environmental impacts and mitigation measures that can reduce significant environmental effects.
IMPACTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, a lead agency may limit an EIR’s discussion of environmental effects when they are not significant (PRC Section 21002.1[e], State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15128 and 15143). Through the public scoping process described in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” and Chapter 7, “Public and Agency Involvement,” as well as evaluations by CDFW and the PEIR preparers (refer to Chapter 9, “Report Preparers”), it was determined that there would be no impacts on certain topics identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. This section describes the topics that have been dismissed from consideration, along with the basis for their dismissal from detailed evaluation.
Agricultural and Forest Resources Under California law, aquaculture is defined as a form of agriculture devoted to the propagation, cultivation, maintenance, harvesting, processing, distribution, and marketing of aquatic plants and animals in marine, brackish, and fresh water. Aquaculture does not include species of ornamental marine or freshwater plants and animals not used for human consumption or bait purposes that are maintained in closed systems for personal, pet industry, or hobby purposes (California Food and Agriculture Code Section 25.5, FGC Section 17). The Proposed Program is limited to the coastal area, which extends up to 1,000 yards inland of the shore in some areas. Because aquaculture is defined as a form of agriculture, any expansion of aquaculture uses onto agricultural land would continue to be considered an agricultural use. Thus, it would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a nonagricultural use; conflict with a Williamson Act contract; or
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.1-1 Environmental Analysis Ascent Environmental
conflict with agricultural zoning. New onshore facilities would be located in existing marinas, harbors, and other, similar areas where existing agricultural uses do not occur. No forestlands or timberlands are located within these types of areas. Thus, the program would not result in conflicts with forestland, timberland, or Timberland Production Zones.
Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources Aquaculture activities include the deployment of structures in bays and the placement of net-pens in offshore areas. These marine-based facilities have minimal staffing (e.g., approximately 20 employees) and would operate from boats, barges, and other floating structures that would not be subject to direct damage from earthquakes or other seismic hazards. New dockside and other land-based support facility development might require earthmoving activities. Any such disturbance (e.g., grading and utility trenching) would be limited in extent; located in existing developed areas; and not expected to substantially increase the risk to people or structures of loss, injury, or death related to landslides or soil erosion. Local building and zoning codes control the locations and types of structures that can be built, and the local development agencies with jurisdiction governing structures require that structures be built to withstand seismic events. New structures placed on the shore would be designed, engineered, and constructed in conformance with standard engineering practices to address soil stability and suitability (e.g., California Building Code) and would be subject to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits for stormwater and nonstorm discharges (including erosion) from types of industrial sites based on the Standard Industrial Classification. Refer to Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” for further information regarding applicable regulations. The general industrial permit requires the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan that identifies potential on-site pollutants, best management practices to be implemented, and inspection/monitoring requirements. Thus, the potential for erosion, siltation, or other adverse effects on soils from erosion related to new development would be addressed, and impacts would be less than significant. New onshore facilities are anticipated to be located within existing marinas, harbors, and other areas with zoning consistent with the new facilities. As a result, there would be no impacts associated with the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or recovery site. Discovery of paleontological resources is discussed in Chapter 4.5, “Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources.”
Hazards and Hazardous Materials Operation of aquaculture facilities would include the storage of materials, drugs, and chemicals, some of which would be considered hazardous materials. Local fire departments and unified program agencies manage the storage and use of hazardous materials, which are required to be stored with compatible material in appropriate storage containers. Because these materials would be handled according to existing laws and regulations, implementation of the Proposed Program would not create a substantial hazard to the public through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or to the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Under the Proposed Program, approximately 30 new facilities would be developed. The onshore components of these facilities would likely be located within marinas, harbors, and other appropriately zoned areas. Thus, it is not anticipated that new facilities would be located near schools, public (or public use) airports, private airstrips, or wildlands; that they would be located on sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites; or that their location would impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. In addition, as noted above, the handling of hazardous materials would be required to comply with all applicable federal, State, and local laws. There would be no significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials. Issues pertaining to the use of therapeutants, drugs, and chemicals are also discussed in Section 4.4, “Biological Resources,” and Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography.”
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.1-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Environmental Analysis
Noise Noise levels typically decline with increased distance from the source. However, noise can be affected by factors such as weather, reflecting, and shielding, which can amplify or reduce noise levels from any given location. Noise sources at land-based facilities under the Proposed Program would include mechanical equipment, such as pumps, blowers, automatic feeders and ventilation fans; delivery trucks; feeding activities; maintenance activities; water jets; and employee traffic. Generally, mechanical equipment would operate intermittently throughout the daytime, although some pumps and compressors may operate continuously. Onshore facilities would likely be located within marinas, harbors, and other similarly developed lands where appropriate zoning exists for such uses and where regional land use controls, including noise controls, would be required to avoid and minimize noise at nearby sensitive receptors. In addition, these new facilities would be subject to existing local and regional noise control requirements. For these reasons, sensitive receptors, including residences, churches, and educational facilities, would not experience a substantial increase in ambient noise levels, including from onshore mechanical equipment, as a result of Program implementation. It is not anticipated that new facilities would be located near public (or public use) airports or private airstrips, so aquaculture personnel are not expected to be exposed to elevated noise levels from these noise sources. No substantial sources of vibration are associated with aquaculture activities. Thus, no significant impacts would be associated with noise. The effects of underwater noise on marine biological resources are addressed in Section 4.4, “Biological Resources.”
Population and Housing For the purposes of this PEIR, the Proposed Program is expected to employ up to 1,500 new employees, which is roughly equivalent to 50 employees at up to 30 marine aquaculture leases (10 of each type) throughout the Program area. This projection is considered reasonable in light of existing aquaculture operations in the state, based on their lease acreage. Existing population estimates and projections along the coast indicate that this level of additional employment would not generate substantial increases in population or housing demand within the coastal zone beyond what is already projected. For example, the population of San Diego County alone is anticipated to increase by more than 250,000 between 2019 and 2030 (DOF 2018), which is roughly equivalent to the period within which the Commission could approve up to 30 leases. Onshore facilities would likely occur within marinas, harbors, and other similarly developed lands where appropriate zoning exists for such uses and therefore would not displace people or existing housing. Further, aquaculture-related employment opportunities would likely be filled by local residents and would not result in substantial additional demand for housing. As a result, no impacts related to population and housing would occur.
Public Services Implementing the Proposed Program is not expected to result in substantial or even moderate population growth, as discussed above under “Population and Housing.” Because the Proposed Program would not generate substantial increases in population, there would not be substantial demand placed on existing public services, and no new facilities would be required. Because the proposed land-based facilities are not anticipated to require the extension of existing service areas for public service providers (through annexation of additional lands by local jurisdictions or otherwise), acceptable service ratios, response times, and other performance objectives for fire protection, police protection, schools, or parks would not be affected. As a result, there would be no impacts on public services.
Utilities and Service Systems As discussed above, implementing the Proposed Program is not expected to result in substantial population growth. Because a substantial increase in population is not anticipated and aquaculture activities occur primarily in ocean waters, substantial increases in demand for service by local utility providers would not occur. Some additional demand may occur as a result of solid waste generated offshore; however, most of this material (e.g., dead fish) would likely be recycled as part of offshore operations. Onshore facilities associated with the Proposed Program would be developed within marinas, harbors, and other similarly developed lands where appropriate zoning and utility infrastructure exist for such uses. The water demand, wastewater generation rates, and solid waste generation rates associated with the daily needs of employees (estimated to be 50 at each facility) would be minimal. Further, land-based facilities would be subject to local land use California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.1-3 Environmental Analysis Ascent Environmental
controls and regulations, as well as California Coastal Commission requirements, including the requirement that adequate utility service be ensured for new development. Thus, no significant impacts related to utilities and service systems are anticipated.
Wildfire Offshore aquaculture facilities would be developed in the ocean and therefore would not exacerbate wildfire risk. Onshore facilities could be developed in or near state responsibility areas, as well as local responsibility areas, that are designated as very high fire hazard severity zones (FRAP 2019). However, in these areas, facilities would be developed within marinas, harbors, and other similarly developed lands. Locating facilities in previously developed (i.e., nonwildland) areas would reduce fire risk. Facilities would be sited where appropriate zoning (including building codes and defensible space requirements) and infrastructure exist for such uses. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Program would not exacerbate wildfire risks and would not expose occupants (employees) to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or to the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. Additionally, onshore facilities are not anticipated to require the installation of utilities (e.g., overhead power lines) or electrical infrastructure that would exacerbate fire risk. Environmental impacts associated with the installation of infrastructure are addressed throughout Chapter 4 of this PEIR.
RESOURCE AREAS ANALYZED IN GREATER DETAIL
The following resource areas are analyzed in greater detail in this chapter:
aesthetics;
air quality;
biological resources;
cultural, tribal cultural resources, and paleontological resources;
land use;
recreation;
transportation, traffic, and marine navigation;
water quality and oceanography; and
greenhouse gas emissions and energy.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.1-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
4.2 AESTHETICS
4.2.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for aesthetics and scenic resources. Scenic resources include resources that are valued for their aesthetic value, such as panoramic views of the coast. This section also describes the impacts on aesthetics that would result from implementation of the Proposed Program and alternatives, and mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. One comment letter regarding aesthetic and scenic resources as received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix B). Issues identified by the commenter included potential impacts to onshore and offshore visual resources along the coastline. These issues are addressed in Section 4.2.4, “Environmental Consequences.”
4.2.2 Environmental Setting
SCENIC RESOURCES California’s coastline extends for over 1,100 miles, encompassing a great diversity of landscapes, both natural and human-made, many of which are widely regarded as some of the most beautiful and scenic in the nation. California’s coastal areas include sandy beaches, coastal mountains, rivers, bays, estuaries, recreational areas, State and national parks, ports, and major urban and industrial areas. Viewer groups in these areas are equally diverse, including recreational users, vehicular commuters, and coastal residents and workers. This programmatic analysis of aesthetic impacts focuses on unique and high-quality visual environments, such as ocean views and scenic vistas, as well as protected environments, such as State and national parks, wild and scenic rivers, and scenic highways. California’s coastal area includes approximately 1,100 miles of coastline within State parks, and 270 miles of coastline within national parks. The Big Sur Coast Highway and the San Luis Obispo North Coast Byway are both designated as All-American Roads by the National Scenic Byways Program (Federal Highway Administration 2019a). Figure 4.2-1 illustrates many of the scenic resources on the California coast, including State and national parks, wild and scenic rivers, and designated scenic byways.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
National Scenic Byways Program Several highways along the California coast are designated as either National Scenic Byways or All-American Roads under the National Scenic Byway Program, implemented by the Federal Highway Administration. Designation of a highway for inclusion in the National Scenic Byways Program requires the preparation at the local level of a corridor management plan for the preservation and enhancement of the road’s scenic qualities and the promotion of tourism and economic development. Local authorities are also responsible for implementing development regulations within the corridor, such as zoning (Federal Highway Administration 2019b). The National Scenic Byways located within the California coastal zone are listed below: Redwood Byway (U.S. Highway 101), Pacific Coast Highway, Monterey County Byway (State Route 68), Big Sur Highway All-American Road (State Route 1), San Luis Obispo North Coast All-American Road (State Route 1), San Marcos Pass Byway (State Route 154), and Coronado and the Silver Strand Byway (State Route 75).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.2-1 Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
Source: National Park Service 2019; State Parks 2019.
Figure 4.2-1 California Coast Scenic Resources California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.2-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
California Scenic Highway Program The California Scenic Highways Program was created by the California Scenic Highway Law in 1963 with the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic highway corridors from any change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. State Scenic Highways are those highways that are either officially designated by the California Department of Transportation or are eligible for designation. The scenic highways located within the California coastal zone are listed below:
U.S. Highway 101 in Del Norte County,
State Route 116 in Sonoma County,
State Route 1 in San Mateo County,
State Route 68 in Monterey County,
State Route 1 in San Luis Obispo County,
State Route 154 in Santa Barbara County, and
State Route 33 in Ventura County.
LIGHT AND GLARE
Light pollution refers to all forms of unwanted light in the night sky, including glare, light trespass or spillover to adjacent sensitive receptors (e.g., residential development), sky glow, and overlighting. Views of the night sky are an important part of the natural environment. Existing sources of light and glare within developed coastal areas includes offshore oil platforms, marine vessels, harbors, boat docks, ports, street lighting along roadways, and nighttime illumination of commercial buildings, shopping centers, and industrial buildings.
4.2.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to aesthetics and scenic resources. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
FEDERAL
National Scenic Byways Program designates highways and roadways as either National Scenic Byways or All- American Roads. Designation of a highway requires the preparation at the local level of a corridor management plan for the preservation and enhancement of the road’s scenic qualities and the promotion of tourism and economic development. Local authorities are responsible for implementing development regulations within the corridor, such as zoning, to preserve its scenic qualities.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manages 14 national marine sanctuaries and two marine national monuments. California marine sanctuaries include the Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, and Monterey Bay. Each of the California marine sanctuaries is charged with the preparation and implementation of a management plan that includes a policy framework that guides current and future activities within the sanctuary, including to preserve visual quality.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33 governs Navigation and Navigable Waters within the United States. Pursuant to Section 67.05-25, whenever a structure is erected in a position on or adjacent to the edges of navigable channels and fairways, or lines of demarcation, the District Commander of the United States Coast Guard is authorized to require the structure to be marked by the lights which in his judgment are necessary for the safety of marine commerce.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.2-3 Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
STATE
California Coastal Act regulates development in the coastal zone, which covers the area between 3 nm seaward and up to 5 miles inland of the mean high tide line. Development in this zone requires a Coastal Development Permit (CDP), granted by either the California Coastal Commission (CCC) or a city or county to which the CCC has delegated this authority. Permitted development must consider consistency with design guidelines and zoning standards applicable to protection of visual resources.
California Scenic Highway Program designates scenic highway corridors in California for the purpose of preserving and protecting scenic corridors from any change that would diminish the aesthetic value of lands adjacent to highways. After a scenic highway is designated, the responsibility lies with the local jurisdiction to regulate development within the scenic highway corridor where the local agency has land use jurisdiction.
LOCAL
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) reviews permit applications for filling, dredging, and shoreline projects within the San Francisco Bay, both as a State agency enforcing the California Coastal Act and as a federally designated coastal management agency under the Coastal Zone Management Act. BDCD review considers minimizing impacts to visual resources.
City and County General Plans and Zoning: Cities and counties are required to prepare a comprehensive planning document, to guide future development at the local level. Goals and policies that regulate the aesthetic and scenic qualities of an area are typically included within required elements. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the policies of the general plan; therefore, all zoning designations must comply with the general plan. Consistency with local plans will require that proposed land-based structures be constructed in compliance with local development regulations, including any design guidelines and zoning standards applicable to visual resources.
Local Coastal Programs: Authority to regulate development in the coastal zone can be delegated from the CCC to cities and counties that have adopted an approved local coastal program (LCP). LCPs contain a land use plan and implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas they govern. Any future aquaculture proposals within county jurisdictions having adopted LCPs would need to be consistent with any policies in the respective LCPs, including for the protection of scenic resources.
Bay Management Plans identify policies to guide development in and around bay areas and include consideration of visual character. Examples of bay management plans include the San Francisco Bay Plan adopted by BCDC, the Humboldt Bay Management Plan adopted by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District, and the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for San Diego Bay adopted by the Port of San Diego and the U.S. Navy.
4.2.4 Environmental Consequences The following describes impacts related to aesthetics from aquaculture development under the Proposed Program and alternatives. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts, lists the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant, characterizes the impact, and identifies measures to mitigate significant impacts where necessary.
PROGRAMMATIC VISUAL IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
Given the programmatic level of analysis in this PEIR, no information specific to an individual project is available to be considered. Therefore, it is not feasible to provide a detailed visual impact analysis, which requires knowledge of project elements and their characteristics, the setting, and vantage points from which the project would be viewed. At
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.2-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Aesthetics a programmatic level, where locations of particular projects and vantage points are unknown, a more generalized approach is needed. The general sequence of activities in a visual impact analysis is as follows: 1. Define and characterize the project’s existing setting and viewshed. 2. Determine who has views of the project. 3. Identify viewpoints and views for visual assessment. 4. Depict views under existing conditions and with the project in place. 5. Analyze changes in existing visual resources and viewer response. 6. Assess the project’s visual impacts. 7. Propose methods to mitigate adverse visual impacts. At a programmatic level, only general characterizations of potential impacts can be made. A focused analysis cannot be done regarding visual impacts in the absence of specific information on the characteristics of a particular project and its site, and on defined viewer vantage points determined based on the site location. As noted above, an analysis of a project’s effects on visual resources requires knowledge of the project’s various elements (e.g., structures, earthworks) and their characteristics (e.g., color, form, shape, orientation); the location of the project in the landscape; characteristics of the existing landscape; the viewshed from within which the project would be visible; the number and type of viewers; and the duration of a viewer’s visual access to the project. It is feasible, however, to assess the characteristics of a typical aquaculture facility and how it would appear in different site locations along the California coast. Therefore, impacts that might occur as a result of construction and installation of aquaculture facilities are described, and where appropriate, measures that can be taken to reduce these typical impacts are identified.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact related to aesthetics if it would:
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista;
substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway;
in nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views the site and its surroundings (public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point), and if in an urbanized area, conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality; or
create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER All issues applicable to aesthetics, as outlined by the thresholds above, are evaluated below.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.2-5 Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact AES-1: Substantially Degrade a Scenic Vista
Future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program could introduce visual elements that would degrade scenic views along the coastline. All future development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to protect scenic resources. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect scenic views would ensure impacts to visual resources are minimized to the extent feasible and avoid any substantial adverse effect to scenic vistas. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Depending upon their location, new aquaculture facilities may potentially degrade scenic views along the California coast by introducing structures that could alter the visual landscape of existing natural or developed areas. These structures include ocean cages, net-pens, longlines, rafts, buoys, and onshore support structures. Under the Proposed Program, future offshore aquaculture facilities could consist of submerged long-lines, or a collection of cages or net-pens depending on the type of culture. All facilities would be located within 3 nm offshore and be partly or fully submerged. Facilities located just beyond the intertidal area could still be visible to shore-based viewer groups, while facilities located farther from land would be less visible to viewers. Visibility of offshore structures could introduce visual elements that disrupt scenic views along the coastline, if not properly regulated. Installation of proposed offshore facilities would require a CDP, granted by either the CCC or a city or county to which the CCC has delegated this authority. Pursuant to Section 30251 of the California Coastal Act, permitted development shall be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, to minimize the alteration of natural land forms, to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas, and, where feasible, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas. In areas where an LCP has been adopted, the agency would exercise its regulatory authority over offshore facilities and undergo the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process. Enforcement of California Coastal Act regulations adopted to protect scenic views within the coastal zone would ensure impacts to visual resources are minimized to the extent feasible. While CDFW does not have authority over the approval of CDPs, enforcement of environmental standards, including scenic resource protection regulations, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. Therefore, offshore facilities would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, and the impact would be less than significant. Permitted aquaculture facilities would require the development of onshore support structures to maintain offshore operations. Major onshore logistic elements of future aquaculture projects could include staging, storage, and operational facilities. Onshore structures could include a warehouse or an existing vacant building adjacent to docking facilities. Where existing facilities are unavailable, future aquaculture projects would result in new development. Development of new onshore facilities could alter the visual landscape of existing natural or developed areas. All future development facilitated by the Proposed Program would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to protect scenic resources. Future projects in the coastal zone would also be required to comply with LCPs which include implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas. In areas where bay management plans have been adopted, the local agency would have decision-making authority and would also review future projects for consistency with the adopted regulatory framework. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect scenic views would ensure impacts to visual resources are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, the installation and development of onshore aquaculture facilities would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, and the impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.2-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
Overall, development and installation of aquaculture facilities could introduce visual elements that would degrade scenic views along the coast. However, all aquaculture facilities would be required to apply for a CDP, granted by the CCC or a city or county to which the CCC has delegated this authority. Future onshore facilities would also be required to comply with local plans and regulations adopted to protect scenic resources such as an LCP, bay management plan, general plan, and zoning ordinance. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect scenic views would ensure that impacts to scenic resources are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, the installation and development of offshore and onshore aquaculture facilities would not have a substantial adverse effect on scenic vistas, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact AES-2: Substantially Damage Scenic Resources along a Scenic Highway
Development of onshore facilities under the Proposed Program could alter scenic resources along a scenic highway. All future development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable regulations adopted to protect scenic resources along protected highways. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect scenic resources would ensure that impacts to scenic resources are minimized to the extent feasible and avoid any substantial damage to scenic resources along a scenic highway. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Aquaculture facilities could potentially alter scenic resources that contribute to defining the visual character and scenic quality of a particular coastal area. In coastal areas, these resources typically include native vegetation, unique topographical features, beach areas, and may also include developed areas. Depending on location, aquaculture facilities could potentially alter these features through clearing of vegetation or grading in shoreline areas for buildings and other structures on land. Offshore aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program would be located between up to 3 nm offshore. Offshore aquaculture operations may also require the development of onshore support structures to maintain offshore operations. Major onshore logistic elements of future aquaculture projects could include staging, storage, and operational facilities. Onshore structures could include conversion or modification of an existing warehouse or building adjacent to docking facilities. Where existing facilities are unavailable, future aquaculture projects would result in new development. Development of new onshore facilities could alter scenic resources along a scenic highway. Pursuant to the National Scenic Byway and State Scenic Highway programs, local jurisdictions adjacent to designated highways are required to protect scenic qualities of the corridors through land use, planning, and zoning regulations. All future development facilitated by the Proposed Program would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable regulations adopted to protect scenic resources along protected highways. Therefore, aquaculture facilities would not substantially damage scenic resources within a designated scenic highway, and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.2-7 Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
Impact AES-3: Substantially Degrade the Existing Visual Character or Quality of a Site and Its Surroundings
Development of onshore facilities that could occur under the Proposed Program could introduce structures that detract from or contrast with the existing visual aesthetic or quality of a neighborhood, community, or localized area, if not properly regulated. All future aquaculture development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable regulations adopted to protect local visual character. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect local visual character would ensure that aesthetic impacts are minimized to the extent feasible and avoid any substantial degradation of visual character or quality. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
In both scenic and non-scenic areas, construction or installation of aquaculture facilities has the potential to introduce elements to the visual landscape that may be incompatible with the surrounding setting, whether natural or human-made. Even where they would not conflict with designated scenic views, aquaculture facilities could potentially alter the overall visual character or quality of a location and how the surrounding coastal area is perceived by viewers). Offshore aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program would be located up to 3 nm offshore. At this distance and due to tidal fluctuations and the relatively low profile (distance above water) of the majority of offshore facilities, views from shore are not anticipated to be substantially degraded such that existing visual character would be significantly and adversely affected. Offshore aquaculture operations may also require the development of onshore support structures to maintain offshore operations. Major onshore logistic elements of future aquaculture projects could include staging, storage, and operational facilities. Onshore structures could include conversion or modification of an existing warehouse or building adjacent to docking facilities. Where existing facilities are unavailable, future aquaculture projects would result in new development. If not properly regulated, development of new onshore facilities could introduce structures that detract from or contrast with the existing visual aesthetic or quality of a neighborhood, community, or localized area by conflicting with important visual elements such as theme, style, setbacks, density, size, massing, coverage, scale, color, architecture, building materials, or by being inconsistent with applicable design guidelines. All future development facilitated by the Proposed Program would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to establish orderly development and protect visual resources. If applicable, projects would also be required to adhere to adopted design guidelines or undergo project-specific design review. Future projects would also be required to comply with LCPs which include implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas. In areas where bay management plans have been adopted, the local agency would have decision-making authority and would also review future projects for consistency with the adopted regulatory framework. Enforcement of land use regulations by the applicable jurisdiction would ensure that all future aquaculture facilities are compatible with zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality and existing visual character of an area. Therefore, the installation and development of aquaculture facilities would maintain the existing visual quality and character of an area, and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.2-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Aesthetics
Impact AES-4: Create New Sources of Substantial Light and Glare
Development of onshore and offshore facilities that could occur under the Proposed Program could introduce new sources of light and glare, which could create substantial light pollution. Given the programmatic nature of this analysis, the quantity and intensity of future offshore and exterior onshore lighting sources are unknown at this time, and impacts on visual resources would be highly localized. Offshore nighttime lighting would be limited to that needed to ensure safety and avoid marine navigation hazards. Future onshore development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable standards for outdoor lighting. The severity of impacts would be determined during project-specific review, but it is reasonably foreseeable that impacts may be potentially significant.
Nighttime illumination and glare impacts are the effect of a project’s exterior lighting upon adjoining uses and areas. Both offshore aquaculture and onshore facilities, like most development, would require exterior lighting of some kind, which could be visible from adjacent areas. For offshore aquaculture facilities, some lighting would be required to provide notice to mariners of the structure and prevent collisions; this lighting must remain adequately visible consistent with industry standards for safety. Pursuant to 33 CFR Section 67.05-25, whenever a structure is erected in a position on or adjacent to the edges of navigable channels and fairways, or lines of demarcation, the District Commander is authorized to require the structure to be marked by the lights which in his judgment are necessary for the safety of marine commerce. Per CCR Title 14, Section 237(c)(7), all aquaculture leases must be clearly marked with buoys with radar-reflecting capabilities. Development of onshore facilities would require on-site lighting to illuminate outdoor walkways and adjacent areas. This would potentially introduce new sources of light and glare which could create substantial light pollution and degrade nighttime views of the area. Additional safety requirements are discussed in Section 4.8, “Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation.” All future onshore development under the Proposed Program would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable standards for outdoor lighting. However, given the programmatic nature of this analysis the quantity and intensity of future offshore and exterior onshore lighting sources are unknown at this time. Future projects under the Proposed Program could create new sources of light that would adversely affect nighttime views in the area, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AES-4: Minimize Lighting Visibility The project applicant shall design/install offshore night lighting in a manner consistent with industry practice as required for safe operations as determined by State and local jurisdictions. If additional night lighting of offshore facilities whose impacts from shore are considered substantial and adverse is proposed, the project applicant shall install downward focused, shielded lighting where night lighting is required. In areas where lighting may be required occasionally, but not at all times, motion or manual control switches shall be installed.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES-4 would minimize the potential for offshore facility lighting to be visible from receptors on shore. As noted above for any onshore facilities, lease applicants would be required per existing state water bottom leases to comply with the requirements of applicable permitting agencies having jurisdiction over the land-based components of future aquaculture projects. While CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including light and glare- mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that similar requirements would be imposed during review of onshore facilities by local jurisdictions and/or the Coastal Commission to reduce any impacts associated with onshore facilities to less than significant. Therefore, for the purposes of this analysis, impacts would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of AES-4 and by following the requirements of applicable permitting agencies.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.2-9 Aesthetics Ascent Environmental
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Alternative 2 would limit the number of new leases that would be approved by the Commission in a given period but would not limit the size of new offshore facilities. Although CDFW and the Commission are primarily responsible permitting and licensing of aquaculture facilities, development and installation would be regulated by the local jurisdiction through a discretionary review process. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Program and less than significant with mitigation.
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under Alternative3, there would be no development of in-water finfish culture and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in-water shellfish facilities. The potential aesthetic effects would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases. Therefore, aesthetic impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be less than those described above for the Proposed Program and less than significant with mitigation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.2-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
4.3 AIR QUALITY
4.3.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and summarizes the regulatory setting for air quality. Significance thresholds identified in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and those developed by individual air quality control districts within the Program Area were used to determine the significance of impacts on air quality from implementation of the Proposed Program. Emissions were modeled for offshore aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program and compared against the identified significance thresholds to analyze potential impacts on the environment. The analysis assumes that new aquaculture facilities could be built in the following air districts: the North Coast Unified Air Pollution Control District (NCUAPCD), Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District (MCAPCD), Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD), San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD), Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD), Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD), and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Mitigation measures to reduce impacts are also identified, as necessary. One comment letter regarding air quality was received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix B). The commenter requested that the analysis consider the impact of air pollutants from the Proposed Program. These issues are addressed in this section.
4.3.2 Environmental Setting
METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS
The strong influence of the Pacific Ocean, the California Coastal Range, the Sierra Nevada and the Cascade Range provide climate variations in California that run in a general west-to-east direction. California’s climate varies from Mediterranean (coastally and most of the state) to steppe (scattered foothills areas) to alpine (high Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range). The Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range act as barriers to the passage of air masses. In summer, California is protected from much of the hot, dry air masses that develop over the central United States. Because of this barrier and its western border with the Pacific Ocean, portions of the state, particularly along the coast, generally have a milder summer climate than other parts of the country. Summers are characterized by dry, sunny conditions with infrequent rainfall. In winter, the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range block cold, dry air masses located in the interior of the United States from moving into California. Consequently, winters in California are milder than would be expected at these latitudes. During winter, inversions can cause the buildup of pollutants emitted from industrial facilities, transportation sources, and residential areas. Air pollution in coastal California is occasionally aggravated by daily and seasonal wind patterns. Sea breezes move air pollution inland from coastal areas during the day, as cold, dense air moves onshore. Land breezes push pollution back to coastal areas during the night.
AIR POLLUTANTS
Air contaminants include particles, liquids and gases in the air which have harmful chemical properties that affect our health (CDPH 2014). These pollutants have been categorized to help scientists and policy makers regulate their emission and determine effects to human health and the environment (CDPH 2014). Categories of air contaminants considered in this analysis include criteria air pollutants, greenhouse gases, and toxic air contaminants. Many compounds are included in multiple categories. The following briefly describes criterial air pollutants and toxic air
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-1 Air Quality Ascent Environmental contaminants. Greenhouse gases are included in these categories and analyzed in detail in Section 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy.”
Criteria Air Pollutants Concentrations of emissions from criteria air pollutants are used to indicate the quality of the ambient air. Criteria air pollutants are a group of compounds that are regulated in California and at the national level. They are air pollutants for which acceptable levels of exposure can be determined and an ambient (outdoor) air quality standard has been set. The term “criteria air pollutants” comes from the requirement that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) must describe the characteristics and potential health and welfare effects of these pollutants. EPA and California Air Resources Board (CARB) periodically review new scientific data and may propose revisions to the standards as a result. Criteria air pollutants include ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable and fine particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5, respectively), and lead. A description of the sources and health effects for each criteria pollutant is summarized in Table 4.3-1, and a brief description of key criteria air pollutants and their health effects follows the table.
Table 4.3-1 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants
Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting from Increased respiration and pulmonary Permeability of respiratory reaction of ROG and NOX in presence of resistance; cough, pain, shortness of epithelia, possibility of sunlight. ROG emissions result from breath, lung inflammation permanent lung impairment incomplete combustion and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels; NOX results from the combustion of fuels Carbon monoxide Incomplete combustion of fuels; motor Headache, dizziness, fatigue, nausea, Permanent heart and brain vehicle exhaust vomiting, death damage Nitrogen dioxide Combustion devices (e.g., boilers, gas Coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting, Chronic bronchitis, turbines, and mobile and stationary headache, eye irritation, chemical decreased lung function reciprocating internal combustion pneumonitis or pulmonary edema; engines) breathing abnormalities, cough, cyanosis, chest pain, rapid heartbeat, death
Sulfur dioxide (SO2) Coal and oil combustion, steel mills, Irritation of upper respiratory tract, Insufficient evidence linking refineries, and pulp and paper mills increased asthma symptoms SO2 exposure to chronic health impacts Respirable particulate Fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile and Breathing and respiratory symptoms, Alterations to the immune matter (PM10), fine stationary sources, construction, fires and aggravation of existing respiratory and system, carcinogenesis particulate matter (PM2.5) natural windblown dust, and formation in cardiovascular diseases, premature the atmosphere by condensation and/or death transformation of SO2 and ROG Lead Metal processing Reproductive/developmental effects Numerous effects including (fetuses and children) neurological, endocrine, and cardiovascular effects
Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. 1 “Acute” refers to effects of short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at fairly high concentrations. 2 “Chronic” refers to effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations. Source: EPA 2018a
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Ozone Ozone is a photochemical oxidant (a substance whose oxygen combines chemically with another substance in the presence of sunlight) and the primary component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the air in large amounts but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) in the presence of sunlight (EPA 2018a). ROG are volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that are photochemically reactive. ROG emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents used primarily in coating and adhesive processes, as well as evaporation of fuels. NOX are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen that result from the combustion of fuels. Acute health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include permeability of respiratory epithelia and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2018a). Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX have decreased over the past two decades because of more stringent motor vehicle standards and cleaner burning fuels (CARB 2014a).
Particulate Matter
PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires and natural windblown dust, and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by reaction of gaseous precursors (CARB 2014a; EPA 2018a). PM2.5 includes a subgroup of smaller particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. PM10 emissions are dominated by emissions from area sources, primarily fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved and paved roads, construction and demolition, and particles from residential fuel combustion. Acute health effects of PM10 exposure include breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and premature death. Chronic health effects include alterations to the immune system and carcinogenesis (CARB 2014a). Direct emissions of PM10 have increased slightly over the last 20 years and are projected to continue to increase slightly through 2035 (CARB 2014b). Ambient PM2.5 emissions have remained relatively steady over the last 20 years and are projected to decrease slightly through 2035 (CARB 2014a).
Nitrogen Dioxide
NO2 is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban environments. The major human-made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOX and are reported as equivalent NO2. Because NO2 is formed and depleted by reactions associated with photochemical smog (ozone), the NO2 concentration in a particular geographical area may not be representative of the local sources of NOX emissions (EPA 2018b).
Acute health effects of exposure to NOX includes coughing, difficulty breathing, vomiting, headache, eye irritation, chemical pneumonitis, or pulmonary edema, breathing abnormalities, cough, cyanosis, chest pain, rapid heartbeat, and death. Chronic health effects include chronic bronchitis and decreased lung function (EPA 2018a).
Toxic Air Contaminants Toxic air contaminants (TACs) are air contaminants that “may cause or contribute to an increase in deaths or in serious illness, or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health” (CDPH 2014). Many pollutants are identified as TACs because of their potential to increase the risk of developing cancer or their acute or chronic health risks. Individual TACs vary greatly in the risk they present. At a given level of exposure, one TAC may pose a hazard that is many times greater than another. There are no federal or State standards for allowable ambient concentrations of TACs. However, for TACs that are known or suspected carcinogens, the CARB has consistently found that there are no levels or thresholds below which exposure is risk-free. For certain TACs, a unit risk factor can be developed to evaluate cancer risk. For acute and chronic health risks, a similar factor called a hazard index is used to evaluate risk.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-3 Air Quality Ascent Environmental
AIR QUALITY WITHIN COASTAL AIR BASINS AND DISTRICTS
Each individual air district within California monitors and regulates air pollution and its sources. The following discussion details the air quality within air basins and within individual air districts that have jurisdiction over air quality within the Proposed Program area. Based on the air quality and attainment of federal and State ambient air quality standards in each air basin, local air districts establish emission thresholds to determine whether a project’s emissions would exceed and ambient air quality standard or contribute to violation of an existing or projected ambient air quality standard. These thresholds are included in Section 4.3.3.
Air Quality in Program Area Air Basins Air basins are geographic areas that share a common air mass. Emissions within a basin mostly affect areas within that basin. However, the air basins with the largest concentrations of industry, highways, and people often export the air pollutants generated within that basin to adjacent basins through prevailing wind and weather patterns. In California, there are six coastal air basins. These are the North Coast Air Basin, the San Francisco Bay Air Basin, the North Central Air Basin, the South Central Coast Air Basin, the South Coast Air Basin, and the San Diego Air Basin (Figure 4.3-1). Characteristics of each of these air basins are described below.
North Coast Air Basin
Existing Air Quality Coastal areas along Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties are primarily rural, and generally sparsely populated, which contributes to the generally good air quality in the area. Cool temperatures, rainfall, and extensive cloud cover characterize the climate along the coastline of northern California for much of the year. In the North Coast Air Basin (NCAB), dominant winds have a seasonal pattern in the coastal areas. Strong north to northwesterly winds are common in the summer months. In the winter, storms from the southern Pacific increase the amount of days with southern winds. Offshore and onshore winds associated with pressure systems in the area are common along the coast. Onshore winds frequently bring cool foggy weather to the coast, while offshore flows blow fog away from the coast and bring warmer sunny days. Two types of temperature inversions, which affect the depth through which pollutants can be mixed, occur in inland areas: radiation inversion, in which the air layer near ground cools, and subsidence inversion, in which gradually sinking air warms as it descends (CDFG 2012).
Climate Air quality is a function of the climate, topography, and emissions in any area or upwind of that area. Table 4.3-2 presents the attainment status of the federal and State standards in the NCAB. The NCAB, which includes Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties, is in attainment or unclassified for ozone, respirable particulate matter, fine particulate matter, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide for federal ambient air quality standards. For California ambient air quality standards, the NCAB is in attainment or unclassified for ozone, PM2.5, CO, NO2, SO2, lead, visibility- reducing particles, sulfates, and hydrogen sulfide. The NCAB is in nonattainment for PM10. In the NCAB, the primary source of PM10 emission is dust generated from unpaved roads, accounting for about 60 percent of PM10 emissions. Other sources of PM10 emissions are wood stoves and fireplaces, ocean spray, pollen from trees and plants, dust from paved roads, and construction and demolition. Wood smoke is more prevalent in the winter months when wood stoves are in use and outdoor burning is allowed. Dust levels are higher in the summer and early fall. Salt from the ocean spray contributes to PM10 levels most often when winds blow the salt spray inland (CDFG 2012).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Source: CARB 2014b
Figure 4.3-1 California Coast Air Basins
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-5 Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Table 4.3-2 Federal and State Attainment Status
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification San Diego County Air Pollution Control District Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Nonattainment Carbon monoxide Maintenance (urbanized areas) Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment South Coast Air Quality Management District Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Nonattainment Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon monoxide Maintenance (urbanized areas) Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Maintenance Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Ventura County Air Pollution Control District Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Santa Barbara County Air Quality Management District Ozone Attainment Nonattainment-transitional
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment San Luis Obispo County Air Quality Management District Ozone Nonattainment1 Nonattainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District Ozone Attainment Nonattainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Table 4.3-2 Federal and State Attainment Status
Pollutants Federal Classification State Classification
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Bay Area Air Quality Management District Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon monoxide Maintenance (urbanized areas) Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Northern Sonoma County Air Quality Management District Ozone Attainment Attainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Attainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Mendocino Air Quality Management District Ozone Attainment Attainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Unclassified Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District Ozone Attainment Attainment
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) Unclassified Nonattainment
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Attainment Attainment Carbon monoxide Attainment Attainment Nitrogen dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Sulfur dioxide Unclassified/attainment Attainment Notes: 1. Only the eastern portion of San Luis Obispo County is in nonattainment status for ozone.
Source: CARB 2019a
San Francisco Air Basin The San Francisco Air Basin includes all of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, and Napa Counties, and portions of southwestern Solano County and southern Sonoma County. The San Francisco Air Basin is characterized by a large, shallow basin surrounded by coastal mountain ranges tapering into sheltered inland California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-7 Air Quality Ascent Environmental valleys. The combined climatic and topographic factors result in increased potential for the accumulation of air pollutants in the inland valleys and reduced potential for buildup of air pollutants along the coast. The Basin is bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the west and includes complex terrain consisting of coastal mountain ranges, inland valleys and bays. The air quality conditions in the San Francisco Bay Area have improved since the Air District was created in 1955. Ambient concentrations of air pollutants and the number of days on which the region exceeds air quality standards have fallen dramatically (BAAQMD 2010). BAAQMD encompasses the entire San Francisco Air Basin and has jurisdiction over an area encompassing 5,600 square miles. The basin is in attainment for the federal and State ambient air quality standards for CO, NOX, and SOX. The San Francisco Air Basin is in nonattainment for the State 24-hour PM10 standard, the federal and State standards for ozone, the State standard and federal 24-hour standard for PM2.5
North Central Coast Air Basin The North Central Coast Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of a single air district, MBUAPCD, and consists of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties. Air quality is generally good within this air basis. However, contaminants from the San Francisco Air Basin can move into this basin when surface and high-altitude winds right. This air basin is currently not violating any attainment standard for federal criteria pollutants and is in State nonattainment for ozone and PM10. The efforts and controls put in place over the last 10 years appear to be having an effect on reducing these ozone levels (MBUAPCD 2013).
South Central Coast Air Basin The South Central Air Basin is found within the San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties. The basin quality is generally good. The southern portion of the basin sometimes exceeds the California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) when air from the South Coast Air Basin is blown into the southern portion of this basin. The district is currently in attainment with national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) but does not meet the State standards for ozone and PM10. The primary contributor to ozone production with this air basin is mobile sources. In this air basin, PM10 emissions arise mostly from unpaved and paved road sources and well as agriculture (CARB 2012).
South Coast Air Basin The South Coast Air Basin is located within all of Orange County and the nondesert portions of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. This air basin contains a large number of heavy industrial facilities, several electric generating stations, numerous airports including an international airport, a large area of residential homes and a large network of freeways over which millions of residents travel to work, school and home every day. This air basin regularly exceeds the federal and State standards for PM2.5, PM10, and ozone. Also lead emissions from facilities that recycle or use molten lead have been noted as a concern. Mobile sources are the primary contributors to pollutant emission within this basin (SCAQMD 2017).
San Diego County Air Basin The San Diego Air Basin covers roughly 4,200 square miles, lies in the southwest corner of California, and encompasses all of San Diego County and a portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin. The population and emissions are concentrated mainly in the western portion of the county. This air basin consists of the areas within San Diego County and a portion of Tijuana, Mexico. The California portion of this air basin suffers from pollution from mobile sources and pollution moving into the basin from the South Coast Air Basin and from Mexico. Mexico does not have the mobile source controls that are found in the United States and California and produces a greater amount of air pollutants per capita than does the adjacent San Diego County area. There is also a large number of companies that have located within Mexico on the border of California. The pollutants emitted from both mobile and stationary sources within Mexico mix within this air basin and sometimes effects receptors within the United States. This basin has generally good air quality but still occasionally exceed the air standards for ozone and particulate matter (SDCAPCD 2016).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Air Quality Nonattainment Status for Program Area Air Districts State and local air districts operate air quality monitoring stations to measure ambient pollutant concentrations. Based on the monitoring results, each air district designates geographical areas as attainment areas, nonattainment areas, or maintenance areas. Nonattainment areas are regions where the measured concentrations exceed the NAAQS, while attainment areas are regions in compliance with the NAAQS. Maintenance areas are regions once designated as nonattainment, but where the measured concentrations have improved to be in compliance with the NAAQS. The term “maintenance area” refers to the requirement that air quality improvement programs that were required when the region was a nonattainment area must be maintained even after air quality improves in the region. Table 4.3-2 lists the attainment status for each of the local air districts within the Program Area. The air districts in Table 4.3-2 are organized by their location geographically from south to north along the California coast.
Proposed Program Sources of Air Emissions The following Proposed Program activities are expected to produce emissions of pollutants. These include temporary emissions related to the construction of facilities, emissions expected from traffic generated from operation of facilities and emissions from offshore vessel operations.
Temporary Construction Emissions Temporary air pollutant emissions would be generated during construction of offshore aquaculture facilities. Offshore construction would include the delivery and anchoring of offshore finfish net pens and the installation of lines, racks or other bay or open ocean shellfish and seaweed culture structures. For a description of the types and numbers of structures that are typically used by Proposed Program facilities see Chapter 2, “Proposed Program and Alternatives.”
Permanent Stationary Emission Sources Some offshore finfish facilities would require gas or diesel electrical generators to provide power for lights and mechanical equipment. Sources of air emissions at land-based aquaculture facilities includes; ammonia refrigeration systems, and back-up power generators, electric pumping equipment, and general warehouse lighting, temperature controls, freezers and refrigeration units. For a description of the facilities typical of the Proposed Program see Chapter 2, “Proposed Program and Alternatives.“
Mobile Emission Sources Mobile sources of emissions come from car used by employees and from boats or trucks used at aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program. The amount of daily and annual boat usage would vary depending on the culture method, and how far the growing areas are from shore facilities. Truck use would typically involve periodic deliveries to and from the site for feed, supplies, and products, and, at land-based culture facilities, periodic operations and maintenance activities such as fish transfers and facility maintenance.
Sensitive Receptors For this analysis, sensitive receptors are defined those people, facilities, and areas, that are particularly susceptible to the adverse effects of air pollution. These include children, the elderly, and people with illnesses, and can include schools, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential areas. Air pollution can cause adverse health effects in humans, including aggravating asthma conditions and other respiratory problems. Under the Proposed Program, offshore aquaculture facilities would be built in the ocean and would not be located near any sensitive receptors.
4.3.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to air quality. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-9 Air Quality Ascent Environmental
FEDERAL
Clean Air Act The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires the EPA to implement programs that focus on reducing ambient air pollutant concentrations, reducing emissions of toxic pollutants, and phasing out production and use of chemicals that destroy stratospheric ozone. The CAA establishes ambient air limits, the NAAQS for six “criteria pollutants”: particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur oxides, ground-level ozone, and lead. In this analysis, the NAAQS are used to determine whether the Proposed Program would have a significant impact by contributing to emissions of criteria air pollutants which are in noncompliance for the NAAQS.
Toxic Air Contaminants TACs, or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) are a defined set of airborne pollutants that may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. EPA and, in California, CARB regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum available control technology or best available control technology for toxics to limit emissions. In this analysis, the Proposed Program is analyzed for whether it would expose existing sensitive receptors to TACs.
EPA Emissions Controls EPA has enacted nationwide emission controls for nonroad diesel engines in construction equipment and marine vessels (EPA 2018c). The regulations include improving emissions rates nonroad diesel engines through the phasing in of new engines in a tiering system. The Tier 1-4 standards are met through advanced engine design, with no or only limited use of exhaust gas aftertreatment (oxidation catalysts). This regulation would affect emissions rates for the use marine vessels and nonroad construction equipment in the construction and decommissioning of the ne aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program.
STATE
California Air Pollution Control Laws The CAAQS, established through the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), include standards for additional contaminants not covered in the NAAQS, including visibility-reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride. The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest date practical. The act specifies that local air districts should focus attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources and provides air districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources.
Criteria Air Pollutants CARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility-reducing particulate matter, as well as the pollutants covered under the NAAQS. The CCAA specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources and provides air districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources. These standards affect the analysis of criteria air pollutants generated as part of the Proposed Program.
Toxic Air Contaminants TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (AB 1807, Chapter 1047, Statutes of 1983) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588, Chapter 1252, Statutes of 1987). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for CARB to designate substances as TACs. After a TAC is identified, CARB then adopts a control measure for applicable sources. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. CARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportation-related mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off-road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). These regulations would affect marine vessels used in construction of offshore aquaculture facilities as part of the Proposed Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Regulations for Commercial Harbor Craft In 2007, CARB adopted the EPA Commercial Harbor Craft regulation, which requires engines on all new vessels to meet applicable EPA marine engine emission standards at the time the vessel is acquired (CARB 2019b). This regulation would affect marine vessels that would be used as part of construction, decommissioning, and operation of the aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program.
LOCAL
EPA established the NAAQS, and CARB established the CAAQS. Together, CARB and local air districts in California have primary responsibility for implementing the NAAQS and CAAQS at the local level. The air districts are responsible for implementing strategies for air quality improvement and recommending mitigation measures for new growth and development in their Air Quality Plans. To assist in environmental analysis, air districts can develop and adopt CEQA guidelines with either qualitative or numerical thresholds for determining when projects would generate emissions that would result in a significant impact on air quality. In some cases, the air districts’ CEQA guidelines require prescriptive mitigation measures that must be implemented if the project would result in a significant air quality impact based on its emissions.
4.3.4 Environmental Consequences This section describes the air quality impact analysis relating to existing and future aquaculture under the three management frameworks described in Chapter 2. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts and lists the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany each impact discussion.
METHODOLOGY
The Program would result in construction of both onshore and offshore aquaculture facilities. The specific locations of new onshore and offshore aquaculture facilities are not known at this time but could, as part of the Program, be built in any suitable/feasible location along the coast of California. The various jurisdictions along the coast of California, where future onshore aquaculture facilities could be built, include varied sets of requirements for new development. As a result, for the purposes of this analysis and due to existing lease requirements related to aquaculture operations, it is assumed that, prior to implementation/construction, all future aquaculture-related development (onshore and offshore) under the Proposed Program would be regulated by the state’s and local jurisdiction’s discretionary review processes, which would require consistency with applicable standards pertaining to air quality. This analysis focuses on construction and operation of offshore aquaculture facilities.
Construction Based on information included in Chapter 2, emissions modeling assumed that implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the construction of one offshore finfish facility, one offshore/subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore/subtidal seaweed facility per year. Emissions modeling assumed that the size of offshore finfish facility would be a maximum of 200 acres (809,371 square meters) and offshore subtidal shellfish and seaweed facilities would be a maximum of 400 acres (1,619,000 square meters). Assumptions regarding equipment usage during the construction of offshore facilities were derived from an Initial Study (IS)/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) recently adopted by the California Fish and Game Commission (CNRA 2018) and scaled based on the size of typical offshore facilities under the Proposed Program. Assumptions regarding worker commute trips for construction of offshore facilities were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Modeled emissions from marine vessels during Proposed Program construction were estimated using the Harborcraft, Dredge and Barge Emission Factor Calculator developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). See Appendix C for full emission modeling assumptions and details.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-11 Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Operations Modeling assumptions regarding the use of marine vessels as part of annual operations (e.g., maintenance and feeding operations) at the offshore facilities were derived from aforementioned IS/MND as well as discussions with staff at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife regarding feeding characteristics of the new finfish facilities and the total number of aquaculture facilities to be developed as part of the Proposed Program (Lovell, pers. comm., 2019). See Appendix C for full emission modeling assumptions and details. Use of marine vessels for operation activity were modeled using the Harborcraft, Dredge and Barge Emission Factor Calculator developed by the SMAQMD. Modeling assumed that fish feed would be delivered to the offshore finfish facilities by a feed barge being transported by a tugboat twice per week. Offshore facility operations would also include three trips by marine vessels to offshore facilities per week for operations and maintenance tasks.
Location and Number of Facilities Regarding the location of new aquaculture facilities, modeling assumed that the location of the offshore facilities could occur in any location along the coast of California and would be restricted by the siting criteria discussed in Section 2.4.4 of the Chapter 2. Modeling assumed a scenario in which one offshore finfish facility, one offshore subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore subtidal seaweed facility could all be constructed within the same air district simultaneously. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a total of 10 of each type of facility could be built over the projected buildout period for the Proposed Program for a total of 30 facilities. It is assumed that one facility of each type (three total) could be built per year. Operational emissions modeling included two separate scenarios to assess the projected buildout of the Program that could be located within any one air district. As part of the Proposed Program, it is acknowledged that the likely location of future finfish facilities would be south of Point Conception in the Bight. The Bight is encompassed by the following air districts: SBCAPCD, VCAPCD, SCAQMD, and SDCAPCD. The first scenario (Scenario 1) assesses the number of facilities, including finfish facilities, that could be located in one of these four air districts. The maximum number of facilities that could be located in one air district was estimated by calculating the length of the coastline within each of the four above-mentioned air districts within the Bight and estimating the relative percentage of coastline in each air district over the entire Bight. A proportionate number of finfish, shellfish, and seaweed facilities were then assumed to be located in each air district, assuming a maximum of 10 facilities would be built in any one air district. Based on this estimate, it is assumed that a maximum of 10 facilities, including a maximum of five finfish facilities could be located in any one air district within the Bight. The second scenario (Scenario 2) assessed the number of facilities that could be located in any one air district outside the Bight and would not include finfish facilities. This scenario used a conservative estimate and based the location of new facilities on the fact that the concentration of existing shellfish and seaweed facilities are in a few key locations along the California coastline (e.g., Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay) as described in Chapter 1. For this scenario, it was assumed that a total of 10 shellfish and/or seaweed facilities could be located in any one air district north of the Bight.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The four significance criteria listed below are based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and are common across all air districts. The significance thresholds for specific pollutants listed under the first significance criterion were chosen because they are the largest mass emissions threshold for each pollutant for all applicable air districts. It is assumed that if the Proposed Program would generate emissions in exceedance of specific pollutant thresholds listed below, the Proposed Program would also exceed the threshold for all other applicable air districts for these pollutants which are more stringent than the thresholds listed below. The air district for which each of the specific pollutant thresholds was derived is listed below along with the numeric threshold. For a scenario in which emissions of any of the pollutants listed below are below the air district with the largest mass emissions threshold, the modeled emissions levels of the Proposed Program were compared to each air district’s significance threshold to determine which specific thresholds would be exceeded. The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact related to air quality if it would:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan by violating any ambient air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected ambient air quality violation by exceeding any of the following emissions thresholds which have been established by various air districts relevant to the Proposed Program:
operation- or construction-related emissions of 137 pounds per day (lbs/day) or more of NOX or ROG (MBUAPCD);
operation- or construction-related emissions of 150 lbs/day or more of PM10 (SCAQMD);
operation- or construction-related emissions of 55 lbs/day or more of PM2.5 (SCAQMD);
operation- or construction-related emissions of 550 lbs/day or more of CO (SCAQMD);
result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region in nonattainment under and applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard by exceeding any of the emissions thresholds listed above;
expose sensitive receptors to a substantial incremental increase in TAC emissions, which are defined as those that exceed 10 in 1 million for carcinogenic risk (i.e., the risk of developing cancer) and/or a noncarcinogenic hazard index of 1.0 or greater; or
result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors; or adversely affecting a substantial number of people).
ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER All issues applicable to air quality, as outlined by the thresholds above, are evaluated. Whether the Proposed Program would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region in nonattainment under and applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard by exceeding any of the emissions thresholds listed above is evaluated in Section 4.11, “Cumulative Impacts.”
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact AQ-1: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Construction or Decommissioning
The Proposed Program would result in the construction and eventual decommissioning of offshore finfish, offshore subtidal shellfish, and offshore subtidal seaweed facilities. Construction and demolition of offshore aquaculture facilities as part of the Proposed Program would require the use of marine vessels which would result in emissions of criteria air pollutants. Emissions modeling illustrates that emissions of NOX would be above the significance threshold for all air districts where new facilities could be built along the coast. Therefore, construction emissions would conflict with implementation of the MBUAPCD air quality plan by contributing to an existing or projected ambient air quality violation by exceeding emissions thresholds for NOX. The MBUAPCD emissions thresholds for NOX are the highest mass emissions threshold among the applicable air districts for the Proposed Program. Therefore, the Proposed Program would also violate the air quality plans for all other applicable air districts by exceeding the emissions thresholds for NOX in each of the other air districts. As a result, this impact would be significant.
Implementation of Proposed Program would result in the construction and eventual decommissioning of offshore finfish, offshore subtidal shellfish, and offshore subtidal seaweed facilities located at various points along the California coast. Construction of offshore aquaculture facilities would include the installation of equipment for rearing varieties of finfish, shellfish, and seaweed. Construction and the eventual decommissioning of offshore aquaculture facilities would require the use of marine vessels resulting in emissions of criteria air pollutants. The potential construction of onshore facilities would include site preparation, building construction, parking lot construction and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-13 Air Quality Ascent Environmental architectural painting, which could generate air pollutant emissions from the use of construction equipment and worker commute vehicles during various phases of construction. However, per existing lease requirements, land- based facilities would be required to adhere to existing regulations and processes of local jurisdictions and, potentially, the Coastal Commission. While CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including air emission reduction requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that similar requirements would be imposed during review of onshore facilities by local jurisdictions and/or the Coastal Commission to reduce any impacts associated with onshore facilities to less than significant. Table 4.3-3 presents an emissions estimate for a scenario in which one offshore finfish facility, one offshore subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore subtidal seaweed facility could be under construction simultaneously within the same air district. Emissions from this scenario were compared to the significance thresholds for each pollutant within each of the ten air districts where new aquaculture facilities could be built. Demolition and decommissioning of the aquaculture facilities is anticipated to involve the same level of or less construction activity and, therefore, construction activity, as the larger source of emissions levels, were compared to the applicable thresholds for this analysis.
Table 4.3-3 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Emissions Estimate
Facility Type and Pollutant Daily (lbs/day) Annual (tons per year)
Offshore Finfish Facility Construction and Decommissioning Carbon monoxide 37 4 Oxides of nitrogen 92 11 Reactive organic gases 9 1
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 5 1
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 4 0 Offshore Shellfish or Seaweed Facility Construction and Decommissioning Carbon monoxide 8 1 Oxides of nitrogen 22 3 Reactive organic gases 2 0
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 1 0.1
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 1 0.1 Combined Facility Construction and Decommissioning1 Carbon monoxide 53 6 Oxides of nitrogen 135 16 Reactive organic gases 14 2
Respirable particulate matter (PM10) 7 1
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 6 1 1 Estimates include construction emissions from one offshore finfish facility, one offshore subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore subtidal seaweed facility under the assumption that these three facilities could be developed simultaneously within one air district.
Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2019 (refer to Appendix C)
The results of this comparison revealed that construction-generated emissions of NOX (135 lbs/day and 16 tons per year) would exceed the significance thresholds for all applicable air district except for SDCAPCD (250 lbs/day for NOX or 40 tons per year) and NSCAPCD (40 tons of NOX per year). Construction-generated emissions of NOX would also
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality exceed the construction-related emissions significance threshold for this pollutant in every other air district evaluated in this analysis. Construction-generated emissions of all other pollutants would remain below the significance thresholds for each of the air districts included in the analysis. Construction-generated emissions of NOX would be significant for the following air districts: NCUAQMD, MCAQMD, BAAQMD, VCAPCD, SCAQMD. Therefore, the Proposed Program would violate the air quality plans for all applicable air districts by exceeding the emissions thresholds for NOX in each of these air districts. As result, this impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Apply On-Site ROG and NOX Control Measures for Offshore Facility Construction CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt the following requirements for the approval of aquaculture facilities and ensure that all aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission that involve the construction of new facilities will be required to meet these terms:
All offshore aquaculture facility construction shall use marine vessels that include or have been repowered with EPA Tier 2 engines.
To reduce equipment exhaust emissions, acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late-model engines, low-emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. Incorporate all air district-recommended emission control measures available at the time of plan submittal, and comply with the State Off-Road Regulation by using diesel construction equipment meeting CARB’s Tier 3 standard, or the highest tier available at the time of contractor bid, for heavy- duty diesel engines. Proof shall be submitted along with the written calculation of the emissions reduction achieved, incorporated additional measures, and engine model-year to be used for all equipment. Proof shall also include submittal of the CARB compliance certificate of the construction fleet to be used.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce NOx emissions associated with the use of marine vessels during offshore facility installation and decommissioning. The requirement for the use of EPA Tier 2 engines in all marine construction vessels would reduce NOX emissions during this activity by 45 percent, reduce ROG emissions during this activity by 52 percent, and reduce PM emissions by 12 percent. Table 4.3-4 includes the modeled construction emissions under the unmitigated and mitigated scenarios as well as the percent emissions reductions achieved by implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1.
As shown in Table 4.3-4, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce construction generated emissions of ROG and NOX as well as PM10 and PM2.5. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would still not reduce NOX emissions below the significance threshold for the following air districts: NCUAPCD, MCAQMD, BAAQMD, and VCAQMD. See Chapter 3 for all applicable significance thresholds.
The generation of NOX emissions at levels that would exceed applicable significance thresholds would be great enough to substantially degrade ambient air quality to the extent that human health could be adversely affected. As discussed in Section 4.3.2, NOX emissions are precursor emissions to the formation of ozone. The acute health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include permeability of respiratory epithelia and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2018a).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-15 Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Table 4.3-4 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Construction Mitigation Measure Reductions
Exceeds Unmitigated Scenario Mitigated Scenario Percent Threshold Facility Type and Pollutant Reduction after Daily (lbs/day) Annual (tons per year) Daily (lbs/day) Annual (tons per year) (lbs/day) Mitigation? Combined Facility Construction CO 53 6 49 6 -8% No
1 NOx 135 16 74 9 -45% Yes ROG 14 2 6 1 -52% No
PM10 7 1 5 0.6 -18% No
PM2.5 6 1 4 0.5 -22% No Notes: Estimates include construction emissions from one offshore finfish facility, one offshore subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore subtidal seaweed facility under the assumption that these three facilities could be developed simultaneously within one air district. Percent reductions may not be exactly reproducible due to rounding.
CO = carbon monoxide; NA = not applicable; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = fine particulate matter; PM2.5 = respirable particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases.
1. NOX emissions after mitigation would exceed the threshold for the following air districts NCUAPCD (50 lbs/day), MCAQMD (54 lbs/day), BAAQMD (54 lbs/day), and VCAQMD (25 lbs/day)
Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2019 (refer to Appendix C)
Modeling a project’s contribution to the formation of ozone is scientifically infeasible to execute with meaningful accuracy. Unlike PM, ozone is a secondary pollutant of concern and is formed from the oxidation of NOX in the presence of sunlight. Rates of formation are dependent on function of a variety of complex, physical factors including, but not limited to, topography, NOX ratios, wind direction, building downwash, temperature, and sunlight exposure. For example, rates of ozone formation are optimal in elevated temperatures and when the ratio of ROG to NOX is 5.5:1. When temperatures lower and this ratio increases or decreases, rates of ozone formation are stunted. Consequently, the amount of ozone produced by project-level emissions of NOX is scientifically infeasible to track with a high degree of accuracy; too many unpredictable variables interact that affect ozone production. As a result, modeling the specific health impacts from the generation of NOX emissions from the Proposed Program is not feasible. Because NOX emissions would be generated at levels that would exceed applicable significance thresholds and would be great enough to substantially degrade ambient air quality, there would be health effects from ozone exposure. The general health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include permeability of respiratory epithelia and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2018a).
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would not reduce NOX emissions below the significance thresholds for aforementioned air districts in which new aquaculture facilities could be built. Mitigation Measure AQ-1 includes all feasible mitigation measures which could be applied to the construction of individual aquaculture facilities to be developed as part of the Proposed Program and, therefore, no other mitigation is available. As a result, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1, this impact would remain potentially significant and unavoidable.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Impact AQ-2: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Operation
Implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the operation of new aquaculture facilities along the coast of California. Activities associated with the operation of new aquaculture facilities would generate emissions of NOX that would exceed the significance threshold for the following air districts in which a new aquaculture facility could be built: NCUAQMD, MCAQMD, BAAQMD, SLOCAPCD, VCAPCD, and SCAQMD. Operational emissions would conflict with implementation of the air quality plans for these air districts by exceeding emissions thresholds for NOx. As a result, this impact would be significant.
Operational Emissions Implementation of the Proposed Program would result in activity at offshore and onshore facilities with the level activity varying depending on the type of aquaculture facility. However, the level of emissions would be largely dictated by and generated from activities at offshore facilities. For shellfish and seaweed operations, this would include the use of marine vessels and on-board equipment for the seeding, inspection, and harvesting of shellfish and seaweed, as well as regular repairs, maintenance, and inspection of the offshore facilities. For finfish facilities, this would include the use of marine vessels and on-board equipment for the delivery of fish to fish cages, fish feeding operations, and fish harvesting. Marine vessels would also be used for regular repairs, maintenance, and inspection of the offshore finfish facilities. Table 4.3-5 includes emissions estimates for a scenario in which 10 facilities including five finfish facilities could be in operation simultaneously within one air district.
Table 4.3-5 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Operational Emissions Estimate
Pollutant Daily (lbs/day) Annual (tons per year)
Facilities in Southern California Bight (Scenario 1) CO 56 7
NOx 224 26 ROG 16 2
PM10 10 1
PM2.5 9 1 Facilities Outside Southern California Bight (Scenario 2) CO 21 2
NOx 95 11 ROG 6 1
PM10 4 0.4
PM2.5 3 0.4
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = fine particulate matter; PM2.5 = respirable particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases.
Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2019 (refer to Appendix C)
With respect to onshore facilities, the operation of warehouse facilities could generate certain emissions, associated with electrical/utility usage, however, based on the size of the anticipated facility, emissions are anticipated to be minimal. Further, while CDFW does not have authority over onshore land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including air-quality-mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that similar requirements would be imposed during review of onshore facilities by local jurisdictions and/or the Coastal Commission to reduce any impacts associated with onshore facilities.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-17 Air Quality Ascent Environmental
Operation of facilities under the Proposed Program would result in emissions of various criteria air pollutants at levels show in Table 4.3-5. Emissions levels shown in Table 4.3-5 include a scenario (Scenario 1) for the maximum level of emissions that would occur in any one air district in the Southern California Bight. Based on the significance thresholds established by the four air districts in the Bight, operational activity as part of the Proposed Program would generate emissions of NOX that would exceed the significance threshold of 25 lbs/day for VCAPCD and 100 lbs/day for SCAQMD. As shown in Table 4.3-5, Scenario 2 includes the maximum level of emissions that would occur in any one air district outside of the Southern California Bight. Based on the significance thresholds established by the air districts outside the Bight (see Chapter 3), operational activity as part of the Proposed Program would generate emissions of NOX above the significance threshold for NOX for the following air districts: NCUAQMD, MCAQMD, BAAQMD, and SLOCAPCD. Based on emission modeling for operational activity under the Proposed Program, emissions of NOX would exceed the significance thresholds for all the aforementioned air districts in which new facilities could be located. As a result, this impact would be significant.
Mitigation Measure
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Apply On-Site NOX Control Measures for Offshore Aquaculture Facility Operation CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for aquaculture facilities and ensure that all aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
All offshore aquaculture facility operations shall use marine vessels that include EPA Certified Tier 2 engines.
Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce NOX emissions associated with the use of heavy-duty marine vessels and use of equipment associated with operational activity. The requirement for the use of EPA Tier 2 engines in all marine vessels would reduce NOX emissions during this activity by 45 percent, ROG emissions during this activity by 52 percent as well as PM emissions by 12 percent. Table 4.3-6 includes the modeled operations emissions under the unmitigated and mitigated (i.e., with marine vessels that include EPA Certified Tier 2 engines) scenarios as well as the percent emissions reductions achieved by implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce operation-generated emissions of ROG and NOx as well as PM10 and PM2.5. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would not reduce emissions below the significance threshold for any of the following air districts in which new aquaculture facilities could be built: See Chapter 3 for all applicable significance thresholds.
The generation of NOX emissions at levels that would exceed applicable significance thresholds would be great enough to substantially degrade ambient air quality to the extent that human health would be adversely affected. As discussed in Section 4.3.2, NOX emissions are precursor emissions to the formation of ozone. The acute health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include permeability of respiratory epithelia and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2018a). As discussed in greater detail above for Impact AQ-1, modeling the proposed programs contribution to the formation of ozone is infeasible to execute with meaningful accuracy. As a result, modeling the health impacts from the generation of NOX emissions from the Proposed Program was not done in this analysis. Because NOX emissions would be generated at levels that would exceed applicable significance thresholds and would be great enough to substantially degrade ambient air quality, there would be health effects from ozone exposure. The general health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include permeability of respiratory epithelia and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2018a).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-18 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Table 4.3-6 Proposed Program Criteria Air Pollutant Operational Emissions Estimate
Unmitigated Scenario Mitigated Scenario Exceeds Percent Threshold after Pollutant Annual (tons Annual (tons Reduction Mitigation? Daily (lbs/day) Daily (lbs/day) per year) per year) Facilities in Southern California Bight (Scenario 1) CO 56 7 56 7 0% No
1 NOx 224 26 123 14 -45% Yes ROG 16 2 8 1 -52% No
PM10 10 1 9 1 -12% No
PM2.5 9 1 8 1 -12% No Facilities Outside Southern California Bight (Scenario 2) CO 21 2 21 2 N/A No
2 NOx 95 11 52 6 -45% Yes ROG 6 1 3 0 -52% No
PM10 4 0 3 0 -12% No
PM2.5 3 0 3 0 -12% No
Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = fine particulate matter; PM2.5 = respirable particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases, N/A = not applicable.
1. NOX emissions after mitigation would exceed the threshold for all applicable air districts (SBCAPCD, VCAPCD, SCAQMD, and SDCAPCD). in the Southern California Bight.
2. NOX emissions after mitigation would exceed the threshold for all applicable air districts (NCUAPCD, MCAPCD, BAAQMD, MBUAPCD, and SLOCAPCD) outside the Southern California Bight.
Source: Modeling conducted by Ascent Environmental in 2019 (refer to Appendix C)
Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-2 would reduce NOX emissions. However, even with mitigation, NOX emissions reductions would not be below any of the significance thresholds for any of the applicable air districts in which new aquaculture facilities could be built. Mitigation Measure AQ-2 includes all feasible mitigation measures which could be applied to the operations of individual aquaculture facilities to be developed as part of the Proposed Program and, therefore, no other mitigation is available. The Proposed Program would violate the air quality plans for all other applicable air districts by exceeding the emissions thresholds for NOX in each of these air districts. As a result, this impact would remain potentially significant and unavoidable.
Impact AQ-3: Expose Sensitive Receptors to Substantial Concentrations of Toxic Air Contaminants
Construction of aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program would result in the use of marine vessels at new aquaculture facilities. Therefore, implementation of the Proposed Program would generate diesel PM emissions, a known TAC. Additionally, operation of the aquaculture facilities would also result in the use of marine vessels at the offshore facilities. Diesel PM emissions generated during construction and operation of aquaculture facilities would not occur in close proximity to any sensitive receptors. This impact would be less than significant.
Construction, operation, and the eventual decommissioning of aquaculture facilities developed under the Proposed Program would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and diesel-powered marine vessels and would generate diesel PM emissions. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel PM was identified as TAC by CARB in 1998. The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-19 Air Quality Ascent Environmental substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for any exposed receptor. Thus, the risks estimated for an exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. The specific location of new aquaculture facilities is not known at this time. As noted in the methodology discussion, this analysis focuses exclusively on the installation and decommissioning of offshore aquaculture facilities. As noted above for any onshore facilities, lease applicants would be required per existing state water bottom leases to comply with the requirements of applicable permitting agencies having jurisdiction over the land-based components of future aquaculture projects. While CDFW does not have authority over onshore land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including air-quality-mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that similar requirements would be imposed during review of onshore facilities by local jurisdictions and/or the Coastal Commission to reduce any impacts associated with onshore facilities. Installation of the offshore aquaculture facilities would include the use of marine vessels as well as auxiliary engines on marine vessels to install equipment (e.g., anchors, fish nets, rope) as part of the offshore aquaculture facilities. These activities would occur in the ocean at the location of the offshore aquaculture facilities and would not be located near any sensitive receptors. Additionally, given the highly dispersive properties of construction exhaust emissions, and the temporary and intermittent duration of construction activity, potential exposure of sensitive receptors to pollutant would minimal and any concentrations would not be substantial. Operation of aquaculture facilities would also result in the use of marine vessels for activity at the offshore facilities and would not occur close to any sensitive receptors. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure No mitigation is required.
Impact AQ-4: Cause Objectionable Odors Affecting a Substantial Number of People
Construction and operation of aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program would result in the use of equipment, including marine vessels and other auxiliary engines located on marine vessels, which could generate localized odors. The odor sources would be temporary in nature and dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase with distance. As a result, the Proposed Program is not anticipated to result in exposure of a substantial number of people to objectionable odors. This impact would be less than significant
The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including: the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be regarded as very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. The Proposed Program would not result in the development of any facilities that are typically considered a major odor source (e.g., odor emissions from a wastewater treatment process, rendering plant, or coffee roaster). Construction of the offshore aquaculture facilities, as part of the Proposed Program would result in the use of marine vessels as well as auxiliary engines located on marine vessels. This activity would occur in the ocean at the site of offshore aquaculture facilities and would not be located near any sensitive receptors. The odor sources from emissions generated by the use of marine vessels and auxiliary engines would be temporary in nature and dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase with distance. Construction of the onshore aquaculture facilities would result in the use of heavy-duty construction equipment and laying of asphalt resulting in minor odors. However, these odors would be intermittent and temporary and would likely dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase with distance. Operation of the onshore aquaculture facilities would include components for aquaculture operation such as hatcheries, feed storage facilities, and administrative offices and is also not anticipated to include any major odor sources. The Proposed Program would, therefore, not result in exposure of objectionable odors for a substantial number of people. This impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-20 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality
Mitigation Measure No mitigation is required.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Under Alternative 2, there would be no size limit on the new aquaculture facilities. So, although the same number of new facilities would be permitted, the anticipated increase in the size of each new facility would result in increased levels of construction, operation, and decommissioning activity at each facility, resulting in higher levels of emissions. For Impacts AQ-1 and AQ-2, the impact would remain significant under this alternative for the reasons identified for the Proposed Program; it is anticipated that emissions would be greater under this alternative because the facilities would be larger than under the Proposed Program. Mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would reduce Impacts AQ-1 and AQ-2 respectively, but not below the identified thresholds of significance. Impacts AQ-3 would be similar to the Proposed Program because an increase in the size of offshore aquaculture facilities under this alternative would not change the general location of offshore aquaculture facilities. As a result, both construction and operation of the offshore aquaculture facilities would not result in the exposure of any sensitive receptors to TACs. Impacts AQ-4 would be similar to the Proposed Program because the alternative would not include any sources of odor and, therefore, would not result in exposure of objectionable odors for a substantial number of people. Therefore, the analysis and impact conclusions for Impacts AQ-3 and AQ-4 would not change under this alternative.
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) No Project Alternative Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no development of in-water finfish facilities and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in-water shellfish facilities. Without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases. The potential emissions from construction and operation of aquaculture facilities would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases and less associated emissions, TACs, and odors. Therefore, air quality impacts associated with the No Program Alternative would be less than those described above for the Proposed Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.3-21 Air Quality Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3-22 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.4.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment for biological resources. It also describes the impacts on biological resources that would result from implementation of the Proposed Program, and mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. Thirteen comment letters regarding biological resources were received in response to the notice of preparation of this PEIR (refer to Appendix B). In addition, two verbal comments regarding biological resources were received during the March 5–6, 2007, public scoping meetings and one was received during the April 10, 2018, public scoping meeting. The following issues and recommendations identified by the commenters are addressed in this section:
potential effects associated with the spread of invasive, exotic, or transgenic species, including the proliferation of the sea squirt (Didemnum vexillum);
recommendation that the PEIR discuss the potential impacts from the escape or spread of farmed fish, shellfish, or algae on wild fish populations and aquatic ecosystems and that the PEIR include assessments of the potential genetic and ecological impacts on wild fish resulting from escaped fish and of the effects from crossbreeding, disease and parasite transmission, and competition for resources;
recommendation that the biological resources section consider impacts on coastal resources, habitat, native species, special-status species, and eelgrass;
recommendation that the PEIR consider impacts due to noise as well as interactions with marine wildlife;
impacts on sensitive marine and coastal habitat and marine protected areas (MPAs);
impacts on existing mariculture in Tomales Bay, specifically the increase of invasive species;
impacts on habitat and native wildlife due to organic pollution, eutrophication, algal blooms, disruption of the food chain, and species depletion;
recommendation that the PEIR evaluate impacts on the benthic environment;
recommendation that the PEIR evaluate impacts on wildlife due to net entanglement;
recommendation that the PEIR evaluate environmental impacts of fish meal, specifically the depletion of wild stocks of low-tropic-level species that are used as feed for the cultured species, and evaluate the extraction of large amounts of phytoplankton and particulates from local marine waters;
recommendation that the PEIR evaluate antipredation measures, such as acoustic deterrent devices, aerial and underwater netting, and vessels, to address natural predators that are often attracted to aquaculture facilities; and
recommendation that the consideration of the effects of removal of forage fish for feed, fish meal, and fish oil on marine ecosystems. Comments related to the effects of potential releases of antibiotics, other therapeutants, and heavy metals on the marine environment are discussed in Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography.” Additional comments that will not be discussed in this section because they are not topics evaluated under CEQA include: the suggestion that there be “no take” allowed for the mako shark population, concerns about overharvesting abalone along the northern California region, and requests to lift quotas on harvesting purple sea urchin due to the recent population explosion. The key sources of data and information used in preparing this section are:
published, peer-reviewed literature;
government-prepared documents evaluating aquaculture;
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-1 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
scientific analyses and review chapters published in books;
non-peer-reviewed literature including published and unpublished reports, web sites, and the popular press;
agency maintained databases, and
professional experience and scientific knowledge of staff and related experts.
4.4.2 Environmental Setting This section provides an overview of California coastal and marine habitats and organisms. Because this analysis is conducted at a program level and the study area is very large (coastal areas statewide), the environmental setting is intended to provide an overview, not a full inventory of all common and sensitive biological resources that are known or could occur at a particular aquaculture site. Site-specific resources would be identified and addressed during project-level environmental review. The Program area extends from 1,000 yards inland of mean high water to 3 nm off the coast of California. This area includes numerous habitats, sensitive communities, and special-status plant and animal species. To organize the biological resources setting description of the Proposed Program, the marine waters of California are divided into four biogeographic regions:
northern California (California-Oregon border to Alder Creek),
north-central California (Alder Creek to Pigeon Point),
central California (Pigeon Point to Point Conception), and
southern California (Point Conception to the Mexican border).
These biogeographic regions were chosen because they align with the regions used in the MPA program (refer to “Marine Protected Areas” sections below). The characteristic common and sensitive biological resources are described for each region in the sections that follow. Information on the physical setting and wildlife habitats, special-status species, sensitive natural communities, essential fish habitat, critical habitat, special management areas, and other biologically important lands were gathered through review of existing data sources and are presented as a general summary of resources that may occur in each region. During project-level environmental review for individual aquaculture leases under the Program, additional data sources would be used to determine sensitive biological resources with potential to occur in a specific project area, including surveys. The following sources of information were used to characterize the environmental setting:
Information on sensitive biological resources, including special-status species and sensitive natural communities, within the Program area was compiled from:
records search and GIS query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CNDDB 2019);
California Native Plant Society (CNPS), Rare Plant Program online database (CNPS 2019);
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation tool (USFWS 2019);
USFWS and University of California, Santa Cruz, seabird colony data (Capitolo, pers. comm., 2019);
pinniped rookeries and haul-out site data (NOAA Fisheries 2011); and
publicly available aerial imagery.
Information on wildlife movement corridors was obtained from the California Essential Habitat Connectivity project (Spencer et al. 2010).
The following sections provide an overview of the physical setting, wildlife habitat, sensitive biological resources, special management areas, and other biologically important areas within the Program area and summarizes the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources methods and data sources used to identify these resources. Additional detail is provided at a regional scale for the four biogeographic regions in the sections that follow.
Physical Setting and Wildlife Habitat
California Coastal Habitat The coast of California is composed of sandy beaches, rocky headlands, sea cliffs, and lagoons in the intertidal and nearshore environment. Generally, the coastline north of Point Conception is rugged, with prominent headlands, stretches or sea cliffs, and small sandy beaches. South of Point Conception, the shoreline is typically adjacent to coastal plains and marine terraces; and long sandy beaches are common. Tidal flats, sandy or muddy expanses that become exposed at low tides and are associated with coastal rivers as well as bays and estuaries, are distributed along the California coast. Beds of mussels (Mytilus spp.), seagrass beds, and algal assemblages from turfs (e.g., Endocladia muricata) to low canopies of leathery kelps (e.g., Pterygophora californica, Postelsia palmaeformis) are distributed in patches throughout rocky shoreline habitat along the coast. Seagrass habitats support an abundant and biologically diverse assemblage of aquatic wildlife species. The most common type of seagrass in estuaries and sheltered coastal bays in California is common eelgrass (Zostera marina). Eelgrass beds provide refuge, foraging, breeding, or nursery areas for a variety of invertebrates, fish and birds. The most common type of seagrass along the open coast of California is surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.), which forms beds that fringe nearly all of the rocky coastline at the zero-tide level down to several meters below the zero-tide level (Figures 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-3, and 4.4-4). Kelp forests are an important component of California's marine ecosystems that provide shelter for both juvenile and adult species of fish, provide important nursery habitat for southern sea otters (Enhydra lutris nereis), offer vertical and horizontal substrate for a variety of marine organisms, and account for a large portion of the primary productivity in the nearshore communities. In California, there are two primary canopy-forming kelp species: giant kelp (Macrocystis pyrifera) and bull kelp (Nereocystis luetkeana). In addition, intertidal boulders, platforms and cliffs, as well as tidepools, are home to many species of snails, barnacles, anemones, crabs, sea stars, and fishes. Kelp forests grow along rocky coastlines and typically remain nearshore in subtidal communities (Figures 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-3, and 4.4-4). Many offshore rocks and islets are present along California’s rocky coastlines, which provide habitat for many species of pinnipeds (i.e., seals and sea lions) and seabirds. Several seabird species occur and nest in colonies on these features along the California coast, including common murre (Uria aalge), Brandt’s cormorant (Phalacrocorax penicillatus), pelagic cormorant (Phalacrocorax pelagicus), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritis), western gull (Larus occidentalis), fork-tailed storm-petrel (Oceanodroma furcata), ashy storm-petrel (Oceanodroma homochroa), and Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Several marine mammal species, which are protected under the federal Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), are known to occur within the nearshore environment along the California coast. Gray whales (Eschrichtius robustus) undertake the longest migration of any mammal along the California coastline, utilizing inshore areas and protected coves during the spring-time northbound migration to Alaska with their calves. Other cetaceans (i.e., whales, dolphins, porpoises) utilize nearshore habitat including harbor porpoise (Phoecena phoecena) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Several pinniped species breed and rest on California beaches, river mouths, and offshore rocks, including harbor seal (Phoca vitulina), California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), Steller sea lion (Eumetopias jubatus), northern elephant seal (Mirounga angustirostris), and northern fur seal (Callorhinus ursinus).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-3 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-1 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the Northern California Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-2 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the North-Central California Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-5 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-3 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the Central California Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-4 Predicted Seafloor Substrate, Canopy-Forming Kelp Beds, and Eelgrass Beds in the Southern California Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-7 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
California Pelagic Habitat The pelagic habitat supports planktonic organisms that float or swim in the water, as well as fish, marine birds, and marine mammals. The pelagic community is composed of microorganisms such as phytoplankton (e.g., diatoms, dinoflagellates) and zooplankton (e.g., protozoans, radiolarians, copepods, amphipods), and other organisms like worms, mollusks and jellyfish. Pelagic fish species off the coast of California include northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), Pacific herring (Clupea pallasii), Pacific mackerel (Trachurus symmetricus), albacore tuna (Thunnus alalonga), several chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs), and steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus). Seabirds that are typically associated with offshore habitat in California include northern fulmar (Fulmarus glacialis), sooty shearwater (Ardenna grisea), pink-footed shearwater (Ardenna creatopus), Buller’s shearwater (Ardenna bulleri), black-footed albatross (Phoebastria nigripes), and Laysan albatross (Phoebastria immutabilis). Several cetacean species occur in California’s pelagic environment, including humpback whale (Megaptera novaengliae), blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus), orca (also known as “killer whale”) (Orcinus orca), common dolphin (Delphinus delphis), Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), northern right whale dolphin (Lissodelphis borealis), and Pacific white-sided dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obliquidens). Several sea turtle species are known to occur along the California coast: leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas), Pacific hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricate bissa), loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta), and olive ridley sea turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea). These species occur primarily in pelagic habitats, but occasionally occur nearshore.
California Benthic Habitat Benthic (seafloor) habitat in California varies geographically but is typically characterized by either hard (rocky or reef) substrate or soft (sand or mud) substrate. The locations of each benthic substrate type vary within each biogeographic region based on several factors, including the geology of the shoreline (Figures 4.4-1, 4.4-2, 4.4-3, and 4.4-4). Both substrates provide habitat for numerous invertebrate and fish species. Rocky areas provide hard substratum to which kelp and other algae attach in waters up to approximately 100 feet deep, while in deeper water, hard substratum provides attachment substrate for many species of deep-water invertebrates. In addition to attached organisms, the structural complexity of rocky areas provides habitat and protection for mobile invertebrates and fishes. Soft-bottom environments range from flat expanses to slopes and basin areas. Soft-bottom habitats lack the complex, three-dimensional structure of hard-bottom substrata, and are somewhat less diverse in species assemblages than rocky reefs, depending on the compositional sediment type. Soft-bottom habitats can be highly dynamic in nature as sediments shift due to wave action, bottom currents, and geological processes. Shallow, sandy, soft-bottom benthic habitat is found in areas along the coast that are subject to constant tide, wave, and shoreline processes, resulting in a highly changing and low-productivity region. Sandy benthic habitat generally extends to water depths of approximately 300 feet. Muddy sediment bottoms are typically found in water depths greater than 300 feet along the shelf but also occur in estuaries and lagoons. Submarine canyons are submerged steep-sided valleys that cut through the continental slope and occasionally extend close to shore. These features exhibit bathymetric complexity, support unique deep-water communities, and affect local and regional circulation patterns. Canyons provide habitat for young rockfish and flatfish that settle in nearshore waters to grow and move offshore as adults. Canyons also attract concentrations of prey species and provide important foraging opportunities for seabirds and marine mammals (Yen et al. 2004).
California Current System The California Current is part of the North Pacific Gyre, which swirls clockwise within the northern basin of the Pacific Ocean. The California Current is made up of southward-flowing surface waters extending more than a hundred miles offshore; these waters are cooler than the waters farther offshore. This cold water results in upwelling, which brings nutrient-rich sediments to the ocean surfaces and produces highly productive conditions for wildlife such as whales, seabirds, and fish. Two large countercurrents also influence conditions along the California coastline, including the northward-flowing subsurface Davidson Countercurrent and Southern California Countercurrent. During the winter, the California Current tends to “move” offshore, allowing the inshore countercurrents to dominate in the nearshore surface waters (Reid et al. 1958). More detailed information regarding the effect of the California Current system within each biogeographic region is provided below.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Oceanographic patterns create pelagic habitats that differ from one another with respect to temperature, salinity, chlorophyll content, contaminant loads and planktonic biological assemblages. Oceanographic patterns also strongly influence growth, fecundity and survivorship of many species, and well as dispersal and recruitment patterns of sedentary species that have planktonic phases. Oceanographic conditions such as currents, water masses, and temperature strongly influence marine biodiversity. Variations in oceanographic factors determine areas of productivity where krill, squid, anchovy, seabirds, and marine mammals congregate in the pelagic ecosystem (Yen et al. 2004). Features such as eddies, upwelling plumes, currents, recirculation cells and river outflow plumes can be associated with high marine biodiversity, and transport patterns created by these features can significantly affect recruitment patterns of fish and invertebrates in intertidal nearshore communities (Farrell et al. 1991, Wing et al. 1995, Mace and Morgan 2006). Two large-scale atmospheric processes also influence the California Current system: El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events and Pacific Decadal Oscillations (PDO). ENSO events generally reduce upwelling of cold, nutrient-rich waters, increase onshore and northward flows, and increase sea surface temperatures. ENSO events typically occur every several years, and generally result in declines of zooplankton and reductions in productivity that can affect fish, seabird, and marine mammal populations. PDO events occur over much longer timescales (20–30 years) and have large-scale impacts on zooplankton and fish productivity throughout the North Pacific.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Special-Status Species Special-status species are plants and animals that are legally protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (FGC Section 2050 et seq.), the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), or other regulations, as well as species considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. For this PEIR, special-status species are defined as:
species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (50 CFR 17.12) for listed plants, (50 CFR 17.11) for listed animals, and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species;
species that are candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under the ESA (75 CFR 69222);
species protected by the MMPA (50 CFR 18);
species that are listed or proposed for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 CCR Section 670.5);
plants considered by CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank;
species that meet the definition of rare or endangered under Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
animals fully protected in California under the Fish and Game Code (FGC) (Section 3511 for birds, Section 4700 for mammals, and Section 5050 for reptiles and amphibians); or
animals identified by CDFW as species of special concern.
The special-status species designation does not extend to common bird species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC Sections 703–712) or the corresponding California bird protection statutes (FGC Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3513); however, nesting birds, including common nesting bird species, are discussed under the special-status wildlife species sections of this document. Because this analysis is conducted at a program level, it is possible that different or additional special-status species could be present within the vicinity of a particular aquaculture site; these would be addressed during project-level environmental review.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-9 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Sensitive Natural Communities and Aquatic Resources Sensitive natural communities or habitats are those of special concern to resource agencies such as CDFW, or those that are afforded specific consideration based on Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, California Coastal Act (e.g., Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas in coastal zones), and other applicable regulations. This concern may be due to locally or regionally declining status of these habitats, or because they provide important habitat to common and special-status species. Many of these communities are tracked in the CNDDB.
Essential Fish Habitat National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries, in partnership with the Pacific Fishery Management Council and federal and State agencies, has identified Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for each federally managed fish species (e.g., groundfish, coastal pelagic species, salmon) along the California coast and developed conservation measures to protect and enhance these habitats (refer to “Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act” section in Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting”). EFH are those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity, such as nearshore waters, intertidal waters, and pelagic deep water. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are subsets of EFH that highlight high-priority areas for conservation or management. These areas include habitat such as kelp forests, bays and estuaries, rocky shorelines, and eelgrass (or other seagrass) beds. These features occur throughout the Program area, and within every biogeographic region, but are typically concentrated in certain areas based on geology or other favorable conditions.
Critical Habitat “Critical habitat” is a term defined and used in the ESA. It refers to specific geographic areas designated by USFWS or NOAA Fisheries that contain features essential to the conservation of an endangered or threatened species and that may require special management and protection. Critical habitat designations affect only federal agency actions or federally funded or permitted activities. CDFW, as a State agency, is not required to consult with USFWS or NOAA Fisheries for actions within critical habitat. The descriptions below and within each biogeographic region description provide a complete list of the plant and animal species that have designated critical habitat for informational purposes, as these areas may indicate a higher probability of special-status species occurrence. Critical habitat is present along the coast of California for the following wildlife and plant species:
Chinook salmon Palos Verdes blue butterfly (Glaucopsche lygdamus palosverdesensis) coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) eulachon (Thaleichthys pacificus) San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegoensis) green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) Steller sea lion steelhead Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni tidewater goby (Eucyclogobius newberryi) morroensis) black abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) Gaviota tarplant (Deinandra increscens ssp. villosa) California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) La Graciosa thistle (Cirsium loncholepis) leatherback sea turtle Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica pungens) californica) Santa Cruz tarplant (Holocarpha macradenia) least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) robust spineflower (Chorizanthe robusta var. marbled murrelet (Brachyramphus marmoratus) robusta)
northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina) spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)
southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii Ventura Marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus extimus) pycnostachyus var. lanosissimus)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus Yadon’s piperia (Piperia yadonii) nivosus) yellow larkspur (Delphinium luteum) Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana)
Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas
Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans Habitat conservation plan (HCP) and natural community conservation plan (NCCP) development involves cooperative efforts to protect species and their habitats through an ecosystem-wide planning approach. These plans help identify and provide for large area-wide protection of plants, animals, and their habitats while allowing for compatible and appropriate development (called covered activities). All of the existing HCP/NCCPs within the Program area are land- based. Aquaculture is not a covered activity under any existing HCP; however, it is possible that coastal development associated with land-based support facilities could be covered under existing HCPs. These activities would be required to maintain consistency with local HCPs if occurring within the HCP plan area. HCP documents also provide information on biological resources with potential to occur within each plan area and conservation strategies. Table 4.4-1 identifies the HCPs contained within the Program area, the associated biogeographic region, the status of the plan, and the acreage of the HCP within the Program area.
Table 4.4-1 Habitat Conservation Plans within the Program Area
Status Acreage within the HCP/NCCP Biogeographic Region Program Area Green Diamond Northern California Implementation 812 Mendocino Redwood Company Northern California and Planning 950 north-central California Los Osos Community Plan Central California Planning 1,154 Palos Verdes Peninsula Southern California Planning 7,422 San Diego Multiple Habitat Southern California Implementation 6,618 Conservation Program San Diego County Multiple Species Southern California Implementation 26,896 Conservation Program Santa Barbara Multi-Species Southern California Planning 1,818 Central/Coastal Orange County Southern California Implementation 2,258 Orange County Southern Subregion Southern California Implementation 3,083 Orange County Transportation Authority Southern California Planning 13,669 San Diego County Water Authority Southern California Implementation 26,896 San Diego Joint Water Agencies Southern California Inactive 26,896 San Diego Gas and Electric Subregional Southern California Implementation 26,896 Source: CDFW 2014
Marine Protected Areas The State of California has established a statewide network of MPAs along the entire coast to provide long-term protection of coastal ecosystems. The California Legislature recognized the need for this protection in 1999 with the passage of the Marine Life Protection Act (refer to Section 4.4.3, “Regulatory Setting”). As part of this network, MPAs were established in four regions: the northern California region, the north-central California region, the central California region, and the southern California region (Figures 4.4-5, 4.4-6, 4.4-7, and 4.4-8). MPAs are named,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-11 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental discrete geographic marine or estuarine areas designed to protect or conserve marine life and habitat. There are different marine managed areas classifications used in California's MPA network. This includes three MPA designations (State Marine Reserve, State Marine Conservation Area, State Marine Park), a marine recreational management area (State Marine Recreational Management Area), and special closures. Many of the MPAs along the California coast are located within the Program area.
Areas of Special Biological Significance Areas of Special Biological Significance (ASBS) are designated, monitored, and maintained for water quality by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Thirty-four ASBS have been designated by SWRCB off the coast of California because the areas support an unusual variety of aquatic life, and often host unique species (Figures 4.4-5, 4.4-6, 4.4-7, and 4.4-8).
National Marine Sanctuaries National marine sanctuaries are protected areas that contain unique oceanographic features that provide habitat for invertebrates, fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. These areas are managed by NOAA’s Office of National Marine Sanctuaries, which manages a national network of sanctuaries and four sanctuaries along the coast of California: Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, Monterey Bay, and Channel Islands (Figures 4.4-5, 4.4-6, 4.4-7, and 4.4-8). Cordell Bank and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuaries are located greater than 3 nm offshore of the California coast, and thus are entirely outside of the Program area.
Designated Exclusion Zones1 In California, most Exclusion Zones (EZs) were designated to help ships navigate, avoid collisions, and move quickly and economically through ports and harbors. Large EZs are present outside of the harbors of San Francisco and Los Angeles and are regulated by the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard also regulates security zones at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (in the central California region) and the San Diego Coast Guard Air Station. Other branches of the military, the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Air Force, regulate EZs in the central and southern California regions for the purposes of security and public safety. While the purpose of EZs is not conservation, some of them may be located in areas that support sensitive marine species or habitat. Natural resources may be protected indirectly by public access restrictions within EZs.
California Coastal National Monuments Statewide, over 20,000 islands, rocks, and exposed reefs and pinnacles are included in the California Coastal National Monument, managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. The monument extends above the mean high tide line and was designed to protect the biological and geological values of offshore rocks and islets and the important forage and breeding grounds of associated seabirds and marine mammals. Areas under federal jurisdiction are not within the Program area.
Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites The California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project is a peer-reviewed statewide assessment of important habitat linkages (Spencer et al. 2010). The project’s goal was to identify large remaining blocks of intact habitat or natural landscape at a coarse spatial scale, and model linkages between them (essential connectivity areas) that are important to maintain as corridors for wildlife. This coarse-scale, statewide map was based primarily on the concept of ecological integrity over a very large region, rather than the specific movement and other life history requirements of particular species.
1 While the federal government uses the term “De Facto Marine Protected Areas”, California identifies these areas as various “exclusion zones” to differentiate from and avoid confusion with the extensive network of conservation-oriented Marine Protected Areas. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-5 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the Northern California Region
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-13 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-6 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the North-Central California Region California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-7 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the Central California Region
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-15 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Source: Data downloaded from CDFW in 2019 Figure 4.4-8 Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas in the Southern California Region
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
The marine environment provides migration corridors for many wildlife species, and the spatial and temporal scales of these migrations vary based on the specific marine environment (e.g., nearshore, pelagic). Wildlife movement within the marine environment includes nearshore migration of gray whales between Baja California and the Bering Sea, seasonal movements of juvenile salmon out of rivers and along the shoreline, and daily movements of pinnipeds between haul-outs and foraging grounds. Larval dispersal from marine invertebrate and fish species occurs over long distances and is important when considering connectivity of populations. The Pacific Flyway extends along the Pacific Coast from Mexico north to Alaska and into Siberia, Russia. Migratory birds use this major migratory route because of its unique biological characteristics. Important wildlife nursery sites along the California coast include pinniped rookeries (e.g., offshore rocks, mudflats, sandy beaches), seabird breeding colonies (e.g., offshore rocks), and shorebird breeding areas (e.g., beaches, mudflats).
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION
Physical Setting and Wildlife Habitat The northern California region extends from the California-Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena. Rocky shores make up approximately two-thirds of the coastline of the northern California region, and include headlands and points such as Point Saint George, Patrick's Point, Trinidad Head, Cape Mendocino, Punta Gorda, and Mendocino headlands, as well as much of the coast at Fort Bragg. Some of the notable offshore rocks that provide habitat for seabirds (e.g., common murre, Brandt’s cormorant, pelagic cormorant), marine mammals, or other marine wildlife species in the northern California region include:
Prince Island near the Smith River mouth,
Hunter Rock near the Smith River mouth,
Castle Rock near Crescent City,
False Klamath Rock north of the Klamath River mouth,
Green Rock in Trinidad Bay,
Flatiron Rock north of Trinidad Bay, and
Sugarloaf Island near Cape Mendocino. The remaining approximately one-third of the shoreline within the northern California region is sandy beach. Snails, bivalves, crustaceans, insects, spiders, isopods, amphipods and polychaetes are among the organisms that inhabit sandy beaches, and several of these provide nourishment for larger vertebrate animals, including populations of western snowy plover in the northern California region. Many other species, including harbor seals, use sandy beaches for resting and rearing young. Tidal flats are present in the northern California region near the Smith River mouth, Mad River, Humboldt Bay, the Eel River estuary, and the Mattole River mouth. These areas provide essential foraging grounds for migratory bird species due to the abundance and diversity of invertebrate prey (e.g., clams, snails, crabs). Eelgrass beds within these habitats provide essential habitat for juvenile fish species. Humboldt Bay is the second-largest estuary in California, after San Francisco Bay, and consists of Arcata Bay at its north end, Central Bay, and South Bay. Humboldt Bay contains several diverse habitats, including tidal flats, salt marsh, and eelgrass beds. Humboldt Bay provides habitat for a large diversity of fish species, and at least six fish species listed as threatened or endangered inhabit Humboldt Bay and its tributaries: coho salmon, Chinook salmon, steelhead, longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys), and tidewater goby. The bay also supports recreationally important bivalve species, including Pacific gaper clam (Tresus nuttallii), gaper clams, Washington clam (Saxidomus gigantea), and Pacific littleneck clam (Leukoma staminea). Humboldt Bay provides habitat for large concentrations and high species diversity of shorebirds and waterfowl, and also supports a population of harbor seals.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-17 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Four submarine canyons extend into state waters in the northern California region: Mendocino Canyon, Mattole Canyon, Spanish Canyon, and Delgada Canyon.
California Current System in Northern California Oceanographic conditions within the northern California region are affected primarily by the southward-flowing California Current and the northward-flowing Davidson Countercurrent. Within this system, smaller processes are responsible for much of the oceanography variability that we can see. Cape Mendocino and Point Arena are important upwelling centers, deflecting southward-flowing currents far offshore in upwelling jets and bringing cold, nutrient-rich bottom waters to the surface. At Cape Mendocino, the water flows create a moderately persistent offshore eddy, which may create a barrier (albeit a permeable one) to larvae dispersing between areas north and south of the Cape (Magnell et al. 1990, Pullen and Allen 2001).
Sensitive Biological Resources
Special-Status Species Many special-status plant species (CNPS 2019) and wildlife species (CNDDB 2019, USFWS 2019) are known to occur within coastal and marine habitats and could potentially occur within the Program area. Special-status plant species that occur within the plan area can be found in various habitats including coastal salt marsh, coastal scrub, and coastal terrace prairie habitats. Special-status amphibian species may occur in coastal habitats (e.g., northern red- legged frog [Rana aurora], foothill yellow-legged frog [Rana boylii], Pacific tailed frog [Ascaphus truei], Del Norte salamander [Plethodon elongatus]). Special-status bird species could occur in both terrestrial and marine habitats. Primarily terrestrial bird species include white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier (Circus hudsonius), and western snowy plover. Special-status seabird species that could be present in the northern California region include ashy storm-petrel, brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis californicus), marbled murrelet, and tufted puffin (Fratercula cirrhata). Special-status fish known to occur in the region include coho salmon, steelhead (northern California distinct population segment [DPS]), Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus), green sturgeon, and tidewater goby. Several pinniped species, which are protected by the MMPA, are known to occur within the northern California region: harbor seal, Steller sea lion, California sea lion, northern fur seal, and northern elephant seal. Of these species, harbor seal, Steller sea lion, and northern elephant seal are known to breed within the region. Several cetacean species, also protected by the MMPA, occur in the northern California region: harbor porpoise, gray whale, humpback whale, blue whale, orca, and Dall’s porpoise (Phocoenoides dalli).
Sensitive Natural Communities and Aquatic Resources Apart from the Pacific Ocean, the major aquatic resources within the Program area of the northern California region include several river mouths (e.g., Smith River, Klamath River, Redwood Creek, Little River, Mad River, Eel River, Mattole River, Ten Mile River, Noyo River, Big River, Albion River, Navarro River), smaller creeks, estuarine and marine wetlands, and freshwater wetlands. Riparian habitat may be associated with much of the aquatic habitat in the region. Additionally, the following sensitive natural communities are tracked in the CNDDB and may occur in the Program area:
northern foredune grassland, coastal terrace prairie, sphagnum bog, fen, northern coastal salt marsh, coastal brackish marsh, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, Sitka spruce forest, and grand fir forest, coastal Douglas fir western hemlock forest. Mendocino pygmy cypress forest,
Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the following species is present within the northern California region: Steller sea lion, northern spotted owl, marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, tidewater goby, steelhead, Chinook salmon, eulachon, and green sturgeon. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-18 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas
Habitat Conservation Plans There are two HCPs within the northern California region: the Green Diamond Aquatic Species HCP and the Mendocino Redwood Company HCP (Table 4.4-1). Covered species under the Green Diamond HCP are chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead and residential rainbow trout, coast cutthroat trout, Pacific tailed frog, and southern torrent salamander (Green Diamond Resources Company 2006). Covered activities under this HCP include timber operations and related management activities on Green Diamond property. Covered species under the Mendocino Redwood Company HCP are marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, chinook salmon, coho salmon, coast cutthroat trout, steelhead, southern torrent salamander, Pacific tailed frog, northern red- legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, western pond turtle, bald eagle, American peregrine falcon, western snowy plover, bank swallow, Pacific fisher, and California red tree vole (Mendocino Redwood Company 2015). Covered activities under this HCP include timber operations and related management activities on Mendocino Redwood property.
Marine Protected Areas The northern California region contains 26 MPAs: six State Marine Reserves, 13 State Marine Conservation Areas, one State Marine Recreational Management Area, and six special closures (Table 4.4-2, Figure 4.4-5).
Table 4.4-2 Marine Protected Areas within the Northern California Region
State Marine Reserves State Marine Recreational Management Areas Reading Rock SMR South Humboldt Bay SMRMA South Cape Mendocino SMR Special Closures Mattole Canyon SMR Southwest Seal Rock Special Closure Sea Lion Gulch SMR Castle Rock Special Closure Ten Mile SMR False Klamath Rock Special Closure Point Cabrillo SMR Sugarloaf Island Special Closure State Marine Conservation Areas Steamboat Rock Special Closure Pyramid Point SMCA Vizcaino Rock Special Closure Point St. George Reef Offshore SMCA State Marine Recreational Management Areas Reading Rock SMCA South Humboldt Bay SMRMA Samoa SMCA Big Flat SMCA Double Cone Rock SMCA Ten Mile Beach SMCA Ten Mile Estuary SMCA MacKerricher SMCA Russian Gulch SMCA Big River Estuary SMCA Van Damme SMCA Navarro River Estuary SMCA Source: CDFW 2019
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-19 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Areas of Special Biological Significance There are four ASBS within the northern California region (Table 4.4-3, Figure 4.4-5).
Table 4.4-3 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the Northern California Region
ASBS Name Acreage within the Program Area Redwoods National Park 62,644 Trinidad Head 297 Kings Range 25,056 Jughandle Cove 203 Source: SWRCB 2019
National Marine Sanctuaries There are no National Marine Sanctuaries within the northern California region.
NORTH-CENTRAL CALIFORNIA REGION
Physical Setting and Wildlife Habitat The north-central California region extends from the Alder Creek near Point Arena to Pigeon Point. Rocky shore habitats are found throughout the north-central California region, including extensive stretches along the Sonoma and Marin County coasts. Smaller stretches of rocky shores are interspersed with large sandy beaches along the San Francisco and San Mateo coasts. Rocky shoreline and offshore rocks along Point Reyes Headlands contain large seabird colonies (e.g., common murre, Brandt’s cormorant) and pinniped haul-out sites. Coastal marshes and tidal flats occur primarily around the edges of bays and estuaries (e.g. Bolinas Lagoon, Drakes Estero, Estero de Limantour, Tomales Bay, Estero Americano, and Estero San Antonio) support high levels of productivity and provide habitat for many species. Significant expanses of continuous sandy shores areas occur along the San Francisco and San Mateo coasts, with shorter stretches of sandy beaches and pocket beaches along the Sonoma and Marin coastlines. Rivers deposit sediments and create barrier beaches and sandspits, such as those at the mouths of the Garcia, Gualala, and Russian Rivers and Bolinas and Limantour estuaries. These habitats support numerous species of shorebirds, including sanderlings (Calidris alba), marbled godwits (Limosa fedoa), willets (Tringa semipalmata), western snowy plovers and California least terns (Sterna antillarum). Pinnipeds haul out on isolated beaches and sands spits. Some of the offshore rocks with notable seabird colonies located within the north-central California region include:
Hog Island in Tomales Bay;
Bird Rock near Tomales Point;
Double Point Rocks, Stormy Stack, Point Resistance Rocks, and Millers Point Rocks, south of Point Reyes;
Bird Island near Point Bonita;
Seal Rocks in San Francisco; and
Devil's Slide Rock and San Pedro Rock on the San Mateo coast. The Farallon Islands, which contain the largest breeding seabird colony in the contiguous United States, are located within the north-central California region; however, the islands are outside of the Program area. Tomales Bay, in western Marin County, is the largest embayment in the north-central California region. Tomales Bay is tidally influenced and supports large concentrations and high species diversity of shorebirds and waterfowl and is a nursery ground for many species of invertebrates and fish (e.g., Dungeness crab [Metacarcinus magister], Pacific herring, California halibut [Paralichthys californicus]). Tomales Bay provides habitat for several species listed as
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-20 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources threatened or endangered, including tidewater goby, coho salmon, and steelhead. Additionally, the tidal flat habitat within Tomales Bay provides haul-out habitat for several pinniped species.
California Current System in North-Central California Oceanographic conditions along the north-central California region are affected primarily by the southward-flowing California Current and the northward-flowing Davidson Countercurrent. Within this system, smaller processes are responsible for much of the oceanography variability that we can see. The north-central region is strongly influenced by a large persistent upwelling center at Point Arena, an area characterized by nutrient rich waters with little phytoplankton biomass. The area of active upwelling expands and contracts as the wind varies and active upwelling may extend along the entire coast from Arena to Bodega. These cold, nutrient-rich upwelled waters move rapidly along the coast in the coastal upwelling jet and slowly offshore due to Ekman transport. Waters upwelled south of Point Arena also travel downcoast and offshore, but typically are deflected by Point Reyes so that the coastal upwelling jet is diverted offshore into the outer Gulf of Farallones.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Special-Status Species Many special-status plant species (CNPS 2019) and wildlife species (CNDDB 2019; USFWS 2019) are known to occur within coastal and marine habitats and could potentially occur within the Program area. Special-status amphibian species may occur in coastal habitats (e.g., California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Pacific tailed frog, California giant salamander [Dicamptodon ensatus]). Special-status bird species could occur in both terrestrial and marine habitats. Primarily terrestrial bird species include northern harrier, American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), California Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), saltmarsh common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), and western snowy plover. Special-status seabird species that could be present in the north-central California region include ashy storm-petrel, brown pelican, California least tern, marbled murrelet, and tufted puffin. Special-status fish known to occur in the region include coho salmon, steelhead (northern and central California DPS), longfin smelt, eulachon, and tidewater goby. Terrestrial special-status mammal species, including salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), could also occur in the Program area. Several pinniped species, which are protected by the MMPA, are known to occur within the north-central California region: harbor seal, Steller sea lion, California sea lion, northern fur seal, and northern elephant seal. All of these species are known to breed within the region, primarily on the Farallon Islands, which are outside of the Program area. Several cetacean species, also protected by the MMPA, occur in the north-central California region: harbor porpoise, gray whale, humpback whale, blue whale, and orca.
Sensitive Natural Communities and Aquatic Resources Apart from the Pacific Ocean, the major aquatic resources within the Program area of the north-central California region include several river mouths (e.g., Garcia River, Gualala River, Russian River, Estero de San Antonio), smaller creeks, estuarine and marine wetlands, and freshwater wetlands. Riparian habitat may be associated with much of the onshore aquatic habitat in the region. Additionally, the following sensitive natural communities are tracked in the CNDDB and may occur within the Program area:
Sacramento-San Joaquin Coastal Lagoon, Central Dune Scrub,
North-Central Coast Steelhead/Sculpin Stream, Northern Maritime Chaparral,
Northern Coastal Bluff Scrub, Valley Needlegrass Grassland,
Coastal Terrace Prairie, Northern Coastal Salt Marsh,
Serpentine Bunchgrass, Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, and
Coastal Brackish Marsh, North-Central Coast California Roach/Stickleback/Steelhead Stream. Mendocino Pygmy Cypress Forest,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-21 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the following species is present within the north-central California region: robust spineflower, Santa Cruz tarplant, yellow larkspur, Monterey spineflower, Yadon’s piperia, Steller sea lion, California red-legged frog, marbled murrelet, western snowy plover, tidewater goby, steelhead, Chinook salmon, leatherback sea turtle, black abalone, and green sturgeon.
Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas
Habitat Conservation Plans There is one HCP within the north-central California region: the Mendocino Redwood Company HCP (Table 4.4-1). See the description of this HCP above in the “Northern California Region” section.
Marine Protected Areas The north-central California region contains 31 MPAs: 10 State Marine Reserves, 12 State Marine Conservation Areas, three State Marine Recreational Management Areas, and six special closures (Table 4.4-4, Figure 4.4-6).
Table 4.4-4 Marine Protected Areas within the North-Central California Region
State Marine Reserves State Marine Recreational Management Areas Point Arena SMR Russian River SMRMA Del Mar Landing SMR Estero Americano SMRMA Stewarts Point SMR Estero de San Antonio SMRMA Gerstle Cove SMR Special Closures Bodega Head SMR Point Reyes Headlands Special Closure Point Reyes SMR Point Resistance Rock Special Closure Estero de Limantour SMR Double Point/Stormy Stack Rock Special Closure North Farallon Islands SMR North Farallon Islands Special Closure Southeast Farallon Island SMR Southeast Farallon Island Special Closure Montara SMR Devil’s Slide Rock to Devil’s Slide Special Closure State Marine Conservation Areas Point Arena SMCA Sea Lion Cove SMCA Saunders Reef SMCA Stewarts Point SMCA Salt Point SMCA Russian River SMCA Bodega Head SMCA Point Reyes SMCA Drakes Estero SMCA Duxbury Reef SMCA Southeast Farallon SMCA Pillar Point SMCA Source: CDFW 2019
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-22 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Areas of Special Biological Significance There are nine ASBS within the north-central California region (Table 4.4-5, Figure 4.4-6).
Table 4.4-5 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the North-Central California Region
ASBS Name Acreage within the Program Area Saunders Reef 730 Del Mar Landing 53 Gerstle Cove 10 Bodega 150 Bird Rock 105 Point Reyes Headlands 1,047 Double Point 89 Duxbury Reef 875 James V. Fitzgerald 518 Source: SWRCB 2019
National Marine Sanctuaries Portions of two National Marine Sanctuaries, Greater Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries, are located within the Program area of the north-central California region (Figure 4.4-6).
Greater Farallones The approximately 1,279-square-mile (966-square-nm) Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary was designated in 1981, just north and west of San Francisco Bay. The Sanctuary was designated to protect open ocean, nearshore tidal flats, rocky intertidal areas, estuarine wetlands, subtidal reefs, and coastal beaches within its boundaries. In 2015, the Sanctuary was renamed to Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary and expanded north and west of its original boundaries to encompass 3,295 square miles. Greater Farallones National Marine Sanctuary contains a diverse and productive marine ecosystem that supports abundant wildlife and valuable fisheries. It provides breeding and feeding grounds for at least twenty-five endangered or threatened species; thirty-six marine mammal species, including blue, gray, and humpback whales, harbor seals, elephant seals, Pacific white-sided dolphins, and one of the southernmost U.S. populations of Steller sea lions; over a quarter-million breeding seabirds; and a significant great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) population.
Monterey Bay The Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is offshore off California's central coast. Stretching from Marin to Cambria, the sanctuary encompasses a shoreline length of 276 miles and 5,322 square miles of ocean. Supporting one of the world's most diverse marine ecosystems, it is home to numerous mammals, seabirds, fishes, invertebrates and plants in a remarkably productive coastal environment. The sanctuary was established for the purpose of resource protection, research, education, and public use of this national treasure.
CENTRAL CALIFORNIA REGION
Physical Setting and Wildlife Habitat The central California region extends from Pigeon Point to Point Conception. The coastline in the central California region is characterized primarily by dramatic sea cliffs and rocky peninsulas (e.g., Pigeon Point, Point Año Nuevo, Point Lobos, Point Sur). Seabirds, including Brandt’s cormorants, pelagic cormorants, and western gulls are known to
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-23 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental nest along the rocky cliffs in this region. Sandy beaches are interspersed within rocky coves along the central California region; this habitat provides haul-out habitat for harbor seals and northern elephant seals Some of the notable offshore rocks that provide habitat for seabirds, marine mammals, or other marine wildlife species in the central California region include:
Año Nuevo Island between San Francisco and Santa Cruz,
Bird Rock near Point Lobos State Natural Reserve,
Castle Rocks on the Big Sur Coastline, and
Hurricane Point Rocks on the Big Sur Coastline. Submarine canyons within the central California region that extend into state waters include the large Monterey Canyon and other canyons along the Big Sur coastline. The close proximity of these productive canyons to the shoreline result in an abundance of highly biodiverse marine species (e.g., humpback whale, bottlenose dolphin, orca, northern fulmar, shearwaters, albatross) relatively close to shore. Monterey Bay is the largest embayment in the central California region. As described above, the Monterey Canyon extends into the Bay and with it, the seasonal presence of typically pelagic species (e.g., humpback whale, shearwaters) within the Bay. Both natural habitats (e.g., tidal flats) and human-made features (e.g., docks) provide haul-out habitat for several pinniped species. Southern sea otters also occur in Monterey Bay. Additionally, the soft benthic habitat in Monterey Bay provides habitat for juvenile rockfish species (Johnson et al. 2001).
California Current System in Central California Oceanographic conditions within the central California region are affected primarily by the southward-flowing California Current and the northward-flowing Davidson Countercurrent. Within this system, smaller processes are responsible for much of the oceanography variability that we can see. Upwelling centers are located just north of Monterey Bay at Point Año Nuevo and to the south at Point Sur (Breaker and Broenkow 1994).
Sensitive Biological Resources
Special-Status Species Many special-status plant species (CNPS 2019) and wildlife species (CNDDB 2019; USFWS 2019) are known to occur within coastal and marine habitats and could potentially occur within the Program area. Special-status amphibian species may occur in coastal habitats (e.g., California tiger salamander [Ambystoma californiense], California red- legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, Santa Cruz long-toed salamander [Ambystoma macrodactylum croceum]). Special-status bird species could occur in both terrestrial and marine habitats. Primarily terrestrial bird species include white-tailed kite, northern harrier, American peregrine falcon, and western snowy plover. Special-status seabird species that could be present in the central California region include ashy storm-petrel, brown pelican, California least tern, marbled murrelet and tufted puffin. Special-status fish known to occur in the region include coho salmon, steelhead (central, south-central, and southern California DPS), and tidewater goby. Several pinniped species, which are protected by the MMPA, are known to occur within the central California region: harbor seal, Steller sea lion, California sea lion, northern fur seal, and northern elephant seal. Of these species, harbor seal, Steller sea lion, and northern elephant seal are known to breed within the region; the largest rookery occurring on Año Nuevo Island. Several cetacean species, also protected by the MMPA, occur in the central California region: harbor porpoise, gray whale, humpback whale, blue whale, and orca. Southern sea otters occur throughout the region, especially near Monterey Bay and the Big Sur coastline. Southern sea otter is listed as threatened under the ESA, designated as a CDFW species of special concern, and protected by the MMPA.
Sensitive Natural Communities and Aquatic Resources Apart from the Pacific Ocean, the major aquatic resources within the Program area of the central California region include several river mouths (e.g., San Lorenzo River, Pajaro River, Salinas River, Carmel River), smaller creeks, estuarine and marine wetlands, and freshwater wetlands. Riparian habitat may be associated with much of the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-24 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources aquatic habitat in the region. Additionally, the following sensitive natural communities are tracked in the CNDDB and may occur in the Program area:
Southern California Coastal Lagoon, North-Central Coast Short-Run Coho Stream,
North-Central Coast Fall-Run Steelhead Stream, Southern California Threespine Stickleback Stream,
Southern California Steelhead Stream, Central Dune Scrub,
Central Foredunes, Central Maritime Chaparral,
Northern Maritime Chaparral, Southern Vernal Pool,
Valley Needlegrass Grassland, Coastal Brackish Marsh,
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, Central Coast Arroyo Willow Riparian Forest,
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Northern Bishop Pine Forest,
Southern Willow Scrub, Monterey Cypress Forest,
Monterey Pine Forest, Northern Interior Cypress Forest, and
Monterey Pygmy Cypress Forest, North-Central Coast Drainage Sacramento Sucker/Roach River. Maritime Coast Range Ponderosa Pine Forest Critical Habitat, Critical habitat for the following species is present within the central California region: Gaviota tarplant, Ventura Marsh milk-vetch, Monterey spineflower, Yadon’s piperia, La Graciosa thistle, Morro Bay kangaroo rat, Morro shoulderband snail, Southwestern willow flycatcher, California red-legged frog, western snowy plover, tidewater goby, steelhead, leatherback sea turtle, black abalone, and green sturgeon.
Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas
Habitat Conservation Plans There is one HCP within the central California region: the Los Osos Community Plan (Table 4.4-1). This HCP has not been finalized, but it is expected that it will include the following covered species: Morro Bay kangaroo rat (Dipodomys heermanni morroensis), Morro shoulderband snail (Helminthoglypta walkeriana), Indian Knob mountainbalm (Eriodictyon altissimum), and Morro manzanita (Arctostaphylos morroensis) (USFWS 2013). Covered activities under this HCP will include private development, capital projects, facilities operations and maintenance, and conservation strategy implementation.
Marine Protected Areas The central California region contains 29 MPAs: 13 State Marine Reserves, 15 State Marine Conservation Areas, and one State Marine Recreational Management Area (Table 4.4-6, Figure 4.4-7).
Table 4.4-6 Marine Protected Areas within the Central California Region
State Marine Reserves State Marine Conservation Areas Año Nuevo SMR Greyhound Rock SMCA Natural Bridges SMR Elkhorn Slough SMCA Elkhorn Slough SMR Soquel Canyon SMCA Moro Cojo Slough SMR Portuguese Ledge SMCA Lovers Point-Julia Platt SMR Edward F. Ricketts SMCA Asilomar SMR Pacific Grove Marine Gardens SMCA Carmel Pinnacles SMR Carmel Bay SMCA
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-25 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Table 4.4-6 Marine Protected Areas within the Central California Region
Point Lobos SMR Point Lobos SMCA Point Sur SMR Point Sur SMCA Big Creek SMR Big Creek SMCA Piedras Blancas SMR Piedras Blancas SMCA Morro Bay SMR Cambria SMCA and State Marine Park Point Buchon SMR White Rock SMCA Vandenberg SMR Point Buchon SMCA State Marine Recreational Management Areas Morro Bay SMRMA Source: CDFW 2019
Areas of Special Biological Significance There are six ASBS within the central California region (Table 4.4-7, Figure 4.4-7).
Table 4.4-7 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the Central California Region
ASBS Name Acreage within the Program Area Año Nuevo 13,560 Pacific Grove 469 Carmel Bay 1,584 Point Lobos 690 Julia Pfeiffer Burns 1,742 Salmon Creek Coast 1,458 Source: SWRCB 2019
National Marine Sanctuaries A portion of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary is located within the Program area of the central California region (Figure 4.4-7). See the full discussion of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary in the “North-Central California Region” section above.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA REGION
Physical Setting and Wildlife Habitat The southern California region extends from the Point Conception to the California-Mexico border. This region is also referred to as the Southern California Bight due to the characteristic east to west trending coastline in the region, which differs significantly from the rest of the California coast. The unique geography and orientation of the Southern California Bight result in the confluence of waters from two major biogeographic regions: cold, temperate water from the north, and warmer water from the south. This phenomenon, as well as the complex bathymetry and presence of diverse habitats in the region, result in great biodiversity for many species, including marine mammals, fish, and invertebrates (Dailey et al. 1993). All or nearly all marine finfish aquaculture under the Proposed Program is anticipated to occur in the Southern California Bight (refer to Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives”). Much of the coastline in the southern California region contains long stretches of sandy beach habitat (e.g., Malibu, Santa Monica, Huntington) interspersed with rocky headlands (e.g., Point Conception, Point Mugu, Point Dume, Palos
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-26 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Verdes Point, Dana Point, Point La Jolla). The sandy beaches in this region provide resting and breeding habitat for species including California least tern and harbor seal. Some of the notable offshore rocks that provide habitat for seabirds, marine mammals, or other marine wildlife species in the southern California region are located near the mainland (e.g., Point Conception, Point La Jolla; Figure 4.4-9); however, the most notable offshore islands in the southern California region are the Channel Islands, which contain large seabird colonies and pinniped rookeries. The Channel Islands are outside of the Program area. Several submarine canyons extend into state waters in the southern California region, including Hueneme Canyon, Mugu Canyon, Dume Canyon, Santa Monica Canyon, Redondo Canyon, Scripps Canyon, and La Jolla Canyon.
California Current System in Southern California Oceanographic conditions within the southern California region differ compared to the regions to the north. The southward-flowing California Current is still the primary surface current in the region; however, as the coast turns sharply to the east, south of Point Conception (forming the Southern California Bight), the California Current continues to move southward farther from the shore. The Southern California Countercurrent brings warm water from the south which mixes with the cold water from the California Current producing a very large eddy within the Southern California Bight and creating unique ecological conditions. In the summer, the Southern California Countercurrent is strong and rejoins the California current to the west, and in the winter the Countercurrent continues north past Point Conception where it joins the Davidson Countercurrent (Dailey et al. 1993). The coastal waters of the Southern California Bight within the Program area are also relatively sheltered from the prevailing northwest winds by Point Conception and the Channel Islands. Refer to Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography,” for additional information on currents and oceanography in the Southern California Bight.
Sensitive Biological Resources
Special-Status Species Many special-status plant species (CNPS 2019) and wildlife species (CNDDB 2019; USFWS 2019) are known to occur within coastal and marine habitats and could potentially occur within the Program area. Special-status amphibian species may occur in coastal habitats (e.g., arroyo toad, western spadefoot [Spea hammondii], California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog). Special-status bird species could occur in both terrestrial and marine habitats. Primarily terrestrial bird species include white-tailed kite, northern harrier, light-footed Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), western snowy plover, coastal California gnatcatcher, and least Bell’s vireo. Special-status seabird species that could be present in the southern California region include ashy storm-petrel, brown pelican, California least tern, and Scripp’s murrelet (Synthliboramphus scrippsi). Special-status fish known to occur in the region include steelhead (southern California DPS) and tidewater goby. Several special-status sea turtle species, including green sea turtle, are known to occur along the coast of southern California. Two special-status invertebrate species, black abalone and white abalone (Haliotis sorenseni), occurs in the southern California region. Several pinniped species, which are protected by the MMPA, are known to occur within the southern California region: harbor seal, California sea lion, northern fur seal, Guadalupe fur seal (Arctocephalus townsendi), and northern elephant seal. All of these species are known to breed within the region (though Guadalupe fur seals predominately breed in Mexico); the largest rookeries occur on the Channel Islands, which are outside of the Program area. Southern sea otters also occur in the southern California region. Several cetacean species, also protected by the MMPA, occur in the southern California region: harbor porpoise, gray whale, humpback whale, blue whale, fin whale, and orca.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-27 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Source: Data received and downloaded from Capitolo, pers. comm., 2019 and NOAA in 2019
Figure 4.4-9 Pinniped Rookeries and Haul-Out Sites and Seabird Colonies in the Southern California Bight
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-28 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Sensitive Natural Communities and Aquatic Resources Apart from the Pacific Ocean, the major aquatic resources within the Program area of the southern California region include river mouths (e.g., Santa Clara River), smaller creeks, estuarine and marine wetlands, and freshwater wetlands. Riparian habitat may be associated with much of the aquatic habitat in the region. Additionally, the following sensitive natural communities are tracked in the CNDDB and are present in the Program area:
Southern California Coastal Lagoon, Southern California Steelhead Stream,
Southern Foredunes, Southern Dune Scrub,
Southern Coastal Bluff Scrub, Maritime Succulent Scrub,
Southern Maritime Chaparral, Valley Needlegrass Grassland,
San Diego Mesa Hardpan Vernal Pool, San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal Pool,
Southern Coastal Salt Marsh, Coastal Brackish Marsh,
Coastal and Valley Freshwater Marsh, Southern Riparian Forest,
Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest,
Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland, Southern Riparian Scrub,
Southern Willow Scrub, Valley Oak Woodland, and
California Walnut Woodland, Torrey Pine Forest.
Southern Interior Cypress Forest,
Critical Habitat Critical habitat for the following species is present within the southern California region: Ventura Marsh milk-vetch, spreading navarretia, Palos Verdes blue butterfly, Riverside fairy shrimp, San Diego fairy shrimp, least Bell’s vireo, southwest willow flycatcher, coastal California gnatcatcher, western snowy plover, tidewater goby, steelhead, and black abalone.
Special Management Areas and Other Biologically Important Areas
Habitat Conservation Plans There are nine HCPs within the southern California region Program area: Palos Verdes Peninsula HCP, San Diego Multiple HCP, San Diego County Multiple Species Conservation Program, Santa Barbara Multi-Species HCP, Central/Coastal Orange County, Orange County Transportation Authority, San Diego County Water Authority, San Diego Joint Water Agencies, and San Diego Gas and Electric Subregional (Table 4.4-1). Covered projects for these HCPs include various development projects and maintenance activities. Several of these plans are not yet adopted; however, they may be adopted when future aquaculture projects are initiated.
Marine Protected Areas The southern California region contains 52 MPAs: 19 State Marine Reserves, 21 State Marine Conservation Areas, 10 “No-Take” State Marine Conservation Areas, and two special closures (Table 4.4-8, Figure 4.4-8).
Table 4.4-8 Marine Protected Areas within the Southern California Region State Marine Reserves State Marine Conservation Areas Point Conception SMR Kashtayit SMCA Point Dume SMR Naples SMCA Laguna Beach SMR Campus Point SMCA Matlahuayl SMR Goleta Slough SMCA South La Jolla SMR Point Dume SMCA
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-29 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Table 4.4-8 Marine Protected Areas within the Southern California Region Cabrillo SMR Point Vicente SMCA Richardson Rock SMR Abalone Cove SMCA Harris Point SMR Bolsa Bay SMCA Judith Rock SMR Bolsa Chica Basin SMCA Carrington Point SMR Upper Newport SMCA Skunk Point SMR Crystal Cove SMCA South Point SMR Laguna Beach SMCA Gull Island SMR Dana Point SMCA Scorpion SMR Batiquitos Lagoon SMCA Anacapa Island SMR Swami’s SMCA Footprint SMR San Elijo Lagoon SMCA Begg Rock SMR San Dieguito Lagoon SMCA Santa Barbara Island SMR San Diego-Scripps Coastal SMCA Long Point SMR South La Jolla SMCA Special Closure Famosa Slough SMCA San Miguel Island Special Closure Tijuana River Mouth SMCA Anacapa Island Special Closure Painted Cave SMCA State Marine Conservation Areas Blue Caven Onshore SMCA Kashtayit SMCA Blue Cavern Offshore SMCA Naples SMCA Casino Point SMCA Campus Point SMCA Lover’s Cove SMCA Goleta Slough SMCA Farnsworth Onshore SMCA Point Dume SMCA Farnsworth Offshore SMCA Special Closure Cat Harbor SMCA San Miguel Island Special Closure Anacapa Island Special Closure Source: CDFW 2019
Areas of Special Biological Significance There are six ASBS within the southern California region (Table 4.4-9, Figure 4.4-8).
Table 4.4-9 Areas of Special Biological Significance within the Southern California Region
ASBS Name Acreage within the Program Area Laguna Point to Latigo Point 11,842 Robert E. Badham 220 Irvine Coast 941 Heisler Park 32 San Diego-Scripps 88 La Jolla 453 Source: SWRCB 2019
National Marine Sanctuaries There are no National Marine Sanctuaries within the Program area of the southern California region.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-30 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
4.4.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to biological resources. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
FEDERAL
Federal Endangered Species Act regulates the taking of species listed in the ESA as threatened or endangered. The definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act provides that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. Under this act, “take” is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or any attempt to carry out these activities.”
Marine Mammal Protection Act provides for protection of all marine mammals (whales, dolphins, seals and sea lions) in the United States. The MMPA provides that it shall be unlawful, with certain permitted exceptions, to take a marine mammal in waters of the United States. Under the MMPA, “take” is defined as “to harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, collect, or kill any marine mammal.”
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act conserves fishery resources, supports enforcement of international fishing agreements, promotes fishing in line with conservation principles, provides for the implementation of fishery management plans to achieve optimal yield, establishes regional fishery management councils to steward fishery resources, develops underutilized fisheries, and protect EFH.
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act prohibits the taking or possession of and commerce in bald and golden eagles, with limited exceptions. Under the Act, it is a violation to “take, possess, sell, purchase, barter, offer to sell, transport, export or import, at any time or in any manner, any bald eagle or golden eagle, alive or dead, or any part, nest, or egg, thereof” “Take” is defined to include pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, and disturb.
Clean Water Act, Section 404 requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for impacts to jurisdictional waters of the United States, including wetlands. These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters, all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, tributaries of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States, the territorial seas, and wetlands adjacent to waters of the United States.
Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 prohibits construction of certain structures over or in navigable waterways of the United States without congressional approval. The construction and placement of aquaculture structures such as shellfish culture rafts or net pens in navigable waters requires USACE approval (Section 10 permit).
National Marine Sanctuaries Act authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to designate and protect areas of the marine environment with special national significance due to their conservation, recreational, ecological, historic, scientific, cultural, archeological, educational, or aesthetic qualities as national marine sanctuaries. Designated National Marine Sanctuaries in California include Cordell Bank National Marine Sanctuary, Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, and Channel Islands National Marine Sanctuary.
STATE
California Endangered Species Act regulates the “take” of a plant or animal species that is listed by the State as threatened or endangered. Under CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-31 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3503.5—Protection of Bird Nests and Raptors prohibits the take, possession, or destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird.
Fully Protected Species under the California Fish and Game Code prohibits take or possession of fully protected species and does not provide for authorization of incidental take.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act regulates waters of the state, which are any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state. This act prohibits discharged of waste within any region that could affect the quality of the waters of the state.
California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for activities that result in the diversion or obstruction of the natural flow of a stream, substantially change its bed, channel or bank, or utilize any materials (including vegetation) from the streambed.
Marine Life Protection Act requires CDFW to develop a master plan for modification of existing and designation of new MPAs to increase coherence and effectiveness in protecting the state’s marine life and habitats, marine ecosystems, and marine natural heritage, as well as to improve recreational, educational and study opportunities provided by marine ecosystems subject to minimal human disturbance.
California Coastal Act provides long-term protection of California’s coastline Under the California Coastal Act, aquaculture facilities in the coastal zone must obtain a Coastal Development Permit from the California Coastal Commission.
California Fish and Game Code Sections 15000–15703—Aquaculture provides a framework for regulation of aquaculture operations in California. The Code includes regulations for brood stock acquisition, leasing of state water bottoms, disease control, and importation of shellfish and finfish.
California Ocean Plan designated ASBS within ocean areas requiring protection of species or biological communities to the extent that maintenance of natural water quality is assured. Thirty-four ASBS have been designated by SWRCB off of the coast of California because the areas support an unusual variety of aquatic life, and often host unique species
LOCAL
Local governments use a variety of tools in the planning process to protect important local resources including the general plan, specific plans, zoning, CEQA review, conditions of approval for approved projects, and ordinances. Examples of natural resource protection on a local level are plans, policies, or ordinances that protect riparian buffers, native and heritage trees, lakes and ponds, and locally important plants and animals (e.g., rare plant preserves, bird nesting areas, monarch butterfly migration roosts). This PEIR does not identify every potentially applicable local government plan, policy, and ordinance; instead, these would be identified at the project-scale level.
4.4.4 Environmental Consequences
METHODOLOGY
This section describes impacts to biological resources from aquaculture development under the Proposed Program and alternatives. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts, lists the criteria used to conclude whether an impact would be significant and characterizes the impact. Measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany each impact discussion. Appropriate methods for analyzing environmental consequences were determined after reviewing the potential environmental impacts identified during scoping and considerations identified in SB 201, the Sustainable Oceans Act.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-32 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The thresholds of significance used to evaluate impacts on biological resources incorporate the mandatory findings of significance, as listed in Section 15065 of the State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 of the CCR) and criteria contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. The Program would result in a significant impact related to biological resources if it would:
have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW, USFWS, or NOAA Fisheries; a “substantial adverse effect” is defined, for the purposes of this analysis, as one that would:
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species;
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels;
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community
substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species
have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by CDFW, USFWS, or NOAA Fisheries;
have a substantial adverse effect on State-protected or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and
conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or State HCP.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact BIO-1: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through Increased Nutrient Discharge during Finfish Aquaculture Increased nutrient-rich discharge that may occur from implementation of the Proposed Program has the potential to adversely affect special-status species and habitat under certain conditions. Under the Proposed Program, excess finfish feed and fish wastes would be minimized by management of feeding and adaptive management. However, there is potential for degraded water quality and increased nutrient deposition under certain conditions, which could harm benthic habitat, such as sensitive submerged vegetation, and prey for special-status species in the vicinity of finfish aquaculture facilities. Reduced suitable habitat and prey availability for special-status species could result in injury or loss of individuals, which would constitute a substantial adverse effect. This would be a potentially significant impact.
Marine habitat could be affected by nutrient-rich discharge (e.g., uneaten finfish feed or finfish feces) released from finfish aquaculture. Nutrient releases can (1) alter the surrounding water chemistry (e.g., increase nitrogen and phosphorus) and degrade water quality and (2) accumulate on the ocean floor and degrade the benthic community. Impacts from nutrient enrichment and nutrient deposition, such as oxygen depletion, harm to benthic communities, and subsequent changes to the food web, could potentially occur. Nutrient increases could contribute to low-oxygen conditions or increases in phytoplankton and macroalgae production (Weitzman et al. 2019). Although a causal link between aquaculture effluent and increased primary productivity (i.e., increases in phytoplankton and macroalgae production via photosynthesis) is not clearly established (Price et al. 2015, Davidson et al. 2014, Weitzman et al. 2019), California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-33 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental if nutrient inputs from aquaculture increase primary productivity, effects such as eutrophication and harmful algal blooms potentially could occur in some locations. Excessive nutrient deposition could result in a thickened anoxic sediment layer on the ocean floor and a reduction in species diversity and abundance in benthic species (Nash et al. 2005, Holmer 2010, Price and Morris 2013), and a substantial increase in the abundance of opportunistic benthic species (Price and Morris 2013). The primary factors affecting nutrient increases are farm management practices, which optimize feeding as well as siting farms in well flushed areas where currents can dilute and disperse nutrients (Nash et al. 2005; Price and Morris 2013). At well flushed sites in deep water and with efficient feed management, ecological impacts tend to be minimal because nutrients are diluted and dispersed by oceanographic conditions (Price and Morris 2013). In locations where effects have been found, water quality and sediments were affected by increased nutrients locally, up to 100 meters from the aquaculture farm, and benthic community impacts which were generally confined to within 50 m of fish cages (Phillips 2005, reviewed by Price and Morris 2013). Within the Southern California Bight, these distances could be even less due to currents ranging as high as 10 cm/sec but rarely falling below 3 cm/sec (Schuur pers. comm. 2019). Preliminary screening criteria for siting aquaculture facilities, described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” would minimize impacts by providing guidance and general parameters for appropriately locating facilities. These include general criteria that proposed leases within MPAs may be dismissed if it would “significantly harm” the marine environment and that an appropriate lease should avoid sensitive habitat. The adaptive management program, as described in Chapter 2, would avoid and minimize impacts by reviewing and evaluating effects related to nutrient discharge and sediment loading every five years and implementing any necessary corrective best management practices. Adaptive management would be used to revise siting requirements and criteria as necessary to minimize adverse impacts on special-status species and habitat. Additionally, efficient feed management would be required through mandatory compliance with the SWRCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting system and would minimize excess feed waste (refer to Section 4.9.4, “Environmental Consequences,” in Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography”). Increased nutrients are expected to be localized and transitory due to currents in the Southern California Bight. However, even with the preliminary siting criteria, adaptive management, and efficient feed management, effects from nutrient discharge and sediment accumulation could become more persistent or widespread under certain conditions, such as in shallow water or low-flow conditions. Changes in water quality and nutrient deposition could harm benthic communities, such as sensitive submerged vegetation, and fish in the vicinity of farms and therefore reduce suitable habitat and prey availability for special-status species. These changes could result in injury or loss of individuals or degradation or loss of habitat such that it could constitute a substantial adverse effect; this impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Establish Criteria for Siting Aquaculture Facilities CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for siting offshore aquaculture facilities and all aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
CDFW will establish requirements for applicant-performed baseline surveys and studies of the physical and biological characteristics of proposed aquaculture sites. Baseline studies will include an assessment of factors important for determining appropriate siting, such as water depths, current speeds, water circulation patterns, bottom types, and benthic communities. Data collected will include seasonal variations, multiple sampling locations that extend to all areas of the proposed lease area, and at least one reference site. Collection of enough replicate samples at each location to provide a valid sample will be required. Modeling or other tools will screen sites and determine the maximum density of aquaculture structures within a lease area to avoid adverse effects to natural resources and marine habitats.
Aquaculture facilities will generally be prohibited within a distance within which measurable impacts can be detected from MPAs, ASBS, national marine sanctuaries, and various designated exclusion zones. In addition, aquaculture facilities will generally be prohibited within a distance from Habitat Areas of Particular Concern and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-34 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
other sensitive Essential Fish Habitat, such as seagrass, kelp canopy, and rocky reefs, within which measurable impacts can be detected.
CDFW will require the lease applicant to submit information regarding whether the proposed location would be within the range and habitat of one or more special-status wildlife species and will include specific plans to avoid or mitigate any potential biological impacts of aquaculture. Such information will include review of available literature and survey of the site to evaluate habitat suitability and occurrence likelihood for special-status wildlife species and nesting birds by a qualified biologist. Surveys will identify important feeding, nesting, migrating, and congregating areas for special-status species within or adjacent to proposed facility locations.
CDFW will require that aquaculture facilities are sited in locations that avoid or minimize adverse effects on sensitive communities, special-status species habitat, and special-status species. CDFW will review the literature and survey results and proposed location to ensure that it avoids or minimizes adverse effects. For example, CDFW will review the depth of the site; current patterns and speeds; habitat on or around the proposed site; frequency of harmful algal blooms or hypoxia at the proposed site; substrate type; distance to other aquaculture facilities; distance to seabird colonies; and distance to marine mammal migratory pathways, feeding and mating areas, and haul-out sites. The proposed facilities will be located in areas away from sensitive habitats and with appropriate currents and bottom types, such as areas with shifting erosional sediment having a high sand content with currents that limit resistance on aquaculture gear and yet provide adequate current for nutrient flushing. The proposed location will be revised to avoid or minimize impacts to special-status species and their habitat and will generally prohibit aquaculture activities surrounding known wildlife congregating areas (e.g., around a seabird colony or marine mammal breeding area) within a distance within which wildlife disturbance can be detected.
CDFW will require that shellfish and finfish aquaculture facility siting incorporates spacing requirements to reduce the likelihood of disease outbreaks. The minimum spacing requirements will be determined based on project-level conditions, the shellfish or finfish species, and the best available science and risk assessments regarding disease transmission in the marine environment. Aquaculture facilities will generally be prohibited within a distance from another aquaculture lease within which measurable impacts can be detected.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts on special-status species and their habitat due to nutrient loading and deposition to a less-than-significant level because it would require CDFW to further refine the preliminary siting criteria described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” and establish additional requirements for the siting of aquaculture facilities to avoid and minimize impacts, review the potential location of facilities, and determine that the location meets the criteria as part of the aquaculture lease application process under the Proposed Program. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, risks of effects from nutrient inputs would be reduced for facilities by locating them in areas away from sensitive habitat and with appropriate currents and bottom types, such as areas with shifting erosional sediment having a high sand content. Ideally, facilities would be sited in areas with currents that limit resistance on culture gear and yet provide adequate current for nutrient flushing (Nash et al. 2005; Belle and Nash 2008). Siting of finfish aquaculture facilities in waters that are known to have sensitive habitats or management designations, including eelgrass beds, kelp stands, MPAs, and Habitat Areas of Particular Concerns, would be prohibited by the siting criteria established in Mitigation Measure BIO-1. In addition, lease application requirements under the Proposed Program, established under Mitigation Measure BIO-1, would ensure siting in areas with sufficient flushing of nutrients, which would minimize impacts from nutrient loading and deposition on sensitive habitat and special-status species. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would supersede the preliminary siting criteria described in Chapter 2 because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require more careful assessment of a proposed aquaculture site to ensure that the site has sufficient water circulation and depth to allow dispersion of nutrients and other constituents so that the risk of sensitive habitat degradation is not substantial. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, substantial adverse effects to special-status wildlife and habitat would be avoided and this impact would be reduced to less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-35 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Impact BIO-2: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through Food Web Alteration during Shellfish Aquaculture
Marine shellfish aquaculture operation could result in adverse effects to sensitive benthic communities under some conditions due to nutrient deposition or changes in marine food web dynamics that could result in an overall adverse ecosystem effect. These impacts would be minimized by restrictions on facility size and rate of development under the Proposed Program, as well as by implementation of adaptive management. However, residual food web dynamic changes could reduce habitat or prey availability for special-status species, which would constitute a substantial adverse effect. This would be a potentially significant impact.
The marine food web is made up of interconnected food chains within an environment and essentially describes “who eats whom” in a given community. Food webs are important analysis tools in understanding the effects of changes to the marine environment. For example, removal of an organism at the top of a food chain (e.g., a top predator) can result in top-down effects to the overall ecosystem. Similarly, changes to conditions at the bottom of the food chain can result in bottom-up effects. Within the marine food web, primary producers (e.g., phytoplankton) are the base of the food web, while predators (e.g., whales, sharks, seabirds) are the top of the web.
Bivalve shellfish filter large volumes of water through their gills, selectively separating phytoplankton and organic particulates for consumption and ejecting waste into the water column that then could fall to the bottom. Some nutrients are incorporated into the animals’ shells and some nitrogen is excreted as ammonia while the remaining nitrogen, along with phosphorous, cycles into sediment nutrient pools (Deslous-Paoli et al. 1992, Hatcher et al. 1994). Bivalve shellfish have an important role in the marine food web, due to this filtration activity and because they are prey for organisms at higher trophic levels. Marine shellfish aquaculture has the potential to influence relationships within the marine food web, because the practice introduces a substantial biomass of living animals and physical habitat structure into a marine ecosystem. Because feed is not added into the system and shellfish filter the water column and take up nutrients, shellfish aquiculture generally has a positive effect on water quality (refer to Section 4.9.4, “Environmental Consequences,” in Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography,” for additional discussion). Nutrient cycling within shellfish aquaculture areas may result in localized enhanced light penetration because increased filtration would reduce the water turbidity, which may also have an overall beneficial effect on primary productivity (Smaal et al. 2011) or on species like eelgrass (Koch and Beer 1996). Shellfish aquaculture may provide increased structural habitat and refugia for fish and invertebrate species (Coen and Grizzle 2007, Taylor and Bushek 2008, DeAlteris and Kilpatrick 2004). These fish and invertebrates may attract predators. The mollusk-eating sea ducks Barrow’s goldeneye (Bucephala islandica) and surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata) have been shown to be associated with shellfish aquaculture due to the propensity of mussels to settle and grow on the structures (Zydelis et al. 2008). This may also occur with other mollusk-eating duck species in California including common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), black scoter (Melanitta americana), and white-winged scoter (Melanitta deglandi). Shellfish aquaculture structures have the potential to attract shorebirds that may be attracted to the structures as a food source, or other birds like gulls, which may use features associated with the structures (e.g., stakes, floats) for perching or roosting. Pinnipeds and seabirds could be attracted to the structures seeking prey (e.g., fish). While marine wildlife may be attracted to shellfish aquaculture structures in search of prey, this is not expected to result in significant adverse effects to the marine food web, because it is unlikely that fish or other prey species seeking refuge within these structures would provide a substantial enough source of food for large vertebrate species (e.g., marine ducks, seabirds, pinnipeds) to abandon natural prey sources or significantly change their foraging behavior. While marine shellfish aquaculture would likely result in some beneficial ecosystem effects, shellfish aquaculture at large scales can alter the natural cycling of nutrients, which could increase sedimentation, weaken the flushing capability of bays and coastal areas, and potentially induce eutrophication or algal blooms (Clavelle et al. 2019). Shellfish aquaculture could create a high rate of nutrient loading in areas with depositional sediments and low-flow regimes may alter conditions in the underlying sediments, resulting in changes to the composition of the benthic
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-36 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources species and the marine food web. Additionally, if multiple shellfish aquaculture structures are sited too densely within one area, that area may reach an ecological “carrying capacity” at which the balance between bivalves, phytoplankton, and organisms at higher trophic levels breaks down (Jiang and Gibbs 2005). Potential nutrient loading or altering the marine food web balance would be minimized because the Proposed Program limits the size and quantity of shellfish leases and shellfish aquaculture leases would be granted gradually through time. Furthermore, preliminary screening criteria for siting aquaculture facilities, described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” would minimize impacts by providing guidance for appropriately locating facilities, such that an appropriate lease would avoid specified, previously identified sensitive habitat (e.g., EFH, MPAs, known breeding areas, known migratory routes), and requiring surveys of potential locations. In addition, the adaptive management process, as described in Chapter 2, would require periodic review of conditions that could be affected by aquaculture, such as organic and benthic loading and detrimental effects on food webs. The adaptive management process provides an avenue for reevaluation of permit application requirements, siting requirements, monitoring, and other relevant management measures to ensure that the Proposed Program can respond appropriately to changing conditions. However, even with these minimization measures, it is possible that shellfish aquaculture structures could lead to adverse effects to sensitive benthic environments and the associated marine food webs if these sensitive habitats have not been previously identified or if conditions change (e.g., a new aggregating or breeding area is established). Changes in benthic communities and other food web components in the vicinity of farms due to shellfish aquaculture could potentially reduce suitable habitat and prey availability for special-status species. These changes could result in injury or loss of special-status individuals or degradation or loss of habitat such that it could constitute a substantial adverse effect. This would be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts on marine food webs as a result of marine shellfish aquaculture because it would require that the locations of potential shellfish aquaculture operations are surveyed for sensitive benthic habitats, and that operations would avoid sensitive habitat. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require investigations to determine the maximum density of aquaculture structures within a lease area to avoid adverse effects to natural resources and marine habitats, including the exceedance of carrying capacity, and would set limits for structure density in that area based on the results. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would supersede the siting criteria described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require more careful assessment of a proposed aquaculture site to ensure that the site has sufficient water circulation and depth to allow dispersion of nutrients so that the risk of sensitive habitat degradation is not substantial. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, substantial adverse effects to special-status wildlife and habitat would be avoided, and this impact would be reduced to less than significant.
Impact BIO-3: Substantially Affect Sensitive Habitat through Direct Impacts during Finfish, Shellfish, or Seaweed Aquaculture Decreased light penetration and anchor placement that may occur from installation of facilities under the Proposed Program could adversely affect sensitive habitat, including special-status species habitat and sensitive communities, by decreasing growth rates of light-dependent species or crushing benthic species. These impacts would be minimized by restrictions on facility size and rate of development under the Proposed Program, as well as by implementation of adaptive management. However, there is potential for degradation of sensitive habitat, such as sensitive submerged vegetation, due to shading or crushing. This loss of sensitive habitat would constitute a substantial adverse effect and be considered a potentially significant impact.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-37 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Buoyant aquaculture structures, whether floating at the surface or submerged, could affect light penetration. The benthic environment and water column could be shaded by buoyant structures, food barges, and seaweed growing on ropes and lines. This could limit or degrade the growth of food web foundation species and habitat such as seagrass, kelp stands, or phytoplankton production, which could in turn impact special-status species that rely upon these foundation species for habitat or food. Additionally, aquaculture structures are built to withstand stresses imposed by the marine environment and are anchored to the seafloor. Mobile special-status wildlife species in the area would be expected to move out of the way during anchoring placement. However, placement of anchors on the seabed could crush or kill benthic infauna (found in the seabed), epifauna (found on the seabed), and submerged aquatic vegetation, which could degrade sensitive benthic communities. The scale of the Proposed Program would minimize the potential for impacts from reduced light penetration and anchor placement because individual aquaculture projects would be limited in size and number under the Proposed Program, and the area affected would be small compared to the available adjacent ocean habitat. Impacts from reduced light would likely be localized at the farm site and adjacent areas, typically within 100 meters, and anticipated to be reversible when the site is fallowed (Price and Morris 2013). The Proposed Program includes the establishment of siting criteria (refer to Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives”) to minimize adverse effects to natural resources and habitat. In addition, the adaptive management program, as described in Chapter 2, would avoid and minimize impacts by reviewing and evaluating effects related to aquaculture every five years and implementing any necessary corrective best management practices. However, even with the scale of the program, the preliminary siting criteria, and adaptive management program, sensitive habitats such as seagrass and kelp stands could be degraded by decreased light penetration or anchoring, which could result in special-status species habitat or essential fish habitat loss. This would constitute a substantial adverse effect, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would supersede the siting criteria described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require more careful assessment of a proposed aquaculture site to ensure that the site is not located within or in the vicinity of sensitive habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce impacts on sensitive habitat due to reduced light penetration and anchors to a less- than-significant level because it would require CDFW would make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve criteria for the siting of aquaculture facilities to ensure that the location of facilities avoid or minimize adverse effects as part of the aquaculture lease application process under the Proposed Program. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require surveys of the proposed location, which would identify sensitive habitats such as eelgrass. Additionally, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would prohibit siting of finfish aquaculture facilities in waters with sensitive habitats or management designations, including eelgrass beds, kelp stands, MPAs, and Habitat Areas of Particular Concerns. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, lease application requirements under the Proposed Program would ensure siting in areas outside of sensitive habitat, which would minimize impacts from reduced lighting and placing anchors on sensitive habitat, including special-status species habitat. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, substantial adverse effects to sensitive habitat would be avoided, and this impact would be reduced to less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-38 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Impact BIO-4: Substantially Affect Special-Status Wildlife and Common Nesting Birds through Interactions with Finfish, Shellfish, or Seaweed Aquaculture Operations
Special-status wildlife and common nesting birds could become entangled in marine aquaculture gear, collide with vessels, or be exposed to noise or light disturbance during Proposed Program operations. Entanglement could cause injury or loss of special-status wildlife species and noise or light disturbance could result in injury to wildlife or disruption in normal movement, breeding, and foraging behavior. This would constitute a substantial adverse effect and be considered be a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of the Proposed Program could result in disturbance or loss of special-status wildlife and common nesting birds due to interactions with aquaculture gear during operations. Farming of marine finfish provides a source of feed that can attract other species, and aquaculture gear also creates habitat where fish and other wildlife could aggregate (Callier et al. 2017). If species are attracted to aquaculture facilities or operations are located within their habitat, interactions between wildlife and aquaculture operations could occur. For example, seals and sea lions appear to be attracted to locations with concentrated supplies of food and have been documented interacting with aquaculture (Halwart et al. 2007, Belle and Nash 2008). Although not expected to be common, potential interactions could result in entanglement in nets or lines in the water or in the air, and wildlife could be disrupted by noise and activity associated with normal aquaculture operations. Special-status wildlife species and common nesting birds could be disturbed, injured, or killed by these interactions with aquaculture operations. Entanglement or disturbance could result in “take” of wildlife species listed or proposed for listing under the federal ESA, candidates for possible future listing under the federal ESA, wildlife species listed or candidates for listing under CESA, species protected under the MMPA, and species designated as Fully Protected under the California Fish and Game Code. Take is defined by the State as to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” (FGC Section 86) and by the federal government as to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 CFR 17.3 and 50 CFR 216.3). Aquaculture projects will independently be required to comply with CESA and the federal ESA. Entanglement or disturbance could also disrupt common bird nests, leading to potential nest abandonment and injury or mortality of adults, young, or eggs. Common nesting birds are those bird species that do not fit the criteria for special-status species as defined in this PEIR but are protected under sections 3503 and 3503.5 of the California FGC and the MBTA.
Entanglement Entanglements with wildlife have been reported to occur during aquaculture, although the extent to which this occurs is not well understood (Nash et al. 2005, Belle and Nash 2008, Holmer 2010, Price et al. 2017, Weitzman et al. 2019). Aquaculture gear differs from fishing nets and traps which are frequently very long and loosely configured, allowing slack lines and nets to potentially entangle wildlife, such as marine mammal fins and tails, sea turtle heads or flippers, or seabird heads or wings. Aquaculture net-pens and mooring lines are typically taut without the slack that can facilitate entanglement, although some lines may have lower tension such as grow out lines for shellfish. Aquaculture facilities are consolidated in discrete areas, potentially allowing the gear to be more easily detected and avoided by some species such as cetaceans that echolocate (e.g., dolphins) (Markowitz et al. 2004). However, if gear such as lines, ropes, nets, buoys, or floats is loose (e.g., loose ropes are left trailing in the water), sea birds, sharks, sea turtles, or marine mammals could become entangled while congregating near aquaculture farms, swimming, or diving to prey upon cultured finfish or shellfish. Attraction to finfish aquaculture would be minimized by solids management required by the SWRCB NPDES permitting system to employ efficient feed management and remove mortalities regularly (refer to Section 4.9.4, “Environmental Consequences,” in Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography”). In addition, implementation of the adaptive management program, as described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” would avoid and minimize impacts by reviewing and addressing effects related to aquaculture every five years and implementing any necessary corrective best management practices. However, if special-status species or common nesting birds become entangled in loose aquaculture gear, injury or mortality could occur.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-39 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Noise and Light Disturbance Aquaculture activities could result in disturbance to special-status species due to elevated noise from activities associated with operations such as the passage of boats or the work of crews or due to artificial lighting. During normal operations, aquaculture equipment does not typically produce noise louder than that of the existing recreational vessels commonly used in California’s coastal waters. There is normally little activity in aquaculture areas Aquaculture activities would include feed delivery, harvest, and facility maintenance. Adaptive management would avoid and minimize impacts through review of any adverse effects and any necessary revisions of best management practices. However, many net pen aquaculture facilities globally use acoustic devices, such as acoustic deterrent devices (ADDs) and acoustic harassment devices (AHDs), to deter marine mammal predation on cultured fish and to protect aquaculture structures. These devices use sound to repel animals. AHDs typically emit a powerful sound at high intensity, frequency, or decibel level that inflicts pain or discomfort in the approaching animal. NOAA Fisheries has established underwater noise levels for the onset of threshold shifts for marine mammals (NMFS 2018). Marine mammals, and potentially other marine wildlife, could experience behavioral changes or changes in their hearing sensitivity from exposure to underwater anthropogenic sound sources. Impacts on special-status species from acoustic devices would be potentially significant. In addition, alteration of normal behaviors of birds and other wildlife could occur as a result of artificial lighting used for aquaculture. Shellfish aquaculture activities would normally occur during daylight hours and only navigational lighting would be needed. In finfish aquaculture, the primary areas affected by lighting would be in the immediate vicinity of the aquaculture facility, and navigational lighting would be used. Light could disturb normal breeding or foraging behavior of nearby special-status wildlife or common nesting birds.
Vessel Strikes Proposed Program implementation would include the use of vessels to install aquaculture structures, daily visits for harvesting and maintenance, and periodic delivery of feed to finfish aquaculture operations by vessels. Vessel operation within important migratory corridors or within close proximity to nursery sites or foraging grounds could result in collisions between vessels and sensitive wildlife; primarily large whales, but also including dolphins, pinnipeds, and seabirds. Vessel strikes can result in injury or mortality of sensitive and special-status wildlife species. Studies within the Southern California Bight have shown that blue whales occur within areas of heavy ship traffic and that the whales’ ability to avoid vessel strikes is limited (McKenna et al. 2015).
Summary Operation of aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program could potentially result in wildlife entanglement in nets or lines in the water or in the air. Wildlife could be disturbed by noise and activity associated with normal aquaculture operations. Additionally, operation of vessels associated with aquaculture operations could result in collisions with sensitive species, including whales. The Proposed Program includes the establishment of siting criteria (refer to Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives”) to avoid adverse effects to natural resources and habitat. However, this requirement may not fully prevent placement of aquaculture sites in special-status wildlife species habitat. Special-status wildlife species and common nesting birds could be disturbed, injured, or killed by these interactions with aquaculture operations. This would constitute a substantial adverse effect to special-status or other protected species, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-4a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Mitigation Measure BIO-4b: Establish Best Management Practices for Wildlife Protection CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to modify/adopt/approve best management practice plans avoid and minimize adverse effects on wildlife. All leaseholders will be required to implement these best management practices, which will include, but not be limited to:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-40 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
standards and requirements for the use, maintenance, and monitoring of aquaculture gear, including but not limited to materials; mesh sizes; tension strength of gear such as net walls, lines, and ropes; and anti-predator exclusion netting and other barriers including overhead netting to exclude seabirds;
specifications for use of lighting, including a prohibition on sustained lighting of waters outside of the aquaculture facility. Any lighting will be required to be minimized at night, downward-pointing, and shaded;
specifications for allowable noise levels and duration, including requiring that allowable levels are below the underwater acoustic thresholds for onset of permanent and temporary threshold shifts provided by NMFS in “Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing” (NMFS 2016, or current version); and
specifications for vessel speed limits and behavior during travel and in the vicinity of aquaculture facilities. CDFW will establish monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for best management practices. All entanglements with wildlife by aquaculture facilities or vessel strikes will be required to be reported to CDFW and other appropriate authorities within 24 hours of detection.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4a and Mitigation Measure BIO-4b would reduce impacts on special- status species and common nesting birds due to entanglement with aquaculture gear, noise and light disturbance, and collision to a less-than-significant level. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Mitigation Measure BIO-4a), CDFW would make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve criteria for the siting of aquaculture facilities away from important seabird and marine mammal habitat (e.g., breeding areas and migratory paths). As noted above, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would supersede the preliminary siting criteria described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require more careful assessment of a proposed aquaculture site to ensure that the site is located away from seabird and special-status species habitat so that the risk of entanglement, noise and light disturbance, and collision is not substantial. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would require CDFW to establish required best management practices for the use of gear (e.g., ropes, lines, buoys, and netting), lighting, noise, and operation of vessels that would avoid and minimize impacts. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-4b would prohibit the use of AHDs. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4a and Mitigation Measure BIO-4b, substantial adverse effects to special-status and other protected species would be avoided, thereby reducing this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-5: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through the Introduction and Spread of Nonnative Invasive Species during Finfish or Shellfish Aquaculture or Wild Fish Populations through Escaped Cultured Finfish
Implementation of the Proposed Program could result in introduction of nonnative invasive organisms colonizing on aquaculture structures, which could result in adverse impacts to marine ecosystems or native species. Implementation of the Proposed Program could also result in escape and spread of nonnative cultured shellfish species, potentially resulting in adverse effects on native shellfish; or escape of cultured finfish or their viable gametes, potentially resulting in interbreeding between cultured fish and wild fish, or other adverse effects on wild fish. This would be a potentially significant impact.
The potential exists for nonnative invasive species to be introduced through aquaculture. Shellfish used in aquaculture under the Proposed Program may involve species that are not originally native to California but that have been approved for cultivation and importation into California, through registrations, permits, and lease conditions that are subject to ongoing adaptive management over time (refer to additional discussion on nonnative naturalized shellfish in Section 1.1.2, “Marine Aquaculture,” in Chapter 1, “Introduction”). Multiple cultured oyster species are not native to California; and these species have historically been unlikely to successfully reproduce in the wild due to unfavorable ocean temperatures in California (Barrett 1963). However, feral populations of Pacific oyster have been observed along the California coast, especially in areas with warmer water temperatures such as San Diego County (Crooks et al. 2015). As ocean conditions change in California (e.g., increasing sea surface temperature),
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-41 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental conditions may become more favorable for Pacific oyster reproduction, and feral populations may become more widespread. Another risk in farming shellfish species is the transfer of species that colonize aquaculture gear (Weitzman et al. 2019). A known mechanism for introduction of nonnative invasive species resulting from shellfish aquaculture operations is incidental transportation of nonnative invasive species (e.g., gastropods and tunicates such as sea squirt [Didemnum vexillum]) on aquaculture equipment (Weitzman et al. 2019). Wild and cultured shellfish can provide habitat for colonization by nonnative invasive species introduced via other vectors such as ballast water or hull fouling of both commercial and recreational boats (McKindsey et al. 2007). Historically, the shellfish industry was responsible for the introduction, both deliberate and accidental, of a variety of nonnative invasive species to Pacific Coast habitats (Grosholz et al. 2015). Introduction or spread of nonnative invasive organisms can result in adverse effects to ecosystems (e.g., food-web disruption) or native species (e.g., competition, predation), including special- status species and habitat. Currently, FGC Sections 15300 and 15600–15605 regulate the transport and importation of shellfish seed, which would minimize the transfer of nonnative invasive organisms to aquaculture facilities, but introduction and spread could still potentially occur. Because aquaculture of nonnative invasive finfish is prohibited in California, escaped cultured finfish would not result in the introduction of a nonnative invasive species to the marine environment. However, the potential exists for cultured finfish to escape marine aquaculture structures. Once escaped fish have dispersed, it is unlikely that they can be easily recovered. For these reasons, the impacts of fish escape are most effectively managed by minimizing the risk of escape and understanding the level of risk from escapes of varying scale to wild populations. In California, escapement would not be a mechanism for introduction of nonnative invasive species, because FGC Section 15007 prohibits finfish aquaculture to use any exotic species of finfish (i.e., those species not native to California waters or not currently existing as a viable population in a wild condition in California). Finfish for which rearing techniques have been suitably developed for California marine aquaculture include white seabass (Atractoscion nobilis), California yellowtail (Seriola lalandi), California sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher), cabezon (Scorpaenichthys marmoratus), and striped bass (Morone saxatilis). All of these species are native to California with the exception of striped bass, which was introduced in the 1800s, and a naturalized population of striped bass now exists in the wild and is large enough to support a substantial sport fishery (Dill and Cordone 1997). Other species may be added to this list in the future, but all would be native or naturalized as required by FGC. Escaped cultured finfish could result in competition with wild fish (e.g., for mates, nesting sites, habitat, forage), predation of wild fish, transmission of disease to wild fish (See Impact BIO-6), or potential interbreeding with wild fish (Nash et al. 2005, Waples et al. 2012). Interbreeding between cultured finfish and wild fish may be possible because cultured fish are required to be native or naturalized species. Interbreeding could occur if an adult cultured fish escaped or if viable gametes from cultured fish were released. Negative effects of interbreeding between cultured finfish and wild fish may include loss of genetic diversity in wild populations and reduced fitness of the offspring of cultured and wild fish (McGinnity et al. 2003, Waples et al. 2012). Preparation and implementation of a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan, as described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” could help minimize effects of nonnative species. Implementation of the adaptive management program, as described in Chapter 2, would avoid and minimize impacts by regularly reviewing and addressing effects related to aquaculture and would implement any necessary revisions of best management practices. Nonetheless, a certain level of escapes and introduction of nonnative invasive organisms probably cannot be avoided, and this could result in substantial adverse effects to native, wild populations, including special-status species, and habitat. This would be a potentially significant impact.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-42 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO 5a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4b
Mitigation Measure BIO-5b: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements, which are also described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities, and all aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant will prepare and submit to CDFW a Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan. The plan will outline methods to prevent the introduction and spread of aquatic nonnative invasive species.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5c: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Nonnative Shellfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant and CDFW, will prepare a risk assessment, and if needed, prepare a Nonnative Shellfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan (Plan) that would identify the methods for prevention of escape and spread of nonnative cultured shellfish as well as methods for appropriate response should escape and/or spread occur. The escape prevention plan will include the specifications for the design of the facility and demonstrate that the proposed specifications are sufficient to withstand the range of oceanographic conditions at the site to the maximum extent practicable. CDFW or the Commission (authority to be determined through rulemaking) will review and approve these specifications before lease approval. CDFW and the Commission will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding prevention of shellfish escape and spread to prepare the Nonnative Shellfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5d: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan and Reports of Escape Incidents CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant will prepare and submit to CDFW a Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan (Plan) that would identify the methods for escape prevention and methods for response should escape occur. The Plan will include a risk assessment of the genetic impacts of farmed fish escape on wild stocks using the best available tools (e.g., the NOAA Offshore Aquaculture Escapes Genetics Assessment [OMEGA] model). The escape prevention plan will include the specifications for the design and maintenance of the facility, including cages and anchoring systems, and demonstrate that the proposed specifications are sufficient to withstand the range of wind, waves, and currents at the site to the maximum extent practicable. CDFW or the Commission (authority to be determined through rulemaking) will review and approve these specifications before lease approval. The response plan for an escape incident will include methods for recovering escaped finfish to the maximum extent feasible, reporting escape incidents, and remedial measures to prevent future escape (e.g., requirements to improve cage design, operational practices, or provide additional staff training within a specified timeframe). CDFW or the Commission will review escape incidents. This review of the escape incident will begin and appropriate recommendations/corrective actions shall be implemented as soon as feasible/practicable. Additionally, the lease applicant will submit annual reports to CDFW or the Commission to report escape incidents. CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding finfish and viable finfish gamete escape to prepare the Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-43 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
Mitigation Measure BIO-5e: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Plan for Prevention of Reproduction between Cultured Finfish and Wild Fish Should Escape Occur CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
Prior to lease approval, and as part of the Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan (Plan), the lease applicant will identify methods to prevent reproduction between cultured finfish and wild fish, either as a result of escaped individuals or viable escaped gametes. Example plan elements may include marking all farmed finfish individuals so they can be identified later and measures that prevent the sexual maturity or reproductive viability of cultured finfish. These measures may include using sterile fish, either by inducing triploidy or other sterilization measures (e.g., fish that require dietary additives for maturation), or harvesting finfish prior to sexual maturity to avoid gamete production (Rust et al. 2014). CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available technology regarding sterilization. Additionally, the use of highly domestic populations or cultured finfish may reduce the likelihood of escaped fish surviving in the wild or outcompeting wild fish for resources (Waples et al. 2012). The Plan shall include additional corrective action/control measures with a goal of preventing uncontrolled breeding of cultured fish or interbreeding of cultured and wild fish stocks. These measures may include post-escape monitoring of wild populations to determine the fraction of a wild population that originated from aquaculture operations. CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding finfish and viable finfish gamete escape to prepare the Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4b (Mitigation Measure BIO-5a) would require that CDFW establish best management practices for use of marine aquaculture gear, including netting; the design of which would be critical for preventing escape of cultured finfish. Mitigation Measures BIO-5b, BIO-5c, BIO-5d, and BIO-5ewould require that marine aquaculture operators demonstrate that plans are in place for addressing the potential for introduction of nonnative invasive species or escape of cultured finfish or viable finfish gametes to avoid adverse effects to native species including special-status species. Preparation and implementation of these plans (including amendments to the plans) would reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects to special-status species and habitat, however, the potential for escape, spread, and uncontrolled reproduction of cultured shellfish and finfish may not be precluded. As a result, impacts are considered potentially significant and unavoidable.
Impact BIO-6: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species through Spread of Pathogens and Parasites to Wild Finfish and Shellfish
Cultured shellfish and finfish within marine aquaculture operations under the Proposed Program could introduce pathogens into the marine environment, potentially infecting wild organisms. The California Fish and Game Code includes various requirements and recommendations to prevent introduction of pathogens and to monitor and respond to diseases in aquaculture populations. However, these requirements and recommendations would not fully reduce the risk of transmission of disease from cultured shellfish or finfish to wild populations, and as a result, impacts would be potentially significant.
The primary concerns regarding pathogens in marine aquaculture operations are introduction of pathogens and parasites in seed, fingerlings, or brood stock and transmission of disease from cultured organisms to wild organisms (Nash et al. 2005). Nearly all shellfish seed and fingerling fish for aquaculture are produced in hatcheries. FGC Sections 15500–15516 outline requirements for inspections of aquaculture facilities, including hatcheries (Section 15503), as well as recommendations for routine monitoring, standardized diagnostic procedures, and quarantine procedures if pathogens are identified (Section 15504). FGC Section 15300 defines sources from which brood stock can be legally obtained, and these sources are a holder of a commercial fishing license, a registered aquaculturist, CDFW, or an imported source that has been permitted by CDFW. Shellfish importers (including seed) must provide health certification to CDFW that shellfish stocks are free from a number of pathogens.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-44 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Existing FGC regulations would avoid or minimize the likelihood of pathogen introduction from seed, fingerlings, or brood stock; however, it is possible that disease-free fish and shellfish could become infected once introduced to a marine aquaculture site. CDFW maintains lists of pathogens relevant to aquaculture operations and assigns them into categories of severity. Shellfish are sessile, which reduces the likelihood of wild shellfish intermittently coming into contact with cultured shellfish. Pathogen transmission from cultured shellfish operations to wild shellfish populations would require the populations to be in close enough proximity for an infectious dose to be transmitted. Conversely, cultured shellfish operations may reduce the risk of disease to wild populations by diluting parasites in the marine environment if harvested before the disease spreads (Ben-Horin et al. 2018). Even so, if cultured shellfish operations are sited in close proximity to wild shellfish populations, there is potential for transmission of pathogens. Finfish can move freely throughout the water column, and as a result, there is a greater risk of transmission of disease between cultured finfish and wild fish. Wild fish that are within close proximity of finfish aquaculture operations could come into contact with disease agents (Nash et al. 2005). Because of the density of cultured fish in a net-pen enclosure, it is possible for pathogens to spread through the population and multiply sufficiently to overcome the fish immune systems, causing an outbreak of disease (Nash et al. 2005, Rust et al. 2014, Lafferty et al. 2015). Finfish operations located in close proximity to each other can also result in disease outbreaks should some fish become infected, and aquaculture operations in other parts of the world have recommended a spacing standard of at least 5 kilometers between farms to minimize this problem (Gentry et al. 2017). It is also possible that escaped cultured finfish could transmit pathogens to wild populations, though it is less likely that individual escaped fish would generate an infectious dose sufficient to result in disease in wild populations (Rust et al. 2014). Exposure of wild fish stocks, especially special-status fish species (e.g., salmon, steelhead) is a serious concern and could lead to injury or death of special-status wildlife if these species were exposed to infected cultured finfish. Studies suggest that the level of pathogens beyond a few meters of marine aquaculture structures is not typically sufficient to cause disease in nearby healthy wild fish for many diseases; those pathogens that may remain viable in seawater outside of their host are likely to be diluted in the ocean environment (Nash et al. 2005). However, wild populations experiencing stressful environmental conditions (e.g., prolonged elevated water temperatures in the summer) may be more susceptible to pathogens and disease transmission from cultured populations may be more likely under these conditions (Nash et al. 2005). The adaptive management program, as described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” would avoid and minimize impacts by regularly reviewing and addressing effects related to disease transmission in aquaculture and would implement any necessary revisions of best management practices. Additionally, existing FGC regulations (outlined above) require rigorous measures to prevent pathogen introduction, recommendations for monitoring cultured populations for disease, and address infections within cultured populations should they arise. While implementation of the adaptive management program and adherence to FGC regulations would reduce adverse effects from transmission of pathogens from cultured fish to special-status fish, the potential for pathogen transmission would still exist. Transmission of pathogens from cultured fish to special-status fish could result in a substantial adverse effect to these species, and impacts would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1Mitigation Measure BIO-6b: Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-5e
Mitigation Measure BIO-6c: Require Preparation and Implementation of a Plan for Shellfish or Finfish Disease Prevention and Response CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt/approve the following requirements for approval of offshore aquaculture facilities. All aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms:
Prior to lease approval, the lease applicant will prepare and submit to CDFW a Shellfish or Finfish Disease Prevention and Response Plan (Plan) that would identify the methods for disease prevention and methods for response should disease outbreaks occur. Disease prevention and response measures would include biosecurity measures; monitoring plans (e.g., routine health exams by aquatic animal health specialists); methods for the use of antibiotics, vaccines, or other therapeutants; methods for record keeping by aquaculture operators to document mortalities;
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-45 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
and methods for removal of infected or dead shellfish or finfish in a timely manner. CDFW or the Commission (authority to be determined through rulemaking) will review and approve the Plan before lease approval. CDFW will require lease applicants to use the best available science regarding disease in aquaculture operations to prepare the Shellfish or Finfish Disease Prevention and Response Plan.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 (Mitigation Measure BIO-6a) would require that CDFW implement siting requirements that would reduce the likelihood of disease transmission by requiring sufficient spacing between aquaculture operations to prevent disease outbreaks in cultured populations. Mitigation Measure BIO-5e (Mitigation Measure BIO-6b) would require that marine aquaculture operators demonstrate that plans are in place for addressing the potential for escape of cultured finfish that could transmit disease to wild fish. Mitigation Measure BIO-6c would require that marine aquaculture operators demonstrate that plans are in place for addressing the potential for disease transmission from cultured shellfish or finfish to wild populations to avoid adverse effects to native species including special-status species. Preparation and implementation of this plan (including amendments to the plan) would reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects to special-status species by requiring disease monitoring and measures to address disease outbreaks should they occur. As a result, impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Impact BIO-7: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through Construction of Land- Based Aquaculture Support Facilities
Construction of land-based support facilities as part of the Proposed Program could result in adverse effects to special-status plants, special-status wildlife, or sensitive habitats (e.g., waters of the United States, waters of the state, riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities) if present within the footprint or in the vicinity of these facilities. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable resource management and protection mandates, including those established within the Coastal Zone Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality act, such that impacts to special-status species and associated habitat would be minimized/avoided. This would be a less-than- significant impact.
Land-based support facilities for marine aquaculture operations may include warehouses and/or other light industrial/marina uses. Although most onshore facilities would likely occur within or near existing marinas, the potential exists for certain land-based aquaculture support facilities to include warehouses with supporting/appurtenant structures (e.g., docks, piers, and floats) in areas where vessels are stored or where materials and personnel are loaded or unloaded. While land-based support facilities may include existing facilities, it is likely that construction or relocation of existing facilities (e.g., to modernize antiquated facilities), or construction of entirely new facilities could be necessary under the Proposed Program. The coastal, terrestrial environment within the Program area contains a wide variety of environments, including dunes, marine terraces, and rocky cliffs. These habitats are known to support many special-status plant species (CNPS 2019) and special-status wildlife species (CNDDB 2019; USFWS 2019); some occur only within coastal environments. Many sensitive aquatic habitats occur within the terrestrial portion of the Program area, including river mouths, estuaries, lagoons, creeks, streams, saltmarshes, and wetlands. Sensitive riparian habitat is likely associated with many of these aquatic features. Additionally, many sensitive natural communities tracked in the CNDDB are present within the Program area. Refer to Section 4.4.2, “Environmental Setting,” for a full description the sensitive resources considered herein. Construction of new land-based support facilities, or relocation or improvements of existing land-based support facilities could occur in multiple different habitat types throughout the Program area. Construction activities may include ground disturbance, grading, trenching, pile-driving, vegetation removal, use of heavy machinery, and presence of construction vehicles and crews. These activities could result in adverse effects to special-status species or sensitive habitats if present within the footprint or vicinity of the activities. Construction activities could result in direct loss of special-status species, disruption of nesting or other behavior due to noise (e.g., during pile-driving) or visual disturbance sources (e.g., construction equipment, construction personnel), loss of wildlife habitat, removal of sensitive riparian habitat, or fill of wetlands or other waters of the United States or state if present within proposed California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-46 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources construction areas. However, prior to approval/construction, proposed land-based facilities would be required to comply with local jurisdiction requirements, including CEQA requirements. Further, existing lease requirements for state water bottom lease applicants mandate compliance with applicable resource management and preservation requirements, including those established by the Coastal Zone Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. While CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including biological-resource-mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. As a result, lease applicants would be required to mitigate any site-specific impacts to sensitive species or habitat and either avoid or provide site-specific mitigation (e.g., mitigation lands, preservation in perpetuity, etc.) such that substantial adverse effects would not occur as a result of development of onshore facilities. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact BIO-8: Substantially Affect Wild Fish Populations through Use of Wild Fish as Feed in Finfish Aquaculture
Finfish aquaculture could reduce wild fish populations through the use of fish meal and fish oil, feed ingredients produced from harvested wild fish. Reduced wild fish populations could limit food supplies for special-status fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. SB 201 includes the requirement that finfish aquaculture leaseholders minimize use of fish meal and fish oil and utilize alternative ingredients. With adherence to this requirement, impacts would be less than significant.
Fish meal and fish oil are ingredients used in compounded feeds for finfish aquaculture and are often produced from harvested wild forage fish. These fisheries harvest fish such as anchovies and sardines in managed commercial fisheries around the world. For example, in 2014 over 75 percent of the world fish production designated for nonfood uses (over 20 million tons) was converted into fish meal and fish oil (FAO 2016). Fish meal is also produced from processing waste from capture fisheries and aquaculture. Carnivorous fish convert these manufactured feeds to edible flesh with maximum efficiency and are considered the most nutritious and digestible ingredients for farmed- fish feeds (Nash et al. 2005; FAO 2016). Wild source populations of fish for fish meal and oil are generally considered to be at maximum allowable harvest and supplies are finite (Tacon and Metian 2015). Global supplies of fish meal and fish oil are limited and costs of these much sought after commodities have sharply increased (Naylor et al. 2009, Tacon and Metian 2015). Forage fish used in fish meal and oil production are an important link in the marine food web, and their increased harvest could affect food availability for piscivorous special-status fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. Prey supplies could alter foraging behavior of special-status species and potentially result in harm through reduced food stocks or additional energy expenditures to locate food. To minimize this risk to special-status species resulting from harvest of wild forage fish to produce fish meal, SB 201 (FGC Section 15400) requires that aquaculture leases and regulations adopted by the Commission for marine finfish aquaculture minimize the use of fish meal and fish oil and, where feasible, use alternative ingredients in the formulation of fish feeds (refer to Section 2.4.4, “Lease Requirements Common across Program Alternatives.”). The adaptive management program, also as described in Section 2.4.4, would avoid and minimize impacts by developing best management practices to ensure that the use of fish meal and fish oil is minimized by leaseholders. Best management practices would be developed and updated through a best management practices implementation plan, which would be re-evaluated every five years. If fish meal and fish oil use are not being minimized, new best management practices would be developed and implemented as part of the plan update. As a response to limited supplies and rising costs of fish meal and fish oil, the global aquaculture industry is reducing its reliance on these finite commodities. High costs for fish meal and oil, especially relative to other suitable protein and oil sources, spurred development of replacements for fish meal and oil in aquaculture feeds and a greater recovery of fish wastes. Animal ingredients such as poultry byproduct and bone meal are being used as fish meal and California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-47 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental oil replacements. Additional alternatives to fish meal and fish oil include single cell proteins from cultured microorganisms and a variety of proteins from marine algae, insect meals, and terrestrial plants, particularly soy and rapeseed, that can be used in fish feed (Naylor et al. 2009, Rust et al. 2014). The cost of alternative nutrient sources typically requires expenses for additional processing to adjust for missing nutrients, remove antinutrients, or improve palatability. The cost gap between soy protein, for example, and fish meal has increased almost fourfold since 2002, which provided the financial incentive to justify spending for the extra processing and supplementation needed to use increased amounts of alternative proteins and oils in fish feed (Rust et al. 2014). The Norwegian salmon farming industry has reduced the content of fish meal and oil in feed to less than 25 percent of the diet, largely by replacement with plant proteins and oils (Torrissen et al. 2011), and experimental studies have found that formulated feeds with no fish meal or oil have resulted in growth and survival similar to those obtained with feeds containing fish meal and oil for several species (Rust et al. 2014). However, eliminating all fish meal or oil may not be desirable for some consumers because they are high in desirable fatty acids. Development of suitable ingredients continues to be one of the most active areas of research in aquaculture nutrition and ongoing research efforts are focused on understanding the nutritional value of feeds based on various protein sources, how well they meet the nutritional requirements of fish, as well as how to increase the sustainability of fish meal and oil production (Torrissen et al. 2011, Rust et al. 2014). Due to the limited supply of fish meal and oil and the increasing cost differential between fish meal and oil and other protein and oil sources, it is reasonable to assume that in order to maintain a cost-efficient industry, the development and use of alternate ingredients will progressively reduce use of fish meal and fish oil. Because SB 201 requires that finfish aquaculture leaseholders minimize the use of fish meal and fish oil, substantial adverse effects to wild fish populations and the special-status species that rely on them would also be minimized. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact BIO-9: Interfere Substantially with Wildlife Movement or Impede the Use of Wildlife Nurseries
Proposed Program implementation could result in placement of marine aquaculture structures within important migratory corridors or in the vicinity of nursery sites which could result in a disruption in the normal movement, breeding, and foraging behavior of marine organisms. Proposed Program operation, including the use of vessels to transport feed, could also result in disruption of movement corridors or disturbance to nursery sites. This would be a potentially significant impact.
Migration, dispersal, or other, smaller-scale movements within the Program area include those associated with small organisms (e.g., invertebrate larval dispersal) to the largest organisms (e.g., gray whale migration). Movements occur over great distances (e.g., large-scale migrations) and locally (e.g., pinniped and seabird dispersal from a rookery or haul-out to offshore foraging grounds). These movements can occur in nearshore environments and pelagic environments, and when organisms are transiting for foraging purposes, are based on the often unpredictable locations of the prey (e.g., fish, krill). Nursery sites within the Program area include pinniped rookeries, seabird colonies, and coastal shorebird nesting areas. Wildlife movements are often centered on these sites, particularly with organisms like sea lions and common murres that are considered “central-place foragers” (i.e., organisms that return to the same place after foraging bouts). Many MPAs in the Proposed Program, including special closure areas, were designed in part to protect these sensitive nursery sites (e.g., Southwest Seal Rock Special Closure, Devil’s Slide Rock Special Closure, Año Nuevo State Marine Reserve). Several known nursery sites are also located within ASBS due to their ecological importance. However, many of these sites are located outside of special management areas and thus would not benefit from their protection from disturbance. Shellfish and seaweed aquaculture would typically use off-bottom methods (e.g., submerged longlines) in open water. Additionally, finfish aquaculture would entail the use of floating or submerged buoyant net pens. If these structures are sited within important migratory corridors or within close proximity to nursery sites or known foraging grounds, the normal movement, breeding behavior, or foraging behavior of marine organisms could be disrupted. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-48 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources
Finfish facilities would cover a larger area than shellfish and seaweed aquaculture structures and therefore, finfish aquaculture could potentially cause more disruption to these behaviors. Disruptions to the normal behavior of marine organisms could lead to abandonment of nursery sites or abandonment of foraging habitat. Additionally, disruption of an established movement corridor could result in increased exposure to predation if an organism must migrate through less protected waters. Proposed Program implementation would also include delivery of feed to finfish aquaculture operations by vessels. Vessel operation within important migratory corridors, or within close proximity to nursery sites or known foraging grounds could result in disturbance, injury, or mortality to wildlife (e.g., vessel strikes) or interruption of normal breeding or foraging behavior. Vessel strikes are discussed further in Impact BIO-4, “Substantially Affect Special- Status Wildlife through Interactions with Finfish, Shellfish, or Seaweed Aquaculture Operations.” Preliminary screening criteria for siting aquaculture facilities, described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” would minimize impacts by providing guidance for appropriately locating facilities, such as that an appropriate lease would avoid specified sensitive habitats. However, even with the preliminary siting criteria, aquaculture facilities could still be sited within migratory corridor or nursery sites, Interference with migratory corridors or nursery sites would constitute a substantial adverse effect and This impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure BIO-9a: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1
Mitigation Measure BIO-9b: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4b
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 and Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would reduce impacts on migratory and movement corridors or nursery sites because it would require marine aquaculture operations to identify and avoid important wildlife movement or migratory corridors, seabird colonies, marine mammal rookeries, and special management areas (e.g., MPAs, ASBS) and to establish best management practices (e.g., vessel speed limits). Avoidance of these features and establishing best management practices would reduce the likelihood of marine aquaculture operations resulting in disturbance to migrating, nesting/breeding, or foraging organisms. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would supersede the preliminary siting criteria described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” because Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require more careful assessment of a proposed aquaculture site to ensure that the site is located a sufficient distance away from seabird, marine mammal, and other wildlife migratory corridors and nursery sites so that the risk of interference is not substantial. Substantial interference migratory corridors and nursery sites would be avoided, and implementation of these measures would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impact BIO-10: Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources or Conflict with the Provisions of an Adopted Natural Community Conservation Plan, Habitat Conservation Plan, or Other Approved Habitat Plan
Construction of land-based support facilities has the potential to result in adverse effects to special-status species or sensitive habitats, if present within the vicinity of these facilities. This could result in conflicts with local policies, local ordinances, or provisions of an HCP or NCCP. However, existing lease requirements and existing rules and regulations of local jurisdictions would require compliance with existing, applicable regulations. This would be a less-than- significant impact.
The marine portion of the Program area is within state waters and is overwhelmingly under the jurisdiction of California State law. Implementation of the Proposed Program, however, would result in construction of land-based support facilities that may fall under the jurisdiction of a local municipality (e.g., county, city) and its associated general plan policies or municipal ordinances, or within the plan area for an HCP or NCCP. General plans policies,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-49 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental municipal ordinances, HCPs, and NCCPs typically include measures to reduce adverse effects on special-status species, sensitive habitats (e.g., riparian habitat, aquatic habitat), and protected trees. Construction of land-based support facilities could result in conflicts with local policies or ordinances or provisions of an HCP or NCCP. Conflicts with existing policies or provisions could include removal of trees protected by a local tree protection ordinance, construction within riparian or wetland setbacks designated by a local general plan or impacts to species designated as “covered species” in an HCP or NCCP but with no other special-status designation. However, prior to approval/construction of proposed land-based facilities, compliance with local jurisdiction rules and regulations, including CEQA, would be required. Further, existing lease requirements for state water bottom lease applicants mandate compliance with applicable resource management and preservation requirements, including local tree ordinances and habitat conservation planning efforts. As a result, lease applicants would be required to demonstrate consistency with habitat conservation efforts through site-specific measures and either avoid or provide site-specific mitigation (e.g., replacement trees, mitigation lands, preservation in perpetuity, etc.) such that conflicts with local policies, ordinances, or HCP/NCCP provisions would not occur as a result of development of onshore facilities. While CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including local policies or ordinances, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Alternative 2 would limit the number of new leases that would be approved by the Commission in a given period but would not limit the size of new offshore facilities. Impact BIO-2 would be the same under Alternative 2 because the shellfish aquaculture development scenarios are the same under the Proposed Program and Alternative 2. Impact BIO-6 would be the same as the Proposed Program under Alternative 2 because existing FGC regulations are adequate to reduce the impacts associated with each individual facility to a less-than-significant level regardless of the size of offshore facilities. Impacts BIO-7 and BIO-10 would be the same under Alternative 2 because impacts related to construction of land-based support facilities and compliance with local ordinances, local policies, HCPs, or NCCPs would not change based on the size of offshore facilities. Impact BIO-5 addresses the risk of introduction or spread of nonnative invasive species and cultured finfish escape. The significance determination for this impact relies on existing law and mitigation measures requiring preparation of plans outlining how these risks would be avoided and how the issues will be addressed should they occur. The risk of accidental invasive species introductions and cultured finfish escape can be expected to increase in proportion to the number and size of marine aquaculture facilities operating in California waters, and so the risk is slightly greater under Alternative 2 than under the Proposed Program. Impact BIO-6 addresses the risk of transmission of disease from cultured shellfish and finfish to wild populations. The significance determination for this impact relies on existing law and mitigation measures requiring preparation of plans outlining how these risks would be avoided and how the issues will be addressed should they occur. The risk of disease transmission can be expected to increase in proportion to the number and size of marine aquaculture facilities operating in California waters, and so the risk is slightly greater under Alternative 2 than under the Proposed Program. Impact BIO-8 would still be less than significant under Alternative 2 because the requirements regarding use of fish meal and fish oil would be the same as under the Proposed Program, even if larger finfish facilities are approved. Siting of larger offshore marine aquaculture facilities could result in greater risk of impacts as described in BIO-1, BIO- 3, BIO-4, and BIO-9, because larger facilities would increase the risk of nutrient discharge from finfish operations, direct impacts to wildlife habitat, interactions between aquaculture equipment and wildlife, and impacts to wildlife nurseries or important movement corridors. However, mitigation measures outlined in the Proposed Program to address these risks include siting requirements that prohibit marine aquaculture development within certain areas; require baseline surveys to determine whether sensitive species, habitats, or migration corridors are present within a California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-50 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Biological Resources proposed site; and require avoidance of these features. Proposed marine aquaculture sites under Alternative 2 would be required to follow the same siting requirements and review by CDFW. For this reason, potential impacts of BIO-1, BIO-3, BIO-4, and BIO-9 would be less than significant under Alternative 2 with implementation of the same mitigation measures, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-4, as the Proposed Program.
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under Alternative 3, there would be no development of in-water finfish culture and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in-water shellfish facilities. CDFW would not issue leases for finfish aquaculture in marine waters of the state and would not approve stock transfers for any finfish aquaculture in marine waters. Such approvals are essential for operation of an aquaculture facility, so finfish aquaculture in marine waters of the state, or in offshore waters, is not foreseeable. The potential biological resources effects would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases. The impacts specific to finfish aquaculture in marine waters, BIO-1 and BIO-8, would not occur under Alternative 3. Impacts BIO-2, BIO-6, BIO-7, and BIO-10 would be the same as described for the Proposed Program. Impact BIO-2 applies only to shellfish aquaculture facilities, and the differences in growth scenarios between the Proposed Program and Alternative 3 are not sufficient to alter the analysis or potential impacts from those described for the Proposed Program. Impacts would be significant. Impact BIO-6 would be the same under Alternative 3 as under the Proposed Program. While pathogen introduction related to cultured finfish would no longer be a concern under Alternative 3, the growth scenarios for shellfish aquaculture are the same between the Proposed Program and Alternative 3 and are not sufficient to alter the analysis or potential impacts from those described for the Proposed Program. Impacts would be significant. Impacts BIO-7 and BIO-10 would be the same under Alternative 3 and the Proposed Program because these impacts are related to construction of land-based support facilities and compliance with local ordinances, local policies, HCPs, or NCCPs. Differences in growth scenarios between the Proposed Program and Alternative 3 are not sufficient to alter the analysis or potential impacts from those described for the Proposed Program. Because leases for offshore finfish and shellfish aquaculture facilities under the new management framework would not be granted under Alternative 3, impacts associated with BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, and BIO-9 would be reduced. The absence of these leases under the new management program would result in a reduction in the likelihood of direct impacts to wildlife habitat, interactions between wildlife and aquaculture equipment, escape of cultured finfish, and impacts to wildlife nurseries or important movement corridors. However, differences in growth scenarios between the Proposed Program and Alternative 3 regarding shellfish aquaculture are not sufficient to alter the analysis or potential impacts of BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, and BIO-9 from those described for the Proposed Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR 4.4-51 Biological Resources Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.4-52 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program PEIR Ascent Environmental Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources
4.5 CULTURAL, TRIBAL CULTURAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.5.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for cultural resources. It also describes the impacts on cultural resources that would result from implementation of the Proposed Program alternatives, and, where appropriate, mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. Cultural resources include districts, sites, buildings, structures, or objects generally older than 50 years and considered to be important to a culture, subculture, or community for scientific, traditional, religious, or other reasons. They also include paleontological resources, prehistoric resources, historic-era resources, and tribal cultural resources (TCRs) (the latter as defined by AB 52, Statutes of 2014, in PRC Section 21074). Archaeological resources are locations where human activity has measurably altered the earth or left deposits of prehistoric or historic-era physical remains (e.g., stone tools, bottles, former roads, house foundations). Historical (or architectural) resources include standing buildings (e.g., houses, barns, outbuildings, cabins) and intact structures (e.g., dams, bridges, roads, districts), or landscapes. A cultural landscape is defined as a geographic area (including both cultural and natural resources and the wildlife therein), associated with a historic event, activity, or person or exhibiting other cultural or aesthetic values. TCRs include site features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places or objects, which are of cultural value to a tribe. Paleontological resources include the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates, invertebrates, and fossils of microscopic plants and animals. These resources help to establish a historical record of past plant and animal life and assist geologists in dating rock formations. Three comments regarding cultural resources were received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix B). Issues identified by the commenters included general concerns related to cultural resources and TCRs. These issues are addressed in this section.
4.5.2 Environmental Setting Coastal California possesses a rich prehistory and history of human occupation—by some accounts dating back to 13,000 years before the present (Moratto 1984). The regional prehistory is represented by archaeological sites and artifacts, and its history is represented by surviving documents, structures, and submerged shipwrecks. The description of the environmental setting is divided into three sections. The first addresses the ethnographic and prehistorical setting of the Program area. The second deals with the more modern historical setting. The final section addresses the physical setting, including any known cultural resources.
ETHNOGRAPHIC AND PREHISTORIC SETTING
The native people of California were complex hunter-gatherers who lived in tribal groups. Prehistoric occupation and use of the coast of California extends from 5,000 to 8,000 years and possibly longer. Habitation sites along the California coast appear to have been selected for accessibility; protection from wind, rain, and seasonal flooding; and the availability of resources. The large shell mounds along much of the California coastline indicate the importance tribal groups placed on marine life such as pelagic fish, mollusks, and marine mammals. These mounds were especially large and numerous south of Point Conception, in Monterey, San Francisco Bay, and along the coast north of San Francisco. The principal component of these mounds is shells from edible mollusks, but in some areas, especially the extreme north and along the Santa Barbara Channel, the bones of marine mammals are also documented. Staple foods of coastal tribal peoples included acorns, marine mammals, shellfish, and fish and other seafoods. Although marine mammals (such as the sea lion, sea otter [Enhydra lutris], and harbor seal [Phoca vitulina])
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.5-1 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Ascent Environmental
were harvested for food and other uses, the most important food resources were probably salmon and other anadromous fish (Baumhoff in Heizer 1978:16–17). Coastal sites and staging areas for fishing, marine mammal hunting, and other resource gathering activities were many, and have been reasonably well documented in archaeological and ethnographic literature. The same is true of islands that are larger or close to the mainland (e.g., the Channel Islands and Gunther Island). Published ethnographic literature for coastal tribes discusses how these offshore islands were used for procuring resources and as meeting areas to discuss matters of importance with other villages and tribes (Gould 1978; Bean and Theodoratus 1978). Tribal people view themselves as an intrinsic part of the ecosystem (Eglash 2002). For tribes and tribal communities, everything in the natural world is culturally significant (InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council 2010). Tribal communities have long cultural traditions of gathering, harvesting, and fishing for cultural and religious purposes as well as for subsistence. Their relationship with the natural world reflects their deep connection to the environment. Tribal people believe they have an ongoing responsibility to be stewards of their ancestral lands and resources through sustainable management. Furthermore, tribal people continue to rely on the coast and ocean for a variety of important uses, such as spiritual ceremonies, songs, dances, rituals, and subsistence harvesting and gathering (CDFG 2010). In some regions of California, tribes continue to reside in or near their ancestral homelands. This occurs in greater numbers in the northern California coast than in other areas of the state. According to research and consultation performed in conjunction with the Marine Life Protection Act, the study region for the Proposed Program encompasses the traditional homes of approximated 26 tribes. These are listed below, grouped by region:
North Coast (California-Oregon border to Alder Creek): Cahto, Chilula, Hupa, Karuk, Lassik, Mattole, Nogati, Pomo, Tolowa, Sinkyone, Wailaki, Whilkut, Wiyot, Yuki, and Yurok;
northern Central Coast (Alder Creek/Point Arena to Pigeon Point): Coast Miwok, Ohlone, and Pomo;
Central Coast (Pigeon Point to Point Conception): Chumash, Ohlone, and Salinan; and
South Coast (Point Conception to California-Mexico border): Chumash, Gabrieliño/Tongva, Juaneño/Acagchemem, Kumeyaay, and Luiseño. However, tribal groups in addition to those listed above may use coastal resources as well for religious, traditional, or spiritual ceremonies, and should also be considered. Marine and coastal resources continue to be a part of the daily lives of many tribes for a variety of important uses, such as spiritual ceremonies, songs, dances, rituals, diving, and subsistence harvesting and gathering (CDFG 2009). In modern days, important marine resources include salmon, clams and abalone, mussels, seaweed, eels, crab, rockfish, steelhead, trout, sea bass, perch, lingcod, surf fish, candle fish, and sea salt (CDFG 2010). Marine shells such as abalone and olivella are especially important for repairing and making traditional garments used in ongoing tribal ceremonies (Kroeber and Gifford 1949, Sundberg 2008). Certain areas along the coast are highly valued for their historic significance, such as submerged burial grounds (Erlandson et al. 2007). Geological resources also have traditional cultural significance, including steatite and chert, which are mined to make items such as polished stone bowls and pipes, and flaked-stone knives and arrow points, respectively (InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council 2010). Other geological features along the coast and in nearshore or offshore setting feature in origin stories and religious and ceremonial traditions of tribal people. For example, most sea stacks, off- shore rocks and rocky points or prominences have ancient language place names and creation stories associated with them. Certain areas along the coast have additional historic, archeological, and traditional cultural significance including submerged burial grounds and village sites. There continue to be many traditional cultural uses of the coast and ocean waters by tribal people that are consumptive and nonconsumptive. Consumptive uses include traditional subsistence, medicinal, spiritual, and ceremonial contexts. Nonconsumptive use examples include use of the viewshed from a particular place for spiritual purposes. Thus, these uses are not recreational or commercial, although some tribes have commercial fishing interests as well. TCRs are of particular significance to tribes and tribal communities for the continuation of traditional religious and ceremonial activities, and also for the continuation of traditional cultural harvesting and gathering. Additionally, specific areas are identified for certain resources and/or uses by a given family, tribe, or group of tribes.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.5-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources
HISTORIC SETTING
The first documented European contact with California was during the 1542–1543 Spanish expedition of Juan Rodríguez Cabrillo up the coast from Mexico as far as Monterey. With no evidence of gold or silver to encourage conquest, and no competition, the Spanish had little interest in further exploration at that time. In 1579 Sir Francis Drake of England landed at the bay now named after him approximately thirty miles north of San Francisco. He stayed long enough to repair and restock his ships, claiming the land for England (California State Parks 2013:44). By the late 1700s the Spanish Crown realized that their claim to land north of Mexico was not assured without colonization. As a result, the Franciscan Order was chosen to establish missions in Alta California. Twenty-one missions, built with Indian labor, were founded by the Franciscans south to north, from San Diego de Alcalá in 1769 to San Francisco Solano in Sonoma in 1821. In addition to a small military guard at each mission, there was usually a larger military post nearby, with four presidios, or fortified bases, established at San Diego (1769), Monterey (1770), San Francisco (1776), and Santa Barbara (1782). During the course of Spanish occupation, the Russians kept to the north, establishing Fort Ross in 1812 as the southernmost settlement in the Russian colonization of the North American continent (California State Parks 2013:44). In 1822, Mexico achieved independence from Spain and the mission system was secularized. The territorial governors distributed mission lands to about 700 people, up to 50,000 acres per person. Some ranchos were even larger because requests were made in the name of multiple family members. Land ownership conferred great power within the region, at least until the Land Act of 1851 redefined who held rights to the ranchos, requiring proof of ownership. In early 1845 the American annexation of Texas caused Mexico to sever diplomatic relations with the United States, and war was declared in May 1846. The Bear Flag of the California Republic was raised over the plaza at Sonoma June 14, 1846, and within three weeks, American naval forces formally proclaimed American rule over the presidios and coastal towns. California was ceded to the United States in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, ending the Mexican-American War (California State Parks 2013:44). Since the Gold Rush era, the commercial fishing industry has been one of the oldest and primary industries along the California coast. The earliest efforts at an aquaculture industry along the California coast were started in the San Francisco Bay Area as a result of the large population influx from the Midwest and East Coast of the United States during the Gold Rush in 1840 and 1850. These new arrivals were accustomed to a cheap and plentiful supply of oysters in their diets, so importation of east coast oysters such as Crassostrea virginica started when the population of the region began to expand rapidly. Native California oysters that had been gathered by tribal groups for thousands of years were considered inferior in size, color, and flavor. Importation of west coast oysters (from Shoalwater Bay in Washington State) began as early as 1851 and it was these oysters that were used to start commercial oyster beds in San Francisco Bay in the early 1850s. When the transcontinental railroad was completed in the late 1860s, eastern oysters largely replaced the Shoalwater Bay source and large beds of eastern oysters were established in southern San Francisco Bay. At this juncture, the importation of seed oysters also began, and oyster beds became more of a growing operation than simply a holding area for fully grown imports. Commercial oyster beds and subsequent harvest eventually expanded from San Francisco Bay in the latter half of the 19th century to Tomales Bay, San Pablo Bay, and Drakes Estero (Barrett 1963). Today, the oyster industry is no longer focused on the San Francisco Bay Area, but has spread to Humboldt and Morro Bays. The squid fishery was initiated by Chinese fisherman in 1863 in Monterey Bay. Dungeness crab fishermen first began harvesting crab in 1848, while oyster fishery began during the 1850s with arrival of settlers from the traditional oyster fishing areas on the east coast. The abalone fishery, which became closely associated with Monterey Bay area, dates from the 1860s. Arrival of highly skilled Japanese and European immigrant fisherman from Portugal, Italy, former Yugoslavia, and Scandinavia in early 20th century brought substantial increase in the commercial success of California fisheries, including record catches of halibut (1919) and swordfish (1927) (Jones & Stokes 2006).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.5-3 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Ascent Environmental
PHYSICAL SETTING/KNOWN RESOURCES Because underwater development has not occurred and because of the difficulties of working underwater, extensive archaeological investigation of underwater cultural resources has not taken place. The inaccessibility of underwater sites and the difficulties posed by their investigation and recording have also meant that California’s underwater archaeological record is not as extensive and complete as its land-based record, although recent technological developments may make these sites more accessible for study. However, the state’s rich maritime and coastal history (and prehistory) has still produced a variety of underwater sites and artifacts in addition to its land-based cultural resources.
Prehistoric Archaeology Much of the current coastal region of California consists of steep, actively eroding coastal bluffs and small pocket beaches. An important factor in coastal California’s paleo-environmental history has been the evolution of the estuary systems along the coast. Many early archaeological sites would have been present along estuary boundaries, areas that are now completely submerged due to the rise in sea level during the late Pleistocene and early Holocene (15,000–10,000 years ago) (Moratto 1984). Prehistoric sites and artifacts include ceremonial sites; burial grounds and village sites; stone and shell tools; shell and ceramic middens; shell mounds; and rock milling features that indicate food processing sites or larger habitation sites. Likely many submerged resources, including prehistorical artifacts and sites, shipwrecks, and other historical sites lying beneath the water that have not been discovered or recorded due to the general lack of investigation. However, it is likely that the tribes have particular knowledge of the location of archaeological and historical sites beneath the water that are of cultural importance for them.
Historic-Era Archaeology Offshore islands and rocky outcroppings along the California coast have been used by the Spanish and Russians for hunting activities and for docking or anchoring their ships. These rocks were also used to stabilize logging flumes that would convey timber to ships that were anchored offshore in the absence of a pier or shoreline dock. Some of the offshore rocks and islands also served as locations for navigational aids such as lighthouses (Bischoff 2005). These offshore rocks have also been responsible for numerous shipwrecks throughout California’s history. Shipwrecks are the most well-known historic artifacts that lie beneath the water. The State Lands Commission shipwreck database lists shipwrecks off the coast of California. A search of the shipwreck database lists over 1,500 known shipwreck sites (California State Lands Commission 2019). Because of the sensitivity of known underwater resources and the risk of looting or other damage (intentional or unintentional) to the artifacts and sites, their precise locations are kept confidential.
Historic Sites Many historic properties in the Program area are identified through historic building surveys and cultural resource studies. Historic properties that have been listed in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), meaning that they are significant at the local, State, or national level as specified under a set of established criteria (see details in “Regulatory Setting” section, below), are shown on the Office of Historic Preservation website. However, this is not a comprehensive list of resources on the CRHR and does not reflect resources listed in the register by consensus determination or those that have been evaluated as eligible, but not listed on the register.
Tribal Cultural Resources On April 10, 2018, CDFW sent out letters to tribal representatives in accordance with its Tribal Communication and Consultation Policy. 98 tribes were contacted. Two tribes, the Salinan Tribe and the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria, submitted informal comments, and no tribes requested formal consultation with CDFW. The letters requested any additional information regarding cultural resources in the Program area, as well as any comments, questions, or concerns regarding the Proposed Program. Locations of certain TCRs, as well as sensitive information about their nature and uses, are considered confidential and are protected from public disclosure under various State and federal laws, including the Freedom of Information Act. However, a summary of events related to communication between the tribes and CDFW is provided below:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.5-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources
The Salinan Tribe’s Tribal Administrator (Patti Dunton) identified concerns within the traditional territory for the tribe (between Monterey County and southern San Luis Obispo County in an email dated April 21, 2018.
The Federal Indians of Graton Rancheria notified CDFW on May 11, 2018 that they would review the project within the next 10 business days. No additional response was received.
CDFW (Randy Lovell) coordinated with the Salinan Tribe’s tribal liaison regarding potential concerns and where potential resources may occur via email, as recently as April 16, 2019.
No additional responses/coordination from either tribe have occurred as of the writing of this document.
Paleontological Resources Significant nonrenewable vertebrate and invertebrate fossils and unique geologic units have been documented throughout California. The State’s fossil record is exceptionally prolific with abundant specimens representing a diverse range of marine, lacustrine, and terrestrial organisms recovered from Precambrian rocks as old as 1 billion years to as recent as 6,000 year-old Holocene deposits. These fossils provide key data for charting the course of the evolution or extinction of a variety of life on the planet, both locally and internationally. Paleontological specimens also provide key evidence for interpreting paleoenvironmental conditions, sequences and timing of sedimentary deposition, and other critical components of the earth’s geologic history. Fossils are considered our most significant link to the biological prehistory of the earth (Jefferson 2004: p. 1). Because the majority of the State was underwater until the Tertiary period, marine fossils older than 65 million years are not common and are exposed mainly in the mountains along the border with Nevada and the Klamath Mountains, and Jurassic shales, sandstones, and limestones are exposed along the edges of the Central Valley, portions of the Coast, Transverse, and Peninsular Ranges, and the Mojave and Colorado Deserts. Some of the oldest fossils in the State, extinct marine vertebrates called conodonts, have been identified at Anza-Borrego Desert SP in Ordovician sediments dating to circa 450 million years ago. Limestone outcrops of Pennsylvanian and Permian in the Providence Mountains SRA contain a variety of marine life, including brachiopods, fusulinids, crinoids, that lived some 300 to 250 million years ago. Along coastal southern California where steep coastal mountains plunged into the warm Pacific Ocean an abundance of fossil marine invertebrates, such as ammonites, nautilus, tropical snails and sea stars, have been found in today’s coastal and near-coastal deposits from the Cretaceous Period. A rare armored dinosaur fossil dated to about 75 million years ago during the Cretaceous was discovered in San Diego County during a highway project. It is the most complete dinosaur skeleton ever found in California (San Diego Natural History Museum 2010). The lack of fossil remains of the majority of earth’s large vertebrates, particularly terrestrial, marine, and flying reptiles (dinosaurs, ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, pleisosaurs, and pterosaurs), as well as many species of terrestrial plants, after the end of the Cretaceous and the start of the Tertiary periods 65 million years ago (the K-T boundary) attests to their abrupt extinction. As a result of changes in sea level and increases in tectonic activity during the Tertiary period, marine as well as terrestrial fossils could be found scattered about the State, particularly along the coast, edges of the Central Valley, northeastern plateau, and southeastern deserts. Tertiary marine fossils have been found, for example, under the streets of Los Angeles during storm drain and subway construction and in Anza-Borrego Desert SP in today’s Colorado Desert. These include late Miocene marine invertebrates and vertebrates in deposits dating between 6.5 and 4.5 million years ago. The geologic sequence within the park has also produced terrestrial vertebrates from mid- Miocene deposits, as well as terrestrial woods and aquatic and terrestrial vertebrates from late-Miocene deltaic deposits ranging in age from 4.5 to 3 million years ago. The mid-Miocene deposits have yielded the oldest terrestrial vertebrates in the park—a gomphothere, pseudalurine cat, and small camelid that were recovered from near-shore lacustrine deposits dating between 11 and 7 million years ago. Dating between 2.6 million and 11,700 years ago, Pleistocene continental sedimentary rock units are found throughout the State and have yielded a variety of plant and vertebrate fossils. The base of the Pleistocene boundary at the start of the Quaternary was recently changed from 1.6 to 2.6 million years ago, with the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary dated at 11,700 years ago (USGS Geologic Names Committee 2010). California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.5-5 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Ascent Environmental
Pleistocene fossil localities include large lake deposits, such as Lake Manix in the Mojave Desert, marine terrace deposits along the coast, particularly the southern coast, and the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits, a well-known locality in Los Angeles. The sedimentary deposits at Lake Manix have yielded a diversity of significant Pleistocene-age fossilized remains, including ostracodes, freshwater gastropods, and pelecypods, fish bones, and pond turtles, as well as nearly 50 species of mammals and birds that have also been recovered at the Rancho La Brea Tar Pits. The world-famous asphaltic deposits have produced over three million fossils representing a variety of extinct terrestrial fauna dating to the last Ice Age, such as mammoth, mastodon, giant ground sloth, horse, camel, saber-toothed cat, dire wolf, bear, and American lion. In addition, with an age range of 40,000 to 8,000 years ago, the La Brea deposits have yielded reptiles, amphibians, birds, plants (wood, leaves, cones, seeds), insects, freshwater shells and other microfossils, as well as ancestral bison, tapir, llama, and peccary (Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County 2002). Extinct Pleistocene fossils, including mammoths, have also been found during development projects near Sacramento, in Livermore, in southern California, and on the Channel Islands. In northern California, geologic deposits with extinct Pleistocene-age mastodons, saber-toothed cats, and three-toed horses include those at Mount Diablo SP east of San Francisco Bay.
4.5.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to cultural resources. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
FEDERAL
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), which guarantees recognition in planning for federal or federally assisted projects. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that federal agencies consider the effects of their actions on significant archaeological properties prior to implementing a project or “undertaking.”
Paleontological Resources Preservation Act. Enacted as part of the Omnibus Public Land Management Act (2009), the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act (PRPA) requires the Secretaries of the Interior and Agriculture to manage and protect paleontological resources on federal land using scientific principles and expertise. The PRPA includes specific provisions addressing management of these resources by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture. The PRPA affirms the authority for many of the policies the federal land managing agencies already have in place for the management of paleontological resources, such as issuing permits for collecting paleontological resources, curation of paleontological resources, and confidentiality of locality data.
STATE
California Environmental Quality Act requires public agencies to consider the effects of their actions on “historical resources,” “unique archaeological resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.” Lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate historical resources against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts on historical resources. Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. California Register of Historical Resources is a listing of State of California resources that are significant within the context of California’s history. The CRHR is a statewide program of similar scope and with similar criteria for inclusion as those used for the NRHP. In addition, properties designated under municipal or county ordinances are also eligible for listing in the CRHR.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.5-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources
California Native American Historical, Cultural, and Sacred Sites Act requires that upon discovery of human remains, that construction or excavation activity cease and that the county coroner be notified. If the remains are of a Native American, the coroner must notify the NAHC. Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050.5 and 7052 requires that construction or excavation be stopped in the vicinity of discovered human remains until the coroner can determine whether the remains are those of a Native American. If determined to be Native American, the coroner must contact the NAHC. The disturbance of Native American cemeteries is a felony. Public Resources Code Section 5097 specifies the procedures to be followed in the event of the unexpected discovery of human remains on nonfederal land. The disposition of Native American burial falls within the jurisdiction of the NAHC. Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1, 21080.3.2, and 21082.3 state that lead agencies undertaking CEQA review must, upon written request of a California Native American tribe, begin consultation before the release of an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration. If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, provisions under PRC Section 21084.3(b) describe mitigation measures that may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts.
California Government Code Section 6254.10 states that records about Native American graves, cemeteries, and sacred places, as well as information about the location of archaeological sites, are exempt from being disclosed to the public under the California Public Records Act.
LOCAL
Local Coastal Programs: Authority to regulate development in the coastal zone can be delegated from the Coastal Commission to cities and counties that have adopted an approved local coastal program (LCP). LCPs contain a land use plan and implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas they govern. The Coastal Act requires mitigation for any adverse impacts on cultural or paleontological resources. Any aquaculture proposal within a county jurisdiction having adopted LCPs would need to be consistent with any policies in the respective LCPs, including for the protection of cultural resources.
City and County General Plans and Zoning: Cities and counties are required to prepare a comprehensive planning document, to guide future development at the local level. Goals and policies that regulate the aesthetic and scenic qualities of an area are typically included within required elements. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the policies of the general plan; therefore, all zoning designations must comply with the general plan. Consistency with local plans will require that proposed land-based structures be constructed in compliance with local development regulations. Although cultural resources are not a required topic for general plans, most cities and counties incorporate protection of these resources in the conservation element.
4.5.4 Environmental Consequences This section analyzes the impacts of implementing the Proposed Program and alternatives on cultural resources. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts and lists the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany each impact discussion, where needed.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.5-7 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Ascent Environmental
METHODOLOGY
The focus of the impact analysis is on construction and operation of new facilities within the Program area. The environmental analysis includes both land-based resources and those resources that may be present in the water or buried beneath the seabed. A cultural resources inventory, including records search and survey, was not performed and is not needed because of the programmatic nature of this analysis.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact related to cultural resources if it would:
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines;
directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or a unique geologic feature,
cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a TCR, defined in PRC Section 21074; or
disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Impact analysis considers the severity of direct and indirect physical changes to the resource that would be caused by the Proposed Program. Direct physical changes may result from vegetation removal, vehicular travel over the surface, earth-moving activities, excavation, placement of structures, or alteration of the setting of resource. Indirect impacts may result from increased erosion due to site clearance and preparation, inadvertent damage, or outright vandalism to exposed resources due to increased visibility or access. Substantial adverse change in the significance of a resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate setting such that the significance of the resource would be materially impaired.
ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER All issues applicable to cultural and tribal cultural resources, as outlined by the thresholds above, are evaluated below.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact CUL-1: Result in a Substantial Adverse Change to Known Historic, Unique Archaeological, or Paleontological Resources
Future aquaculture operations under the Proposed Program could be located on lands that contain or are near historic, unique archeological, or paleontological resources. This could result in damage to or destruction of a historic building or structure, thereby resulting in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a paleontological resource, as well as historic or unique archeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable resource management and preservation mandates, such as PRC 5024 and 5097, such that impacts to known cultural resources would be minimized/avoided. This impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.5-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources
Approximately 1,500 shipwrecks are located along California’s coast (California State Lands Commission 2019); additional known historic and archaeological resources are likely to be located within the Program area. However as described above, because this document is at a programmatic level and covers a large geographic area, a records search of the Program area was not conducted and is not considered necessary. Construction and operation of new aquaculture facilities have the potential to affect known historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources, especially with respect to the installation of anchors at the proposed lease sites. In addition, new submerged cages could be placed within the boundaries of a shipwreck site. With respect to onshore facilities, construction of new piers could reduce the integrity of a listed harbor historic district, and the construction of new warehouses could alter the setting of adjacent listed historic buildings. Damage to a building or structure that is a designated historic resource or the destruction of a unique archaeological resource, as defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, could result in the change in its significance. However, pursuant to existing state water bottom lease requirements, lease applicants are required to comply with local jurisdiction’s requirements related to cultural resource protection, as well as PRC Sections 5024 and 5097, as well as the US Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Historic Preservation. While CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including cultural-resource-mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. Therefore, prior to implementation/construction, all future aquaculture-related development (onshore and offshore) under the Proposed Program would be regulated by the state’s and local jurisdiction’s discretionary review processes, which would require consistency with applicable standards for cultural resource protection. Therefore, the impact on known historical, unique archaeological, and paleontological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact CUL-2: Result in a Substantial Adverse Change to Previously Undiscovered Historical, Archaeological, or Paleontological Resources
Implementation of the Proposed Program would involve physical changes such as construction of new buildings, infrastructure modifications, and installation of submerged cages. Damage to or destruction of a building or structure that has not yet been evaluated has the potential to result in a change in its historical significance. Surface-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of undiscovered subsurface unique archaeological or paleontological resources. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable resource management and preservation mandates, including local jurisdiction requirements related to identification, evaluation, and protection pursuant to CEQA and PRC requirements. This impact would be less than significant.
Future projects that require land-based aquaculture facilities and are located in areas with known historical sites, or located in communities with established historic preservation programs, or involving activities that would introduce new visual elements or disturb the existing terrain have the potential to result in significant historic resource impacts. These projects could potentially reduce the aesthetic and physical integrity of historic districts and buildings. Because of the geographic expanse of the Program area and the difficulty of surveying underwater, there is limited information on the presence of these resources and the potential exists to encounter previously undiscovered prehistoric and historic-era archaeological and/or paleontological resources. There is the potential that surface- disturbing activities during proposed project construction (excavation for building foundations and new utilities, setting of anchors for new cages) could encounter previously undiscovered or unrecorded archaeological or paleontological sites and materials. These activities could damage or destroy previously undiscovered archaeological and paleontological resources. Damage to or destruction of a building or structure that has not yet been evaluated for its eligibility for recognition under State, federal, or local register criteria has the potential to result in the change in its historical significance. Surface-disturbing activities could result in discovery or damage of undiscovered subsurface or submerged unique archaeological and paleontological resources. However, per existing lease requirements, land-based facilities would be required to adhere to existing regulations and processes of local jurisdictions and, potentially, the Coastal California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.5-9 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Ascent Environmental
Commission. This would include evaluation of site-specific conditions by qualified personnel (architectural historian, archaeologist, and/or paleontologist), consistent with CEQA and, as necessary, Section 106 standards of the Natural Historic Preservation Act of 1966. If resources eligible for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local register are identified, an assessment of impacts on these resources would be conducted, and would include detailed measures to avoid impacts, which may include modification of the project to avoid adverse effects (i.e., physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration) on significant resources. Adherence to existing requirements (both imbedded within existing state water bottom lease requirements and within local regulations) would avoid substantial adverse changes in the significance of previously undiscovered resources (historic, archaeological, and paleontological resources) pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines by requiring a survey to identify them, then avoiding these resources or the performing professionally accepted and legally compliant procedures for the treatment of historic resources. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact CUL-3: Disturb Previously Undiscovered Human Remains
Prehistoric or historic-era marked or unmarked human interments are present throughout California. Surface- disturbing activities could uncover previously unknown human remains. Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and PRC Section 5097 would make this impact less than significant.
Surface-disturbing activities associated with both land-based and in-water facilities could disturb previously undiscovered human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries. California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and PRC Section 5097. These statutes require that, if human remains are discovered, potentially damaging surface-disturbing activities in the area of the remains shall be halted immediately, and the appropriate county coroner and NAHC shall be notified immediately. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the guidelines of the NAHC shall be adhered to in the treatment and disposition of the remains. Following the coroner’s findings, the archaeologist, the NAHC-designated Most Likely Descendant, and the landowner shall determine the ultimate treatment and disposition of the remains and take appropriate steps to ensure that additional human interments, if present, are not disturbed. The responsibilities for acting upon notification of a discovery of Native American human remains are identified in PRC Section 5097.94. The Proposed Program would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and PRC Section 5097 would avoid disturbance of previously undiscovered human remains. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact CUL-4: Result in a Substantial Adverse Change to Tribal Cultural Resources
CDFW sent notification for consultation to 98 tribes. Two responses were received during the 30-day response period for AB 52 as defined in PRC Section 21074, but neither identified resources related to state water bottom leases under the program. Compliance with PRC 21080.3.2, 21084.3, and 5097.9 would make this impact less than significant.
Surface-disturbing activities associated with the installation in-water aquaculture facilities could affect TCRs. Because of the geographic expanse of the Program area and the difficulty of surveying underwater, there is limited information on the presence of submerged resources and the potential exists to encounter TCRs. No information was
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.5-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources
received from tribes regarding the potential in-water resources that could be affected by offshore aquaculture operations, including those that could be affected by the placement of anchors. Aquaculture projects under the Proposed Program would be required to prepare site-specific project-level analysis to fulfill CEQA requirements, which may include additional AB 52 consultation that could lead to the identification of TCRs. The consultation process required under PRC Section 21080.3.2 states that consultation concludes when either: 1) the parties agree to measures to mitigate or avoid a significant effect, if a significant effect exists, on a TCR, or 2) a party, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be reached. Additionally, public agencies shall, when feasible, avoid damaging effects to any TCR (PRC Section 21084.3[a]). If the lead agency determines that a project may cause a substantial adverse change to a TCR, and measures are not otherwise identified in the consultation process, new provisions under PRC Section 21084.3(b) describe mitigation measures that, if determined by the lead agency to be feasible, may avoid or minimize the significant adverse impacts. No adverse impacts on TCRs that may exist in or adjacent to the ocean are anticipated. With respect to onshore facilities, the Salinan Tribe, as noted above, did identify potential concerns with respect to TCRs located between Monterey County and San Luis Obispo County. Any permit or lease for development of aquaculture facilities would be issued in accordance with PRC Section 5097.9, which states that public agencies and private parties occupying or operating on a public property will not interfere with the free expression or exercise of any Native American religious rites, or cause damage to any Native American cemetery, place of worship, or religious or ceremonial site (see “Regulatory Setting” section, above). Further, per existing lease requirements, land-based facilities would be required to adhere to existing regulations, including CEQA and associated AB 52 consultation requirements, and processes of local jurisdictions and, potentially, the Coastal Commission. This would include evaluation of site-specific conditions by qualified personnel and site-specific consultation with appropriate Native American tribes, consistent with CEQA. If TCRs are identified through site-specific analysis and consultation, an assessment of impacts on these resources would be conducted, and would include detailed measures to avoid impacts, which may include modification of the project to avoid adverse effects (i.e., physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration) on significant resources. Adherence to existing requirements (both imbedded within existing state water bottom lease requirements and within local regulations) would avoid substantial adverse changes in the significance of TCRs by requiring avoidance of these resources or through the performance of appropriate treatment measures, as determined through consultation with tribal representatives. Compliance with PRC Sections 21080.3.2, 21084.3, and 5097.9 would require consultation with tribes, avoidance of TCRs, and proper care of significant artifacts if they are recovered; this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) The types of impacts on historic resources, archaeological resources, and TCRs associated with expansion of aquaculture under Alternative 2 would be similar to those identified for the Proposed Program. The potential development of larger land-based and in-water facilities under this alternative could provide for greater opportunity to discover previously unknown resources. Any new leases would be still required to implement Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b. Impacts on cultural resources under this alternative would be slightly greater than the Proposed Program due to the potential for more surface disturbance. However, as with the Proposed Program, impacts under Alternative 2 would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a and CUL-2b.
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under Alternative 3, there would be no development of in-water finfish facilities and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in-water shellfish facilities. The potential historic resource, archaeological resource, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.5-11 Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources Ascent Environmental
TCR effects of land-based facility expansion would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases Therefore, impacts on cultural resources associated with Alternative 3 would be less than those described above for the Proposed Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.5-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Land Use
4.6 LAND USE
4.6.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for land use. It also describes the impacts on land use that would result from the Proposed Program and alternatives, including mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. Four comment letters regarding land use were received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix B). Issues identified by the commenters included land use, zoning, potential conflicts with existing uses, and encroachment on public property. These issues are discussed in Section 4.6.4, “Environmental Consequences.” Issues related to conflicts between recreation areas and fishery grounds is discussed in Section 4.7, “Recreation.” An evaluation of the potential for conflicts between commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture operations are discussed in Chapter 5, “Other Statutory Requirements.”
4.6.2 Environmental Setting Marine aquaculture is typically conducted within California’s coastal zone which includes waters of the state from mean high water, inland 1,000 yards, and out to 3 nm between Oregon and Mexico. This area includes land-based facilities with no connection to the ocean, land-based facilities with water intakes or discharges to the ocean, facilities that have both land-based and in-water elements, and facilities located entirely in state waters. Current aquaculture operations occur inland, in sheltered or protected waters, or open-water environments just off the shoreline. This discussion focuses on the interaction between future aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program and land uses along the California coast.
EXISTING LAND USES
North Coast and North Central Coast Areas The north coast and north central coast areas encompass seven counties (from Del Norte County to San Mateo Count). Northern California coastal land uses are rural with much less development than the south coast. There are contiguous stretches of undeveloped coastal land, particularly in the northern portion of this region and between Half Moon Bay and the Santa Cruz County line. The San Francisco Bay region is very urbanized with residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. Major cities along the coast include Crescent City, Eureka, and San Francisco. Notable landmarks along the coast include Redwood National Park, Humboldt Bay, Fort Bragg, Point Reyes, and San Francisco Bay.
Central Coast and South Central Coast Areas The central coast and south central coast areas encompass five counties (from Santa Cruz County to Ventura County). Central California is densely populated in certain locations but the coastline is generally more rugged and open than the south coast. Urbanized areas include the Santa Cruz/Monterey area and along the Santa Barbara and Ventura/Oxnard coastline. Major cities along the coast include Santa Cruz, Monterey, Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, Santa Barbara, and Ventura. Notable landmarks along the coast include Monterey Bay, the Big Sur coast, Morro Bay, Vandenberg Air Force Base, Point Conception, and the Santa Barbara Channel, which separates the California coast and the Channel Islands.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.6-1 Land Use Ascent Environmental
South Coast Area The south coast area encompasses three counties (from Los Angeles County to San Diego County). In general, urban densities are much higher in Southern California with populations living in many cities along the coast, numerous ports and piers supporting coastal-dependent commercial industries, and beaches and open space areas being heavily used for recreation. The only large area of undeveloped coastline in this region is associated with Camp Pendleton. Major cities along the coast include Santa Monica, Los Angeles, Long Beach, Huntington Beach, Newport Beach, and San Diego. Notable landmarks include Malibu and Santa Monica beaches, the Palos Verdes peninsula, Long Beach harbor, Camp Pendleton, Torrey Pines State Park, and San Diego Bay. Pursuant to the California Coastal Act, each of the 15 counties and 61 cities located along the coast are required to submit a local coastal program (LCP) to the California Coastal Commission (CCC) for approval. Many of the coastal counties and cities have elected to divide their coastal zone jurisdictions into separate geographic segments, resulting in some 126 separate LCP segments (CCC 2019). Table 4.6-1 includes a summary of coastal jurisdictions with adopted LCPs.
Table 4.6-1 Jurisdictions with Local Coastal Programs
Areas County Cities North Coast Area Del Norte County Crescent City Humboldt County Trinidad, Arcata, Eureka Mendocino County Fort Bragg, Point Arena North Central Coast Sonoma County — Marin County — San Francisco County San Francisco San Mateo County Daly City, Pacifica, Half Moon Bay Central Coast Area Santa Cruz County Santa Cruz, Capitola, Watsonville Monterey County Marina, Sand City, Seaside, Monterey, Pacific Grove, Carmel San Luis Obispo County Morro Bay, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach South Central Coast Area Santa Barbara County Guadalupe, Goleta, Santa Barbara, Carpinteria Ventura County Ventura, Oxnard, Port Hueneme South Coast Area Los Angeles County Malibu, Los Angeles, Santa Monica, El Segundo, Manhattan Beach, Hermosa Beach, Redondo Beach, Torrance, Palos Verdes Estates, Rancho Palos Verdes, Long Beach, Avalon Orange County Seal Beach, Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Irvine, Laguna Beach, Laguna Niguel, Aliso Viejo, Dana Point, San Clemente San Diego County Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar, San Diego, Coronado, National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach Source: CCC 2018
EXISTING AQUACULTURE FACILITIES
As noted in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” the majority of California marine aquaculture operations are currently located on land adjacent to coastal waters, bays, or estuaries. Currently, the majority of existing aquaculture operations occur in Humboldt, Tomales, Half Moon, and Morro Bays, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, and the Santa Barbara channel. Future aquaculture is likely to occur in coastal waters but some land-based support facilities may be developed. Shellfish aquaculture primarily occurs in sheltered and protected bays and estuaries, and net-pen culture of finfish is expected to develop primarily offshore in the southern California Bight. Ancillary facilities associated with aquaculture may include equipment and structures (warehouses, boat ramps, and docks) for staging, storage, and operational facilities and would likely be located on land in proximity to the coast.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.6-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Land Use
4.6.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to land use. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
FEDERAL
Coastal Zone Management Act provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources and strives to balance economic development with environmental conservation. Since the federal approval of California’s Coastal Management Program, the CCC manages development along the coast except for the San Francisco Bay, where the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) oversees development.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manages 14 national marine sanctuaries and two marine national monuments. California marine sanctuaries include the Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, and Monterey Bay. Each of the California marine sanctuaries is charged with the preparation and implementation of a management plan that includes a policy framework that guides current and future activities within the sanctuary.
National Park Service administers the 391 national parks including over 130 historic landmarks and 30 parks in California contained in the National Park System.
National Wildlife Refuge System: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages the 150-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes 40 refuge and management areas in California. The National Wildlife Refuge System sets aside public lands and waters as refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants.
STATE
California Coastal Act regulates the development and provides for long-term protection of the state’s 1,100-mile coastline and to ensure public access to the state’s coastal areas for the benefit of current and future generations. It established the CCC, which manages development along the coast and has the authority to review federally licensed, permitted, or assisted activities in federal waters for consistency with the California Coastal Act. Permitted development must consider consistency with design guidelines and zoning standards applicable to protection of public access.
McAteer-Petris Act established BCDC and recognized that water-oriented land uses along the bay shoreline are essential to the public welfare of the bay area. BCDC regulates land use within the Bay Area through a permitting system and guidance from the San Francisco Bay Plan.
California State Lands Commission (CSLC) has jurisdiction over a 3-nm-wide section of tidal and submerged lands adjacent to the coast and offshore islands. CSLC may grant permits and issue land use leases for activities within its jurisdiction. The agency does not have direct leasing jurisdiction over aquaculture but would review aquaculture projects for potential conflicts with other uses approved by CSLC.
California Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks) manages more than 270 park units, including underwater preserves, reserves, parks, and state beaches. California State Parks is charged with preparing and adopting a park general plan for each facility which directs the long-range development and management of a park by providing broad policy and program guidance, including land uses.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.6-3 Land Use Ascent Environmental
Source: National Park Service 2019; State Parks 2019.
Figure 4.6-1 Public Lands along the California Coast
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.6-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Land Use
LOCAL
Local Coastal Programs are planning tools used by local governments, in partnership with the CCC, to guide development in the coastal zone. LCPs specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of new or changed uses of land and water. Any future aquaculture proposals within a county jurisdictions having adopted LCPs would need to be consistent with any policies in the respective LCPs, including consistency with the LCP land use plan.
City and County General Plans and Zoning. Cities and counties are required to prepare a comprehensive planning document, to guide future development at the local level. A land use element is required of every general plan. This element designates the general location and intensity of land uses including housing, open space, business, industry, education, and public buildings and grounds, waste disposal facilities, and other land uses. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the policies of the general plan; therefore, all zoning designations must comply with the general plan. Consistency with local plans will require proposed land-based structures be consistent with land use designations and zoning regulations.
Bay Management Plans outline policies to guide development in and around the bay areas. In areas where bay management plans have been adopted, the local agency has decision-making authority that must be reconciled with other federal, State, and local plans, including CCC permitting.
4.6.4 Environmental Consequences This section describes the land use impacts of future aquaculture under the Proposed Program and alternatives. It identifies the thresholds used to determine the impacts and lists the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany the impact analysis where needed. Land use and land use planning considered in this section includes both the land and water-based areas within the defined coastal zone. The potential for conflicts between aquaculture operations and coastal zone planning are anticipated to be similar regardless of whether an individual aquaculture project is located on land or in the water because land use planning applies to both land and water within the coastal zone.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact related to land use if it would:
physically divide an established community or
conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER The physical division of an established community typically refers to the construction of a physical feature, or the removal of a means of access, that would impair the mobility or constrain travel within an existing community, or between a community and outlying areas. Offshore aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program would be located between 1 and 3 nm offshore and are not expected to involve onshore development. However, permitted aquaculture facilities would require the development of onshore support structures to maintain offshore operations. Major onshore logistic elements of future aquaculture projects could include staging, storage, and operational facilities. Onshore structures could include a warehouse or an existing vacant building adjacent to docking facilities. Where existing facilities are unavailable, future aquaculture projects would result in new development. Development of new onshore facilities could create potential land use conflicts, including the physical division of established communities, depending on their location. However, future land-based facilities supporting offshore operations are not anticipated to be excessively large (e.g., no more than 10,000 square feet per lease). Facilities of this size would not result in the physical division of an established community. All future development California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.6-5 Land Use Ascent Environmental
facilitated by the Proposed Program would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to ensure orderly development. Therefore, the Proposed Program would not result in the physical division of a community, and this issue is not evaluated further.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact LU-1: Conflict with Any Land Use Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Avoiding or Mitigating an Environmental Effect
Local and regional agencies regulate the physical development of land within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. All future aquaculture development would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies. Enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted by the applicable jurisdiction would ensure consistency with adopted plans. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
CDFW and the Commission are the principal State government entities responsible for the management, protection, and conservation of the state’s fish and wildlife resources. Specifically, the California Fish and Game Code provides CDFW and the Commission the authority to regulate marine aquaculture in four ways:
registration of aquaculture facilities and species cultured within the state;
lease of state water bottoms and water column for the purpose of aquaculture;
permitting and licensing of various aquaculture-related activities, including stocking, broodstock collection, and importation; and
detection, control, and eradication of disease in aquaculture facilities. Although the CDFW and the Commission are primarily responsible permitting and licensing, development and installation of aquaculture facilities would be regulated through a discretionary review process by the local jurisdiction. Local and regional agencies have authority over the physical development of land within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. Therefore, future onshore aquaculture facilities would be required to undergo the discretionary review processes of local jurisdictions, which would require the project to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. Future projects would also be required to comply with LCPs which include implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas. In areas where bay management plans have been adopted, the local agency would have decision- making authority and would also review future projects for consistency with the adopted regulatory framework. Offshore facilities seeking a permit to operate within a marine sanctuary would be evaluated by the sanctuary administrator and be required to comply with that sanctuary’s specific regulations. Enforcement of adopted regulations by the applicable jurisdiction would ensure that all future aquaculture facilities are consistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, installation and development of aquaculture facilities would not conflict with applicable plans and this impact would be less-than-significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.6-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Land Use
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Alternative 2 would limit the number of new leases that would be approved by the Commission in a given period but would not limit the size of new offshore facilities. Although CDFW and the Commission are primarily responsible permitting and licensing of aquaculture facilities, development and installation of land-based facilities would be regulated by the local jurisdiction through a discretionary review process. Therefore, land use impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Program.
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under Alternative 3, there would be no development of in-water finfish culture, and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in-water shellfish facilities. The potential land use effects would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases. Therefore, land use impacts associated with the No Program Alternative would be less than those described above for the Proposed Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.6-7 Land Use Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.6-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Recreation
4.7 RECREATION
4.7.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for recreation. It also describes the impacts on recreation that would result from implementation of the Proposed Program and alternatives, and mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. Issues related to conflicts between recreation areas and fishery grounds is discussed herein. An evaluation of the potential for conflicts between commercial and recreational fishing and aquaculture operations are discussed in Chapter 5, “Other Statutory Requirements.” Two comment letters regarding recreational resources were received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix B). Issues identified by the commenters included potential conflicts with recreation facilities along the California coast. This issue is discussed in Section 4.7.4, “Environmental Consequences.”
4.7.2 Environmental Setting Recreation resources in the Program area include onshore and offshore facilities and/or activities that occur within the coastal zone. Federal, State, and local agencies maintain various types of public recreation facilities, including national parks and forests, State parks and recreation areas, community parks and recreation facilities, and numerous types of reserve lands, both terrestrial and marine. Numerous private lands also provide recreation opportunities to owners and their guests. Recreation activities occur along the coast throughout California. The 1,100-mile California coastline is a frequent and popular recreational destination for the residents of the state and a major draw for tourists from all over the world. California is the most visited state in the United States, with travel and tourism comprising the fourth largest industry and employer in the state. In 2001, an estimated 287 million resident trips and 9 million nonresident trips (including international visitors) were made to visit California beach or waterfront areas by traveling more than 45 miles. Coastal cities were identified as being a strong attraction for out-of-state visitors (The National Ocean Economics Program 2005:116). In addition to the immediate coast, recreation opportunities exist in terrestrial areas surrounding bays and estuaries and farther inland.
RECREATION AREAS
Recreation areas on land within the coastal zone include open land that provides the public with safe and convenient access to coastal resources, including boat launches, picnic areas, scenic overviews, and camping facilities. Public lands within the coastal zone that provide recreation opportunities are shown in Figure 4.6-1, included in Section 4.6, “Land Use.”
National Park Service The National Park Service (NPS) administers the 391 national parks including more than 130 historic landmarks and 30 parks in California. Facilities under the jurisdiction of NPS located along the coast are listed below.
Redwood National and State Park, Golden Gate National Recreation Area,
Channel Islands National Park, Alcatraz Island,
Cabrillo National Monument, Fort Point National Historic Site, and
Point Reyes National Seashore, San Francisco Maritime National Historic Park.
Muir Woods National Monument,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.7-1 Recreation Ascent Environmental
National Wildlife Refuge System The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) manages the 150-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes 40 refuge and management areas in California, including the following coastal refuge areas:
Castle Rock, Ellicott Slough,
Humboldt Bay, Salinas River,
San Pablo Bay, Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes,
Marin Islands, Seal Beach,
Farallon Islands, San Diego Bay, and
Don Edwards San Francisco Bay, Tijuana Slough.
State Recreational Areas The California Department of Parks and Recreation (California State Parks) manages 280 State park units, including 340 miles of coastline, 970 miles of lake and river frontage, 15,000 campsites, and 4,500 miles of trails. The California State Parks system includes beaches, ghost towns, monuments, parks, recreation areas, visitor centers, lakes, and reservoirs.
Regional, County, and City Parks Each city and county in California is responsible for providing municipal services and maintaining infrastructure, including roads, parks, law enforcement, emergency response services, and libraries. These jurisdictions are also charged with providing recreational resources to residents within their respective jurisdictional boundaries.
Special Districts and Nonprofit Organizations A variety of special districts and nonprofit organizations in California preserve undeveloped land as open space for historical, educational, ecological, recreational, and scenic purposes.
RECREATION ACTIVITIES
Onshore Activities Common onshore recreation activities that occur on land within the coastal zone include:
camping;
picnicking;
horseback riding;
hiking;
beachcombing;
driving motorized and nonmotorized recreational vehicles;
sightseeing, such as bird- and whale-watching;
flying kites; and
fishing from the shore.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.7-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Recreation
Offshore Activities
Sheltered and Protected Waters Many recreation activities are concentrated in sheltered or protected waters where waters are calmer and more predictable. Tidal currents tend to be lower and there is easier access in sheltered and protected areas. Common activities include:
swimming, snorkeling, and scuba diving;
fishing and clamming from the shore;
exploring tide pools and sightseeing;
boating and using watercraft for recreational activities, including fishing and sightseeing;
canoeing and kayaking; and
surfing and other surf-based activities, such as wind surfing and kite boarding.
Open and Offshore Waters Open and offshore waters stretch from the oceanward edge of the intertidal zone outward to 3 nm and beyond in the ocean. More recreation activities occur in open waters (within 3 nm of the coast), but some of these activities also occur farther out in offshore waters, outside the Program area. Recreation activities in open and offshore waters are more limited to those accessed by marine craft, including boats, jet skis, kayaks, and surfboards because of the distance from shore. The activities, therefore, are limited primarily to fishing, surfing, kayaking, canoeing, snorkeling, scuba diving and sightseeing from watercraft.
4.7.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to recreational resources. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
FEDERAL
Coastal Zone Management Act provides for the management of the nation’s coastal resources and strives to balance economic development with environmental conservation. The Coastal Programs Division within the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management administers the program at the federal level, to protect coastal resources.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manages 14 national marine sanctuaries and two marine national monuments. California marine sanctuaries include the Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Greater Farallones, and Monterey Bay. Each of the California marine sanctuaries is charged with the preparation and implementation of a management plan that includes a policy framework that guides current and future activities within the sanctuary, including the protection of public access.
National Park Service administers the 391 national parks, including more than 130 historic landmarks and 30 parks in California contained in the National Park System.
National Wildlife Refuge System: USFWS manages the 150-million-acre National Wildlife Refuge System, which includes 40 refuge and management areas in California. The National Wildlife Refuge System sets aside public lands and waters as refuges to conserve fish, wildlife, and plants.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.7-3 Recreation Ascent Environmental
STATE
California Coastal Act regulates the development and provides for long-term protection of the state’s 1,100-mile coastline and to ensure public access to the state’s coastal areas for the benefit of current and future generations. It established the California Coastal Commission (CCC), which manages development along the coast and has the authority to review federally licensed, permitted, or assisted activities in federal waters for consistency with the California Coastal Act. Permitted development must consider consistency with design guidelines and zoning standards applicable to protection of public access.
Marine Life Protection Act established marine protected areas and calls for improving recreational, educational, and research opportunities provided by marine ecosystems subject to minimal human disturbance.
California Department of Parks and Recreation manages more than 280 park units, including underwater preserves, reserves, parks, and State beaches. The agency is charged with preparing and adopting a park general plan for each facility that directs the long-range development and management of a park by providing broad policy and program guidance, including the protection of public access.
California Fish and Game Code Section 15411 states that lessees under a state water bottom lease may not unreasonably impede public access to state waters for the purpose of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation. The lessee may, however, limit public access to the extent necessary to avoid damage to the leasehold and the aquatic life culture therein. The California Fish and Game Commission may prohibit any recreational activity in any aquaculture area subject to a state water bottom lease if it determines that the activity is detrimental to the enhancement of the resource.
LOCAL
Local Coastal Programs: LCPs are planning tools used by local governments, in partnership with the CCC, to guide development in the coastal zone. LCPs specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of new or changed uses of land and water. Any future aquaculture proposals within a county jurisdiction with an adopted LCP would need to be consistent with any policies in the LCP, including for the protection of public access.
City and County General Plans and Zoning: Cities and counties are required to prepare a comprehensive planning document, to guide future development at the local level. Recreation issues are described as being relevant to the land use and open space elements, and local general plans must consider recreation when preparing these elements for their jurisdictions. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the policies of the general plan; therefore, all zoning designations must comply with the general plan. Consistency with local plans will require proposed land-based structures be consistent with land use designations and zoning regulations.
Bay Management Plans: These plans outline policies to guide development in and around the bay areas and include consideration of public shoreline access. In areas where bay management plans have been adopted, the local agency has decision-making authority that must be reconciled with other federal, State, and local plans, including CCC permitting.
4.7.4 Environmental Consequences This section analyzes the impacts of implementing the Proposed Program and alternatives on recreation resources. It identifies the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany the impact analysis where needed.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.7-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Recreation
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact related to recreation if it would:
increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated,
include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, or
directly or indirectly disrupt recreational activities, including within designated recreation areas.
ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER Future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program are commercial in nature and would not involve the development of residential communities or other similar types of development or induce substantial population growth in an area that would require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities. Future facilities would be expected to employ a nominal number of individuals at different facilities throughout the state which would disperse pressure on recreational facilities from employees. Additionally, aquaculture facilities generally attract little tourism, so the levels of tourism caused by any projects under the Proposed Program would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that could result in adverse physical effects on the environment. Therefore, the Proposed Program would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, and this issue is not evaluated further.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact REC-1: Increase the Use of Existing Recreational Facilities Such That Physical Deterioration Would Occur or Be Accelerated
Future aquaculture employees may increase the use of existing, onshore recreational facilities. However, future aquaculture operations would employ a nominal number of individuals at different facilities throughout the state which would disperse pressure on existing recreational facilities from new employees, thereby avoiding any physical deterioration attributable to increased use. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Future aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program are not expected to increase the use of onshore recreational facilities to the extent that substantial deterioration would occur. Typically, this type of impact occurs when a project induces population growth, such as a new housing development or a business that would necessitate a large number of new employees. Future aquaculture facilities would result in the creation of new jobs on a localized basis. The number of employment opportunities per operation would vary according to the size and type of aquaculture facility. As noted in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” and Section 4.1, “Introduction and Scope of the Environmental Analysis,” the Proposed Program is expected to create up to 3,000 new employees, which is roughly equivalent to 50 employees at up to 30 marine aquaculture leases throughout the Program area. Future facilities would likely be spread over a large area, such as the Bight (as well as throughout the state) rather than concentrated in the same location. This would disperse pressure on recreational facilities from employees associated with the Proposed Program. Further, aquaculture-related employment opportunities would likely be filled by local residents, who might otherwise participate in commercial fishing or other marina-related activities and would not result in additional demand for recreation facilities. Thus, no single aquaculture operation would be expected to have enough employees to cause or accelerate substantial physical deterioration of recreational facilities. This impact would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.7-5 Recreation Ascent Environmental
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact REC-2: Directly or Indirectly Disrupt Recreational Activities, including within Designated Areas
Development and installation of future aquaculture facilities along the coastline could result in potential conflicts with existing recreational onshore and offshore users, thereby disrupting recreational activities. Conflicts may include access restrictions or nuisance impacts during construction including aesthetics, dust emissions, water quality degradation, and increased traffic, that disrupt the recreational experience. This disruption would be potentially significant.
As discussed above, two comment letters received in response to the Notice of Preparation expressed concern about potential conflicts with recreation facilities along the California coast. Development and installation of future aquaculture facilities along the coastline could result in potential conflicts with existing recreational onshore and offshore users if the proposed facility impedes the use of or encroaches on an existing recreational resource. However, the development and operation of future onshore facilities would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable plans, zoning requirements, and policies adopted to ensure that adequate recreational facilities are available for use by residents and visitors. Therefore, development of onshore supportive structures would occur in areas designated for development, not areas designated or known for public recreational uses. Activities associated with boating and other marine craft have the potential to be affected by offshore marine aquaculture facilities in open-waters. For example, floating and submerged net pens or longlines could displace recreational boating, fishing, and SCUBA diving activities. However, installation of offshore facilities would occur in locations that have been reviewed, screened, and approved for aquaculture operations (as described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives.” Further, offshore facilities would be identified in a manner consistent with CCR Title 14, Section 237[c][7], including buoys and markings, to identify facilities to recreationalists in the area and avoid potential conflicts. Furthermore, the facilities would likely be dispersed, so resulting recreation pressures would also be dispersed due to the large amount of open-water available for these activities and the comparatively small space taken by aquaculture facilities. The size of these facilities, in comparison to the available space for offshore recreation, would not substantially disrupt or change recreation opportunities in a way that would result in substantial adverse change in offshore recreational opportunities, including within designated areas. Nonetheless, construction and installation activities may temporarily restrict public access to surrounding areas for safety reasons, which could disrupt the recreation experience. Potential types of nuisance impacts on recreation may include:
temporary degradation of scenic resources (e.g., presence of equipment), including within designated recreation areas;
temporarily decreased air quality (e.g., dust) due to installation-related activities;
temporary degradation of marine water quality, which could disrupt offshore recreation activities; and
traffic as a result of construction-related or operational truck trips, which may limit, restrict, or delay access to recreation areas. Each of these potential disruptions and associated mitigation are discussed in PEIR Sections, 4.2, “Aesthetics,” 4.3, “Air Quality,” 4.9, Water Quality,” and 4.8, “Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation.” Regulatory compliance or mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts would also reduce disruptions to recreation. However, residual nuisance impacts may still affect recreation, thereby resulting in a potentially significant impact.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.7-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Recreation
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure REC-2: Coordinate Aquaculture Construction and Installation Schedule with Managing Officer(s) for Affected Recreation Areas As part of the permit application process, CDFW shall require all future applicants to submit information regarding the existence of recreation areas within 1,500 feet (~500 m) of the proposed offshore aquaculture facilities. For each identified recreation area, the applicant shall consult with the agency and/or authorized officer(s) of the recreation area to develop of the construction and installation schedule Through consultation with the Coastal Commission or other applicable agency and/or authorized office, the applicant shall ensure that the following steps are taken:
The timeline required for usage of each staging area is clearly identified in coordination with all agencies with jurisdiction over the recreation area.
Construction and installation of aquaculture activities are scheduled to avoid heavy recreational use periods, including major holidays, to the maximum extent feasible.
Project-related equipment, materials, and vehicles are located away from designated or known recreational areas to minimize disruption of recreation activities.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-2 would require applicant(s) to coordinate with recreation agencies and/or authorized officers of potentially affected recreation areas to minimize disruptions to recreational users and identify alternate recreational areas, as needed. With implementation of this mitigation, this impact would be less than significant.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Alternative 2 would limit the number of new leases that would be approved by the Commission in a given period but would not limit the size of new offshore facilities. Although CDFW and the Commission are primarily responsible permitting and licensing of aquaculture facilities, development and installation would be regulated by the local jurisdiction through a discretionary review process. Therefore, the recreational impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Program
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under Alternative 3, there would be no development of in-water finfish culture and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in-water shellfish facilities. The potential impacts to recreational resources would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases. Therefore, impacts on recreational resources associated with Alternative 3 would be less than those described above for the Proposed Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.7-7 Recreation Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.7-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation
4.8 TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND MARINE NAVIGATION
4.8.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for marine navigation. It also describes the impacts on marine navigation that would result from implementation of the Proposed Program or one of the alternatives, and mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. Five comment letters regarding transportation, traffic, and marine navigation were received in response to the notice of preparation (see Appendix B). Issues identified by the commenters included potential conflicts with existing fishing operations, marine fishery areas, commercial and recreational fishing vessels, recreational marine vessels, and marine vessel traffic. As they relate to marine navigation hazards and/or vessel travel patterns, these issues are addressed in Section 4.8.4, “Environmental Consequences,” below. Issues pertaining to user conflicts, including commercial and recreational fishing, are addressed in Chapter 5, “Other Statutory Requirements.”
4.8.2 Environmental Setting
STUDY AREA
The Program area is limited to California’s coastal area, encompassing waters of the state from mean high water inland 1,000 yards and out to 3 nautical miles (nm) between Oregon and Mexico. The study area for marine navigation encompasses the area from mean high water out to 3 nm because it is assumed that vessels associated with aquaculture facilities would be limited to within this area. The study area for onshore transportation and traffic encompasses State-managed and locally managed roadways in the counties within which onshore aquaculture facilities would be constructed.
OFFSHORE CIRCULATION
Port Complexes and Marinas A port complex is composed of one or more port areas of varying importance the activities of which are geographically linked either because these areas are dependent on a common inland transport system or because they constitute a common initial destination for convoys. California has 11 public ports in the Program area—three “megaports” (Los Angeles, Long Beach, and Oakland) and eight smaller niche ports (Hueneme, Humboldt Bay, Redwood City, Richmond, West Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, and Stockton)—and one private port (Benicia) (Caltrans 2019). In addition to port complexes, each of the 20 counties with land use jurisdiction along the California coast supports both public and private marinas, yacht clubs, fuel docks, boat launches, and other boating-related facilities.
Coastwise Shipping Lanes Designated coastwise shipping lanes, running roughly parallel with California, consist of both a northbound and a southbound coastwise traffic lane and a separation zone in between. The coastwise shipping lanes operate in accordance with a traffic separation scheme (TSS). A TSS is an internationally recognized vessel routing system that separates opposing flows of vessel traffic into lanes approximately 1 nm wide (such as the northbound coastwise traffic lane), with a zone between lanes approximately 2 nm wide (separation zone) where traffic is to be avoided. Vessels are not required to use a designated TSS, but failure to use one, if available, would be a major factor for determining a liability in a case of a collision (Commission 2010:8.4-10).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.8-1 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Ascent Environmental
Navigation Buoys and Beacons Navigation buoys are typically installed to identify the location of pilot channels and prevent collisions among vessels entering or exiting harbors. Buoys can be placed near to shore or installed in offshore locations to indicate a given distance to port. In locations where reefs or other submerged boating hazards may exist, buoys may be used to alert passing vessels of the danger. Buoys are also frequently used as markers in nearshore waters to delineate the boundaries of recreational swimming areas. Beacons are aids that are permanently fixed, most commonly to the bottom of a body of water. Both buoys and beacons can provide a variety of navigation information via the shape, color, light, and/or audible signal (USCG 2019).
Vessel Types A variety of vessel types navigate the California shoreline within the Program area, including fishing vessels, commercial vessels, and passenger vessels. They are briefly described as follows:
Commercial vessels include ferries, tugs, crew boats, supply boats, and charter boats. This category also includes large commercial vessels, such as container ships, and bulk product carriers.
Commercial fishing vessels are dedicated vessels that fish for commercial profit. Vessel size can vary depending on the type and size of the catch.
Commercial passenger fishing vessels carry recreational anglers to ocean fishing locations. These vessels vary in passenger capacity from two to 150 people.
Recreational vessels include nonfishing vessels, such as wildlife-watching boats; recreational cruising boats; kayaks; and personal watercrafts, such as Jet Skis and sailboats.
Research vessels are owned and operated by research institutions to observe and collect data. Examples of research institutions that could operate research vessels include the Marine Institute and the Scripps Institute of Oceanography.
Private and rental boats are privately owned vessels used recreationally by the owner or rented to the public for a fee. These types of boats can include kayaks, sailboats, and motorboats.
ONSHORE CIRCULATION
The circulation network in California varies on a regional, local, and site-specific basis. Roadways are generally classified according to Federal Highway Administration Functional Classification Guidelines and the designed level of mobility and land access. The state’s roadways are classified into the following categories based on functional classification:
Interstate highways are divided arterial highways with full control of access and grade separations at intersections. The Interstate Highway System was originally designed to be composed of high-speed interregional connectors, and it is a portion of the National Highway System. Interstate highways along the coast include Interstate 80 (I-80), I-15, and I-8. State routes are highways acquired, laid out, constructed, improved, or maintained as State highways pursuant to constitutional or legislative authorization (California Streets and Highway Code Section 24). State routes along the coast include State Route (SR) 1 (the Pacific Coast Highway), SR 2, and SR 41. Principal arterials typically serve major centers of metropolitan areas, provide a high degree of mobility, and can also provide mobility through rural areas. Additionally, abutting land uses can be served directly from this classification of roadway facility. Minor arterials connect principal arterials with moderate mobility and serve geographic areas that are smaller than their higher principal arterial counterparts and offer connectivity to the higher arterial system. Collectors connect local roads to arterials with moderate mobility. Within the context of functional classification, collectors are broken down into the two categories of major collectors and minor collectors. Local roads and streets permit access to abutting land uses with limited mobility. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.8-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation
Level of Service Definitions Level of service (LOS) is used to rank traffic operation on various types of facilities based on traffic volumes and roadway capacity using a series of letter designations ranging from A to F. Generally, LOS A represents free-flow conditions, and LOS F represents forced-flow or breakdown conditions. A volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio typically accompanies the LOS designation and indicates a level of delay for intersections or travel speed for highways. Methods for determining LOS are published in the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010). Table 4.8-1 summarizes the LOS descriptions for two-lane conventional highways. Table 4.8-2 displays the delay range associated with each LOS category for signalized and unsignalized intersections.
Table 4.8-1 Two-Lane Conventional Highways
LOS V/C Ratio Traffic Description A <0.34 Free flow, light B <0.45 Free flow to stable flow, moderate C 0.46-0.65 Stable flow, moderate volumes, freedom to maneuver noticeably restricted D 0.66-0.85 Approaches unstable flow, heavy volumes, very limited freedom to maneuver E 0.86-1.00 Extremely unstable flow, maneuverability and psychological comfort extremely poor Forced delay measured in average flow travel speed (mph); F >100 signalized segments experience delays >60.0 seconds/vehicle Notes: LOS = level of service; V/C ratio= volume-to-capacity ratio.
LOS at signalized intersections and roundabouts is based on average delay for all vehicles. LOS at unsignalized intersections is reported for entire intersection and for minor street movement with greatest delay.
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
Table 4.8-2 Intersection Level of Service Definitions
Average Delay (Seconds/Vehicle) LOS Description (for Signalized Intersections) Signalized Unsignalized Intersections Intersections Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable traffic signal progression and/or short A < 10.0 < 10.0 cycle lengths > 10.0 to B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short cycle lengths > 10.0 to 15.0 20.0 Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or longer cycle lengths; > 20.0 to > 15.0 to C individual cycle failures begin to appear 35.0 25.0 Operations with longer delays because of a combination of unfavorable progression, long cycle > 35.0 to > 25.0 to D lengths, or high V/C ratios; many vehicles stop, and individual cycle failures are noticeable 55.0 35.0 Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, and long cycle lengths; individual > 55.0 to > 35.0 to E cycle failures are frequent occurrences; considered to be the limit of acceptable delay 80.0 50.0 Operations with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring because of oversaturation, poor F > 80.0 > 50.0 progression, or very long cycle lengths Notes: LOS = level of service; V/C ratio= volume-to-capacity ratio.
LOS at signalized intersections and roundabouts is based on average delay for all vehicles. LOS at unsignalized intersections is reported for entire intersection and for minor street movement with greatest delay.
Source: Transportation Research Board 2010
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.8-3 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Ascent Environmental
Public Transit Public transit service is provided by various agencies throughout the state. Local and regional transit organizations offer a variety of transit options, including buses, subways, light rail, and ferry boats. Service is provided with varying frequency and cost. Due to the coastal character of much of the transportation network within the study area, transit service and facilities are likely to be intermittent or absent in many locations within the study area.
Bikeways and Pedestrian Circulation The bicycle and pedestrian network and the applicable plans, policies, and standards are highly variable across regional and local agencies within California. However, agencies typically conform to the California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’s) Highway Design Manual bikeway facility classification system, described as follows:
Class I bikeways are facilities with exclusive right-of-way for bicyclists and pedestrians, away from the roadway and with cross flows by motor traffic minimized. In some areas, pedestrian facilities are separated from the bikeway.
Class II bikeways are bike lanes established along streets and are defined by pavement striping and signage to delineate a portion of a roadway for bicycle travel.
Class III bikeways are shared routes for bicyclists on streets with motor traffic not served by dedicated bikeways to provide continuity to the bikeway network.
4.8.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to transportation and marine navigation. Refer to Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” for additional information.
FEDERAL
Regulations Pertaining to Offshore Facilities International Rules Act was formalized in the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (1972) and was adopted by Congress as the International Rules Act of 1977. The rules include rules on steering and sailing, lookout, safe speed, risk of collision and actions to avoid collision, TSSs, conduct of vessels in sight of one another, and conduct of vessels in areas of restricted visibility.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 33, governs navigation and navigable waters within the United States. It is divided into three sections to reflect the three regulatory entities involved: the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation. USCG is responsible for vessel inspection, marine terminal operations safety, coordination of federal responses to marine emergencies, enforcement of marine pollution statues, marine safety (navigation aids), and operation of the National Response Center for spill response, and it is the lead agency for offshore spill response. The following USACE regulations enforce navigational rules for vessel traffic near or in danger zones, restricted areas, and disposal and dumping areas:
Demarcation lines delineate those waters in which mariners must comply with the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea and those waters in which mariners must comply with the rules.
Vessel traffic services and movement reporting systems were established under 33 CFR 161 to enhance navigation, vessel safety, and marine environmental protection and to promote safe vessel movement by reducing the potential for collisions, rammings, and groundings, and the loss of lives and property associated with these incidents.
Regulated navigation, safety, and security zones prescribe procedures for establishing different types of limited or controlled access areas and regulated navigation areas.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.8-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation
Shipping safety fairways establish and designate shipping fairways and fairway anchorages to provide unobstructed approaches for vessels using U.S. ports.
Traffic separation schemes are internationally recognized vessel routing systems that separate opposing flows of vessel traffic into lanes, including a zone between lanes where traffic is to be avoided.
Navigation light certification requirements establish navigation lighting standards for all vessels. Specification for lights vary depending upon the type of vessel but regardless of the light source.
Lights and warning devices establish lighting and warning requirements for all facilities located within the outer continental shelf (all submerged land).
Regulated navigation areas are regions of water where the local district commander has the authority to regulate vessels deemed to be hazardous or facing hazardous conditions.
STATE
Regulations Pertaining to Offshore Facilities California Code of Regulations. Article 10, Section 4 of the California Constitution guarantees the right of access to navigable waters for the people of California. State regulations regarding navigation and safety are found in CCR Title 14. State laws governing boating operation and safety are found in Section 650, Article 1, Chapter 5, Division 3 of the California Harbors and Navigation Code. State regulatory oversight also includes implementation of the Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1990.
California Fish and Game Code Section 15400. Pursuant to Section 15400 of the California Fish and Game Code, the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) may lease state water bottoms or the water column to any person for aquaculture, including, but not limited to, marine finfish aquaculture. No State leases shall be issued unless the Commission determines that the lease is in the public interest in a public hearing conducted in a fair and transparent manner, with notice and comment, in accordance with Commission procedures.
California Fish and Game Code Section 15411. Pursuant to Section 15411 lessees under a state water bottom lease may not unreasonably impede public access to state waters for purpose of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation. The lessee may, however, limit public access to the extent necessary to avoid damage to the leasehold and the aquatic life culture therein. The commission may prohibit any recreational activity in any aquaculture area subject to a state water bottom lease if it determines that the activity is detrimental to the enhancement of the resource.
California State Lands Commission manages 4 million acres of tide and submerged lands and the edges of navigable rivers, streams, lakes, bays, estuaries, inlets, and straits. The California State Lands Commission’s Marine Facilities Division regulates offshore moorings and onshore terminals used in petroleum transfer.
California Harbors and Navigation Code provides local regulations related to marine vessel navigation of California coastal waters. The code, which is administered by the California Department of Boating and Waterways, establishes regulations covering equipment and the operations of vessels on all state waters. The code governs aspects of boating from liens to operation of equipment and vessels, crews, cargo, and pilot licensing.
Regulations Pertaining to Onshore Facilities California Department of Transportation manages the State highway system and ramp interchange intersections. Caltrans is also responsible for highway, bridge, and rail transportation planning, construction, and maintenance.
California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is published by Caltrans and is issued to adopt uniform standards and specifications for all official traffic control devices in California.
Senate Bill 743, passed in 2013, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to develop new CEQA guidelines that address traffic metrics under CEQA. After several years of consideration and public input,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.8-5 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Ascent Environmental
the Office of Administrative Law approved (on December 28, 2018) comprehensive updates to the CEQA Guidelines that included removing LOS as a measure of transportation impacts under CEQA and replacing it with vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Lead agencies are encouraged to develop their own thresholds for VMT and are also allowed time to “opt-in” to using VMT versus LOS until July 1, 2020, at which time LOS analysis should not be used as the primary metric for determining transportation impacts under CEQA.
LOCAL
Regional Transportation Plans. Each Metropolitan Planning Organization and Regional Transportation Planning Agency in California is required to prepare a regional transportation plan pursuant to Section 65080 of the California Government Code. Future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with the policy framework in the applicable regional transportation plan.
County and City General Plans and Zoning Ordinances. County and city general plans define the long-term physical development objectives of each county and city and contain goals, policies, programs, and implementation measures to guide future development. All subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions must be consistent with the general plan. A zoning ordinance is the local law that spells out the immediate allowable uses for each parcel within a community. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the policies of the general plan; therefore, all zoning designations must comply with the general plan. Future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply land use designations, zoning requirements, and adopted policies in the circulation element.
County and City Emergency Plans. All local governments with a certified disaster council are required to develop emergency operation plans for their jurisdiction that meet State and federal requirements and are in accordance with California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Local Planning Guidance. Future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with adopted emergency plans and disaster planning to ensure that emergency access is adequate.
Bay Management Plans. Bay management plans outline policies to guide development in and around the bay areas. In areas where bay management plans have been adopted, the local agency has decision-making authority that must be reconciled with other federal, State, and local plans, including California Coastal Commission permitting. Future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with the policy framework adopted to avoid impacts on bay areas.
4.8.4 Environmental Consequences This section describes the impacts on transportation and marine navigation from aquaculture development under the Proposed Program and alternatives. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts, lists the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant, characterizes the impact and identifies to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts.
METHODOLOGY
Impacts on transportation and marine navigation were qualitatively assessed based on the potential for future aquaculture facilities to impede marine navigation and increase vehicle and marine vessel traffic caused by aquaculture-related activities during both construction and operation. Marine vessel and vehicle trip generation rates were developed based on the type of activities required to construct/install, operate, and decommission aquaculture facilities. Offshore and onshore trip generation rates that could result from implementation of the Proposed Program are discussed below.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.8-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation
Marine Vessel Trip Generation
Installation- and Decommissioning-Related Marine Vessel Trips Installation and decommissioning of aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program would require marine vessel movement from onshore facilities to offshore designated areas. As shown in Table 4.8-3, if one of each facility type is developed annually and a total of 10 of each facility type are developed under the Proposed Program, a total of 640 annual marine vessel trips would be generated during installation of each finfish aquaculture facility and 1,020 annual marine vessel trips during installation of each shellfish and seaweed facility. The same number of trips is assumed to occur during future decommissioning of aquaculture facilities.
Table 4.8-3 Installation- and Decommissioning-Related Marine Vessel Trips Generated Annually Annual Marine Vessel Trips Total Annual Marine Vessel Trips under the Facility Type Per Facility (round trip) Proposed Program (round trip) Installation of Offshore Facilities Finfish 640 6,400 Shellfish 1,020 10,200 Seaweed 1,020 10,200 Total 2,680 26,800 Decommissioning of Offshore Facilities Finfish 640 6,400 Shellfish 1,020 10,200 Seaweed 1,020 10,200 Total 2,680 26,800 Source: Data compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2019 (refer to Appendix C).
Operation-Related Marine Vessel Trips Operation of future aquaculture activities under the Proposed Program would require daily marine vessel movement from onshore facilities to offshore designated areas for feed delivery and maintenance. As shown in Table 4.8-4, a total of 520 annual marine vessel trips would be generated during operation of each finfish aquaculture facilities and 260 annual marine vessel trips during operation of each shellfish and seaweed facilities. This assumes that finfish facilities would require five marine vessel trips per week: two for feed delivery and three for general maintenance and harvest. Given that shellfish and seaweed are self-sustaining, feed delivery would not be required for them. Therefore, shellfish and seaweed aquaculture facilities would generate three marine vessel trip per week for general maintenance and harvest.
Table 4.8-4 Operational Marine Vessel Trips Generated Annually
Total Marine Vessel Trips under the Facility Type Marine Vessel Per Facility (round trip) Proposed Program (round trip)3 Finfish 1 186 1,857 Shellfish2 74 740 Seaweed2 74 740 Total N/A 3,337 1. This assumes five marine vessel trips per week for each finfish aquaculture facility. 2. This assumes three vessel trip per week for each shellfish and seaweed aquaculture facility. 3. These totals assume that 10 of each facility type are developed under the Proposed Program. Source: Data compiled by Ascent Environmental (refer to Appendix C).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.8-7 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Ascent Environmental
Vehicle Trip Generation
Installation- and Construction-Related Vehicle Trips Installation of offshore aquaculture facilities and construction of onshore supporting structures permitted under the Proposed Program would generate vehicle trips. It is estimated that at the height of construction (i.e., during the paving phase,) 18 construction workers would be commuting to and from each individual facility. Thus, approximately 36 daily vehicle trips (it is assumed that each construction worker would make two daily trips) would be generated during installation, decommissioning, and construction of each of the aquaculture facilities.
Operation-Related Vehicle Trips Installation of offshore aquaculture facilities and construction of onshore supporting structures permitted under the Proposed Program would generate operational food delivery trips and employee related vehicle trips Feed stock for finfish operations would typically be transported in bulk quantities from its sources (feed mills or distribution centers) to dockside transfer stations by rail and truck. The quantity of feedstock required to sustain finfish operations would not result in additional rail trips, it is likely that the feedstock would be transported via regularly scheduled rail shipments. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” it is assumed that up to 50 employees would be required for operation. As shown in Table 4.8-5, a total of 371 annual vehicle trips would be generated by food delivery to finfish aquaculture facilities, and 260,000 annual employee vehicle trips would be generated for each type of facility. Thus, for the Proposed Program, under which up to 30 aquaculture facilities would be allowed, approximately 789,657annual vehicle trips could be added to the study area roadway network.
Table 4.8-5 Operational Vehicle Trips Generated Annually
Total Annual Vehicle Trips under Facility Type Annual Vehicle Trips Per Facility the Proposed Program Finfish food delivery 74 371 Finfish employee trips 2,600 260,000 Shellfish employee trips 2,600 260,000 Seaweed employee trips 2,600 260,000 Total NA 789,657 Source: Data provided by Ascent Environmental in 2019 (refer to Appendix C).
However, with respect to vehicle trip generation (construction and operation), the location, site-specific design, and timing of future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program are not known at this time. Therefore, the specific location of vehicle trips and travel patterns resulting from implementation of the Proposed Program cannot be known. Thus, vehicle trips associated with specific aquaculture facilities cannot be accurately distributed within a specific area or assigned to specific roadway segments or intersections. Accordingly, this section evaluates potential impacts on vehicular transportation operations qualitatively.
Vehicle Miles Traveled A “vehicle mile traveled” is defined as one vehicle traveling on a roadway for 1 mile, and VMT has long been a primary indicator of travel. In December 2018, OPR published its proposal for comprehensive updates to the State CEQA Guidelines, indicating that VMT should be the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts. Agencies may adopt their own, or rely on thresholds recommended by other agencies, provided the decision of the lead agency to adopt such thresholds is supported by substantial evidence. This analysis includes VMT generated by the Proposed Program for information purposes only. Although this PEIR is not required to analyze changes in VMT, estimates of the net increases in average daily VMT are presented below to fully disclose the effects of the Program. The current statewide average trip length is estimated to be approximately 16.8 miles (see Appendix C, “Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” for detailed calculations). Using the average trip length and estimates of daily traffic generated under the Proposed Program, finfish facilities California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.8-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation
would generate 101,760 VMT annually, seaweed/shellfish facilities would generate 98,331 VMT annually, and the Proposed Program as a whole would generate 2,984,237 VMT annually, respectively.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Proposed Program would result in a significant impact related to transportation, traffic, or marine navigation if it would:
substantially increase oceanic hazards, in particular due to changes in vessel traffic concentration;
result in disruption of existing vessel traffic patterns and marine navigation;
conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities;
conflict with or be inconsistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b), which requires consideration of VMT;
substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment); or
result in inadequate emergency access.
ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER
The Proposed Program would not include actions that would limit or adversely affect existing transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities. Local and regional agencies have authority over multimodal service standards within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. Due to the coastal character of much of the transportation network and the anticipated dispersion of the individual facility sites throughout the study area, future aquaculture facilities would not generate demand for transit, bike, or pedestrian facilities. Typically, this type of impact occurs when a project induces population growth, such as a new housing development or a business that would necessitate a large number of new employees. Therefore, the Proposed Program would not create any conflicts with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Thus, impacts on transit, bike, and pedestrian facilities are not evaluated further. The installation, decommissioning, and construction of finfish facilities would not result in any physical disruptions (i.e., lane closures, street closures, sidewalk closures, bikeway closures) to the transportation network outside of the individual facility sites. As detailed above, at the height of installation, decommissioning, and construction of finfish facilities, approximately 36 daily vehicle trips would be generated by workers accessing the site. Additionally, the addition of 36 daily trips to the surrounding roadway network would be localized and temporary. This would be a negligible addition to existing trips and would not result in any discernable effects. Therefore, the impact pertaining to construction-generated traffic and associated conflicts with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the roadway system is not evaluated further. Operational impacts are evaluated in Impact NAV-3. As detailed above, lead agencies have an opt-in period until July 1, 2020, to implement the updated guidelines, which indicate that VMT is the primary metric used to identify transportation impacts. Given that this PEIR is being developed within the opt-in period and it addresses traffic operations (LOS), the metric that VMT would replace, the Proposed Program would not conflict with or be inconsistent with Section 15064.3(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.8-9 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Ascent Environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact NAV-1: Substantially Increase Oceanic Hazards, in Particular Due to Changes in Vessel Traffic Concentration (i.e., Congestion)
Future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program could increase marine vessel congestion within navigable waters if not regulated. All future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with State and federal regulations adopted to enhance navigation and vessel safety. Enforcement of navigation and vessel regulations would ensure that impacts on oceanic hazards are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, future aquaculture facilities would not increase oceanic hazards, and the impact would be less than significant.
Construction and operation of future offshore aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program could, depending on the location and number of facilities, increase marine vessel congestion within navigable waters, resulting in potential oceanic hazards. As described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” a total of 60 aquaculture facilities would be permitted under the Proposed Program.
Installation- and Decommissioning-Related Marine Vessel Trips As shown in Table 4.8-3, above, a total of 640 annual marine vessel round trips would be generated during installation of each finfish aquaculture facility and 1,020 annual marine vessel round trips during installation of each shellfish and seaweed facility. The same number of trips is assumed to occur during future decommissioning of aquaculture facilities. Accordingly, installation and decommissioning of aquaculture facilities would increase the number of marine vessels within navigable waters and could contribute to vessel congestion. However, installation activities for up to three facilities per year could be spread throughout the state, rather than concentrated in the same location. Due to the limited number of facilities under concurrent construction and the potential spread of installation/decommissioning trips across the state, potential pressure on marine vessel navigational routes would likely be dispersed. In addition, installation and decommissioning activities would not require changes to port areas, established marine traffic systems in the area, or existing aids to navigation. Pursuant to 33 CFR, vessel operators would be required to adhere to established vessel routing designations, such as demarcation lines along the California coast and TSSs, which separate opposing flows of vessel traffic into lanes, including a zone between lanes where traffic is to be avoided. Further, USCG operates the national system of vessel traffic services (VTSs) under 33 CFR 161 to promote safe vessel movement within navigable waters. A VTS provides mariners with information related to safe navigation of a waterway and through this system, the person directing the movement of a vessel near or adjacent to a future aquaculture facility would be made aware of the navigable conditions. Vessel operators would also be required to comply with the California Harbors and Navigation Code, which governs operation of vessels and licensing. Compliance with State and federal regulations, including demarcation lines, TSSs, and VTS monitoring, would ensure that vessels associated with installation and decommissioning of future aquaculture facilities would not increase oceanic hazards. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Operation-Related Marine Vessel Trips As shown in Table 4.8-4, above, a total of 186 annual marine vessel round trips would be generated during operation of each finfish aquaculture facility and 74 annual marine vessel round trips during operation of each shellfish and seaweed facility. This assumes that finfish facilities would require five marine vessel trips per week: two for feed delivery and three for general maintenance and harvest. Given that shellfish and seaweed are self-sustaining, feed delivery would not be required for them. Therefore, shellfish and seaweed aquaculture facilities would generate three marine vessel trip per week for general maintenance and harvest. Operation of aquaculture facilities would increase the number of marine vessels within navigable waters and could contribute to vessel congestion. However, facilities would be spread throughout the state, rather than concentrated in the same location, which would disperse pressure on marine vessel navigational routes. In addition, operation
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.8-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation
activities would not require changes to port areas, established marine traffic systems, or existing aids to navigation. Pursuant to 33 CFR, vessel operators would be required to adhere to established vessel-routing designations, such as demarcation lines along the California coast and TSSs, which separate opposing flows of vessel traffic into lanes. Further, the USCG operates the national system of VTSs under 33 CFR 161 to promote safe vessel movement within navigable waters. A VTS provides mariners with information related to safe navigation of a waterway and through this system, the person directing the movement of a vessel near or adjacent to a future aquaculture facility would be made aware of the navigable conditions. As directed by 33 CFR 161, compliance with a direction of the VTS is at all times contingent on the exigencies of safe navigation. Vessel operators would also be required to comply with the California Harbors and Navigation Code, which governs operation of vessels and licensing. Compliance with State and federal regulations, including demarcation lines, TSSs, and VTS monitoring, would ensure that vessels associated with operation of future aquaculture facilities would not increase oceanic hazards. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Summary Installation, decommissioning, and operation of future aquaculture facilities could increase marine vessel congestion within navigable waters, resulting in potential oceanic hazards. However, all aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with State and federal regulations adopted to enhance navigation and vessel safety. Enforcement of navigation and vessel regulations would ensure that impacts on oceanic hazards are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, future aquaculture facilities would not increase oceanic hazards, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact NAV-2: Result in Disruption of Existing Vessel Traffic Patterns and Marine Navigation
Installation of offshore aquaculture facilities within coastal waters could disrupt established navigational patterns of marine vessels. However, all future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with federal regulations adopted to ensure safe marine vessel movement, including siting criteria and the installation of warning markers. Enforcement of navigation and vessel regulations would ensure that impacts on vessel traffic patterns are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Installation of offshore aquaculture facilities within coastal waters could disrupt established navigational patterns of marine vessels. The USCG operates the national system of VTSs under 33 CFR 161 to promote safe vessel movement within navigable waters. A VTS provides mariners with information related to safe navigation of a waterway, and through this system, the person directing the movement of a vessel near or adjacent to a future aquaculture facility would be made aware of the navigable conditions. Future aquaculture facilities would also be required to comply with 33 CFR 166, which prohibits the placement of surface structures (e.g., oil platforms or similar offshore installations) within safety fairways to ensure safe navigation. In addition, pursuant to 33 CFR Section 67.05-25, all structures located in or adjacent to the edges of navigable channels and fairways, or lines of demarcation, are required to be marked by the lights for the safety of marine commerce. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that future aquaculture facilities would not disrupt existing vessel traffic patterns and marine navigation. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.8-11 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Ascent Environmental
Impact NAV-3: Conflict with a Program, Plan, Ordinance, or Policy Addressing the Roadway Circulation System
Future aquaculture facilities would generate vehicle trips that could result in increased traffic volumes and delay on roadway segments and intersections. However, existing lease requirements require adherence with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including laws related to identification, evaluation, and protection pursuant to CEQA requirements. This impact would be less than significant.
The operation of future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program could potentially increase vehicle trips that could conflict with adopted circulation plans, programs, or policies. As described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” a maximum of 30 aquaculture facilities would be permitted under the Proposed Program. As shown in Table 4.8-5, above, a total of 74 annual vehicle trips would be generated for food delivery to finfish facilities, 2,674 annual vehicle trips would be generated by the operation of individual finfish aquaculture facilities, and 2,600 annual vehicle trips could be generated by the operation of individual shellfish and seaweed aquaculture facilities. Thus, operation of future aquaculture facilities, depending on the number of facilities located in close proximity to one another, could generate vehicle trips that may result in increased traffic volumes on roadway segments and at intersections. Local and regional agencies have authority over traffic operations standards within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. Given the programmatic nature of this analysis, consistency with locally and regionally jurisdictional roadway standards cannot be assessed at this time. However, existing lease requirements for state water bottoms require adherence by applicants with all applicable local laws, including those related to transportation management. Adherence to existing requirements (both imbedded within existing state water bottom lease requirements and within local regulations) would avoid substantial adverse changes and associated conflicts with applicable plans and policies that address the local/regional transportation network. As a result, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact NAV-4: Substantially Increase Hazards Due to a Geometric Design Feature (e.g., Sharp Curves or Dangerous Intersection) or Incompatible Uses (e.g., Farm Equipment)
Development of onshore structures could require or result in new access roads; driveways to facilitate ingress and egress of vehicles; or minor alterations to existing roadways, such as restriping. All future aquaculture facilities would be required to undergo the local jurisdictions’ discretionary review process, which would require proposed aquaculture operations to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted to ensure that projects are designed in accordance with safety standards and are compatible with existing uses. Enforcement of adopted regulations by applicable jurisdictions would ensure that future aquaculture facilities do not increase hazards or result in incompatible uses. Therefore, development of onshore facilities would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Development of onshore structures could require or result in new internal access roads; driveways to facilitate ingress and egress of vehicles; or minor alterations to existing roadways, such as striping. Major alterations to existing roadways are not anticipated as part of the Proposed Program. However, potential circulation improvements, including roadway improvements/modifications, that may be identified during review of individual lease applications are unknown at this time. In and of itself, future development under the Proposed Program could increase hazards because of hazardous design features associated with access points and driveways. However, local and regional agencies have authority over the physical development of land within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. Therefore, future aquaculture facilities would be required to undergo the local jurisdictions’ discretionary review process, which would require each proposed facility to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted to ensure that aquaculture-related development are designed in accordance California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.8-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation
with safety standards and are compatible with existing uses. Further, while CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including design standards intended to mitigate physical environmental impacts, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. Enforcement of adopted regulations by applicable jurisdictions would ensure that future aquaculture facilities do not increase hazards or result in incompatible uses. Therefore, development of onshore facilities would result in a less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact NAV-5: Result in Inadequate Emergency Access
Development of onshore structures could impede on-site emergency access and/or interrupt the flow of emergency vehicles on nearby roadways if not regulated properly. All future aquaculture development would be regulated by the local jurisdictions’ discretionary review process, which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to ensure adequate emergency access. Enforcement of adopted regulations by applicable jurisdictions would ensure that future aquaculture facilities do not obstruct or impede emergency access. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Development of onshore structures could include a warehouse or an existing vacant building adjacent to docking facilities. Emergency access to future onshore aquaculture facilities would be provided via existing public and private roadways. However, future onshore structures could impede on-site emergency access and/or interrupt the flow of emergency vehicles on nearby roadways if not regulated properly. Local and regional agencies have authority over the physical development of land within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. Therefore, future aquaculture facilities would be required to undergo the local jurisdictions’ discretionary review process, which would require each proposed development to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations adopted to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. In addition, future aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with local emergency plans adopted to ensure that emergency response activities, such as deployment of emergency vehicles, are not obstructed. Enforcement of adopted regulations by applicable jurisdictions would ensure that future aquaculture facilities do not obstruct or impede emergency access. Therefore, development of onshore facilities would not result in inadequate emergency access, and this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Alternative 2 would limit the number of new leases that would be approved by the Commission in a given period but would not limit the size of new offshore facilities. Although CDFW and the Commission are primarily responsible for the permitting and licensing of aquaculture facilities, onshore development and installation would be regulated by local jurisdictions through a discretionary review process. Therefore, transportation and marine navigation impacts associated with Alternative 2 would be similar to those described above for the Proposed Program and less than significant
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.8-13 Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Ascent Environmental
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under Alternative 3, there would be no development of in-water finfish culture and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in-water shellfish facilities. The potential land use effects would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases. Therefore, transportation and marine navigation impacts associated with Alternative 3 would be less than those described above for the Proposed Program and less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.8-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography
4.9 WATER QUALITY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
4.9.1 Introduction This section describes the affected environment and regulatory setting for water quality and oceanography. It also describes the impacts on water resources that would result from implementing the Proposed Program, as well as mitigation measures that would reduce these impacts. Numerous comment letters regarding potential effects to water quality were received in response to the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix B). Issues identified by commenters included: the potential for release of pollutants such as excess feed, pesticides, drugs, trash, and heavy metals; eutrophication of the marine environment; and effects to the seafloor environment. These issues are addressed in this section. The key sources of data and information used in the preparation of, and cited within, this section are:
published, peer-reviewed literature;
non-peer-reviewed literature, including general literature, public databases, websites, and the popular press; and
professional experience and scientific knowledge of CDFW staff and associated experts.
4.9.2 Environmental Setting
OCEANOGRAPHY
The California coast represents a tectonically active continental margin, dominated by processes such as uplift, erosion, and seismic activity, much of which is associated with transform plate movement along the San Andreas Fault. Consequently, the coast in most areas drops quickly into deep water. Generally, the continental shelf is only a few miles wide, although in some parts of the Southern California Bight south of Point Conception it becomes substantially wider. Ocean circulation along the whole coast is dominated by the California Current, an ocean current that sweeps south along the entire West Coast of North America from southern British Columbia to southern Baja California (Hickey and Banas 2003). North of Point Conception, the California Current sweeps slowly south along the shoreline, and the cool, low-salinity waters of the current are responsible for the cold water temperatures and frequent coastal fogs that characterize this part of the California coast. Also, the prevailing northwesterly winds drive surface water to the right of the wind flow (offshore), and this phenomenon drives coastal upwelling. Upwelling brings cold, nutrient-rich bottom water to the surface where the abundant nutrients support high plankton productivity and, by extension, much of the marine food web, from anchovies to whales. This productivity is at the root of California’s commercial ocean fisheries and shellfish industries, and potentially could support a substantial aquaculture industry. However, the upwelling process is highly variable on both seasonal and inter-annual timescales. When the California Current is slowed or disrupted, as happens during the winter months and during El Niño years (and sometimes at other times), this results in reduced upwelling rates and a sharp decline in plankton production (Hickey and Banas 2003). Consequences include failed or reduced fisheries, and sharp declines in seabird and marine mammal populations as breeding decreases and animals starve or migrate elsewhere to find food. South of Point Conception, in the waters of the Bight, the shoreline cuts sharply eastward and the California Current moves offshore of the Channel Islands. A counter-clockwise countercurrent is generated, moving generally from south to north along the shoreline from northern Baja California to Point Conception, and producing a very large eddy within the Bight. The Southern California Countercurrent (SCC) is also variable over time, being strongest in summer and fall and weakest in winter and spring. Upwelling is usually a minor process in the Bight, but strong offshore winds can result in nearshore upwelling and a sharp drop in water temperatures. Water movement through
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-1 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental the eddy carries upwelling waters and plankton as well as pollutants and sediments from terrestrial rivers into the Bight. Compared with the coastline north of Point Conception, the waters along the coastlines around the Bight have fewer nutrients, warmer water, and are mixed less with waters of the open ocean. The SCC maintains an average velocity of 0.3 meters per second, even during the winter and spring seasons (Caldeira et al. 2005). Mixing within the Bight typically results in efficient dispersion of suspended particles, however smaller eddies and wakes formed around islands can temporarily isolate some areas (Mitarai et al. 2008) The coastal waters of the Bight, specifically within 3 nm of the shore, are also relatively sheltered from the prevailing northwest winds by Point Conception and the Channel Islands. This location results in substantial reductions in wave height and energy compared to the coast north of Point Conception, a circumstance that makes the area attractive for net-pen aquaculture (Hickey and Banas 2003). As noted in detail in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” a variety of estuaries occur along the California coast. These are located both north and south of Point Conception. Most such estuaries are formed behind sand bars at river mouths. Although these sites have variable flow rates and salinity, periodic water quality problems, and a shortage of upwelling-supplied nutrients, they have seen some aquaculture development. However, most of the existing aquaculture industry in California is sited in several large estuaries that provide sheltered waters with sufficient tidal, current, or wind-driven exchange with oceanic waters, and that have sufficiently stable water quality and salinity patterns to sustain a commercial shellfish industry, coupled with a supply of nutrient-rich oceanic waters. These estuaries include, from north to south, those of Humboldt Bay, Tomales Bay, and Morro Bay. Shellfish aquaculture in San Francisco Bay is limited to restoration activities because of water pollution and harvest restrictions.
WATER QUALITY
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) designates water bodies as impaired when the levels of a particular pollutant threaten the identified beneficial uses of the water body (see additional discussion under the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) in the “Regulatory Setting” section below and in Chapter 3). While water quality in California’s coastal areas is generally good, there are four areas of the California coast have been designated as impaired (OEHHA 2019). The San Francisco bay is impaired due to high levels of numerous pesticides, industrial chemicals, selenium, and mercury. Near Monterey Bay, concentrations of the pesticide dieldrin in mussels have exceeded two screening levels established to protect human health on numerous occasions, leading to a classification of “impaired” for an 18 mile stretch of coastline from Point Anõ Nuevo to Soquel Point. Within the Bight, impaired waters have been documented in the Santa Monica Bay and San Pedro Bay due to pesticides, industrial chemicals, heavy metals, and toxicity (OEHHA 2019). A variety of stressors are documented as affecting water quality in the Bight, including municipal wastewater discharges, nonpoint source contaminants in urban runoff, wet and dry deposition of airborne pollutants, harbor discharges, marine transportation discharges, and discharges of contaminated groundwater (Ahn et al. 2005). Until recently, effluent from sewage treatment plants was often the primary source of urban costal pollution, including nutrients, pathogens, pesticides, and heavy metals (Ahn et al. 2005). However, pollutant loading from many sewage treatment plants has declined due to improvements in infrastructure, pollutant control, and treatment technology. As a result, surface water runoff, in many cases, has emerged as the primary source of pollutant loading to the urban ocean environment (Ahn et al. 2005). A 2003 study found that water runoff from coastal watershed in the Bight produced 118,000 million tons (MT) of suspended solids, 2,300 MT of nitrogen compounds, and 147 MT of combined trace metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and zinc) annually (Ackerman and Schiff 2003). Although discharges of the pesticides chlorpyrifos and DDT were estimated at over 40 pounds in the typical year, they were detected only in runoff from agricultural land use (Ackerman and Schiff 2003).
4.9.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” describes the federal, State, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to water quality and oceanography. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act provides the basic structure for regulating the discharge of pollutants from point and nonpoint sources to waters of the United States. Several sections of the CWA pertain to regulating impacts on coastal and marine waters of the United States. Section 303 regulates total pollutant loads for impaired water bodies, including nearshore waters. Section 401 (Certification) delineates the requirements for water quality certification for federal permits and specifies additional requirements for permit review, typically at the State level. Section 402 of the CWA specifically requires the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and implement the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States is subject to permitting specified under Section 404 (Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material).
Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) NPDES requirements, through EPA-defined effluent limitations, establish minimum standards that are enforced through the NPDES permitting system for CAAP facilities. The CAAP regulation establishes national technology-based effluent discharge requirements for aquaculture flow- through and recirculating systems and for net-pens based on best practicable control technology currently available, best control technology for conventional pollutants, best available technology economically achievable, and new source performance standards.
California Toxics Rule established numeric water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants and other provisions for water quality standards to be applied to certain waters in California. The rule fills a gap in California water quality standards that was created in 1994 when a State court overturned the State’s water quality control plans containing water quality criteria for priority toxic pollutants. California was thus without numeric water quality criteria for many priority toxic pollutants as required by the CWA, necessitating this action by EPA. These federal criteria are legally applicable in California for inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and marine estuaries under the CWA.
Federal Antidegradation Policy directs states to adopt policies designed to protect existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect these uses, as well as environmental water quality and national water resources.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Center for Veterinary Medicine regulates the manufacture, distribution, and use of animal drugs. Center for Veterinary Medicine approves the use of new animal drugs based on data provided by a sponsor (usually a drug company). To be approved by Center for Veterinary Medicine, an animal drug must be safe and effective when used as directed for treated animals, persons administering the treatment, and the environment, including nontarget organisms. It allows the use of “investigational new animal drugs” (INAD) only under an exemption requiring data recording and reporting are required under the INAD exemption in order to support the approval of a new animal drug or an extension of approval for new uses of the drug.
STATE
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act implements the CWA in California. It established SWRCB and divided the state into nine regions, each overseen by a regional water quality control board (RWQCB). Six of the RWQCBs (North Coast, San Francisco Bay, Central Coast, Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and San Diego) adjoin marine waters and have the authority to regulate marine aquaculture. Each RWQCB is guided by a basin plan that identifies designated beneficial uses of the surface water bodies and groundwater basins, water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses, and implementation plans and policies for water quality protection. The basin plans contain specific numeric surface water quality objectives for bacteria, dissolved oxygen, pH, pesticides, electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, temperature, turbidity, and trace elements, as well as numerous qualitative water quality objectives.
California Ocean Plan establishes beneficial uses and water quality standards for point and nonpoint discharges, and effluent limitations for point source discharges to the ocean (excluding bays and estuaries). The beneficial uses to be protected include: industrial water supply; water contact and noncontact recreation, including aesthetic enjoyment; navigation; commercial and sport fishing; mariculture; preservation and enhancement of
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-3 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental
designated Areas of Special Biological Significance; rare and endangered species; marine habitat; fish migration; fish spawning; and shellfish harvesting (SWRCB 2015). The Ocean Plan establishes numeric water quality objectives for bacteria (such as fecal coliform) and chemical constituents relevant to protection of marine aquatic life and human health. Qualitative standards are included for physical characteristics such as floating particulates, water color, nutrients, sediment deposition rates, trash, and biological health.
State Implementation Plan for priority toxic pollutant water quality criteria implements the California Toxics Rule and National Toxics Rule criteria and applicable priority pollutant objectives in the basin plans.
State Nondegradation Policy states where the existing quality of water is better than required under existing water quality control plans, such quality would be maintained and that any activity which produces waste or increases the volume or concentration of waste and which discharges to existing high-quality waters would be required to meet waste discharge requirements (WDRs).
California Marine Life Protection Act designates state marine reserves, where no extractive activity is allowed without a scientific collecting permit, and state marine conservation areas, where some extractive activities, including aquaculture operations, may be allowed. Marine Protected Areas have been designated all along the California coast.
LOCAL
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) reviews permit applications for filling, dredging, and shoreline projects within the San Francisco Bay, both as a State agency enforcing the California Coastal Act and as a federally designated coastal management agency under the Coastal Zone Management Act. BCDC review considers minimizing impacts on hydrologic resources.
City and County General Plans and Zoning: Cities and counties are required to prepare a comprehensive planning document, to guide future development at the local level. Goals and policies that regulate water quality typically included within required elements. Many California jurisdictions have building codes and land use regulations that would apply to the siting and design of land-based aquaculture facilities, as well as environmental ordinances that would limit the potential environmental effects of land-based facilities. Additionally, some local jurisdictions have authority offshore, which would allow them to regulate the siting and design of aquaculture facilities in state waters
Local Coastal Programs: Authority to regulate development in the coastal zone can be delegated from the Coastal Commission to cities and counties that have adopted an approved local coastal program (LCP). LCPs contain a land use plan and implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas they govern. Any future aquaculture proposals within a county’s jurisdictions having adopted LCPs would need to be consistent with any policies in the respective LCPs, including for the protection of water quality.
Bay Management Plans identify policies to guide development in and around bay areas and include consideration of water quality. Examples of bay management plans include the San Francisco Bay Plan adopted by BCDC, the Humboldt Bay Management Plan adopted by the Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District, and the Integrated Natural Resources Management Plan for San Diego Bay adopted by the Port of San Diego and the U.S. Navy.
4.9.4 Environmental Consequences This section describes impacts on water quality and oceanography from aquaculture development under the Proposed Program and alternatives. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts, and lists the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant, characterizes the impact, and identifies measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts where necessary.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography
METHODOLOGY
Evaluation of potential water quality and oceanography impacts is based on a review of existing information from published literature, environmental documents, and studies that address coastal water resources in California and the interactions between aquaculture facilities and the ocean environment throughout the world. Information obtained from these sources was reviewed and summarized to describe existing conditions and to identify potential environmental impacts, based on the standards of significance presented in this section. In determining the level of significance, the analysis assumes that the projects implemented under the Proposed Program would comply with relevant federal, State, and local ordinances and regulations.
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Program would result in a potentially significant impact on water quality and oceanography if it would:
violate any water quality standards or WDRs or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality;
substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Proposed Program may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin;
substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream of river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site;
create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of exiting or planned stormwater drainage system or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
impede or redirect flood flows.
in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to Proposed Program inundation; or
conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.
ISSUES NOT EVALUATED FURTHER
The Proposed Program would not include the development of facilities that would use substantial volumes of groundwater or affect groundwater resources. While land-based support facilities have the potential to be served by groundwater supplies this usage would be permitted in accordance with State and local regulations and management plans. Additionally, the potential onshore aquaculture facilities that could be constructed through the Proposed Program would predominantly rely on seawater, rather than freshwater sources. Therefore, impacts related to groundwater quality and groundwater recharge, or compliance with groundwater management plans, are not evaluated further.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-5 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact WQ-1: Substantially Degrade Water Quality, Violate Water Quality Standards, Conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan Due to Discharge from Land-Based Facilities
The Proposed Program could result in the development of land-based support facilities such as offices, feed storage facilities, as well as onshore aquaculture facilities. Water from aquaculture facilities may contain particulate matter, nutrients, and residuals of therapeutants and other chemicals. Additionally, discharge may be generated by process waters used in washing, cleaning, and other associated activities. These discharges have the potential to degrade water quality, violate water quality standards, and affect the beneficial uses if not properly treated or contained. The potential for water quality degradation would be reduced through the required compliance with the conditions of the NPDES permitting system, which includes implementation of water quality protections tailored for aquaculture. Although these protections cannot eliminate any risk of degradation to water quality from the development of land- based aquaculture support facilities, they would ensure any degradation would not be substantial or violate water quality standards or conflict with a water quality control plan. This impact would be less than significant.
The Proposed Program could include construction and operation of land-based support facilities such as offices, feed storage facilities, as well as onshore aquaculture facilities. Facilities for hatching, early-rearing finfish facilities, shellfish live-holding and depuration, macroalgae production, and abalone production require a significant supply of seawater which must be regularly replaced. This may require discharge to sheltered or nearshore marine waters. Additional discharges may be generated by process waters used in washing, cleaning, and other associated activities. These discharges have the potential to degrade water quality and affect the beneficial uses established in the Ocean Plan or the relevant basin plan (in the case of bays and estuaries not covered by the Ocean Plan). Pollutants in land-based aquaculture discharges may include feed, fish feces, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, residuals of drugs or compounds used for maintenance or restoration of fish health (known as therapeutants), and residuals of chemicals used for cleaning equipment of for maintaining or enhancing water quality conditions. These pollutants have the potential to contribute to a number of negative water quality effects related to eutrophication (algal blooms), increased turbidity, low dissolved oxygen, increased water treatment for adjacent or downstream water users, changes in benthic organisms, and stimulation of harmful microbial activity. In addition, the potential discharge of chemical and drug residues could have effects on biota, fish, and the subsequent human consumers of the fish (EPA 2016). The potential for these discharges to affect water quality is greater in near-shore coastal waters than in the offshore marine environment where mixing and dilution are more rapid. The potential for adverse water quality effects would be reduced through mandatory compliance with the SWRCB NPDES permitting system. Any new land-based facilities that discharge to surface waters would be required to obtain an NPDES permit with specific WDRs from the SWRCB or RWQCB that has jurisdiction. To ensure the protection of water quality and human health, the NPDES permit or WDRs would limit the types and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged. No aquaculture discharges would be permitted in the 34 areas of special biological significance. (See Figures 4.4-9 through 4.4-12 in Section 4.4, “Biological Resources.”) The NPDES/WDR application process requires CEQA compliance as well as a complete characterization of the proposed discharge including flow volumes, a list of constituents and discharge concentrations for each, a list of other appropriate waste discharge characteristics, a schematic drawing of all treatment processes, a description of any best management practices (BMPs) used, and a description of disposal methods, and must be signed and certified by a registered civil engineer. The NPDES permit would specify the water quality standards that the discharge must meet and would prescribe monitoring for each pollutant limited by the permit, the volume of effluent discharged, and other measurements deemed appropriate to maintain the established beneficial uses of the receiving water.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography
For marine finfish aquaculture facilities (including land-based flow-through facilities such as hatcheries) that produce more than 100,000 pounds annually, the EPA’s 2004 CAAP regulations specify certain conditions that must be included in the NPDES permit. Table 4.9-1 provides a summary of NPDES permit requirements for flow-through and recirculating facilities.
Table 4.9-1 NPDES Permit Requirements for Qualifying Flow-Through and Recirculating Marine Aquaculture Facilities
Reporting Requirements Use of unapproved drugs under an Oral report as soon as possible with no later than 7 days, written report within 30 days investigational new animal drug (INAD) approval or extra-label use of an approved drug. Failure or damage to the structure Oral report within 24 hours, written report within 7 days of a containment system Spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed Oral report within 24 hours, written report within 7 days Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) 1. Develop and maintain a BMP plan on site that described how the permittee will achieve the following five requirements a) Solids control Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth to minimize potential discharges of uneaten feed and waste products to waters of the United States Identify and implement procedures for routine cleaning of rearing units and offline settling basins Identify procedures for inventorying, grading, and harvesting aquatic animals that minimize discharge of accumulated solids Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent discharge to waters of the United States, except where authorized by the permitting authority in order to benefits the aquatic environment
b) Material storage Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed to waters of the United States Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials
c) Structural maintenance Routinely inspect production systems and wastewater treatment systems to identify and promptly repair damage Regularly conduct maintenance of production systems and wastewater treatment systems to ensure their proper function
d) Record Keeping Maintain records for aquatic animal rearing units documenting feed amounts and estimates of the numbers and weights of aquatic animals to calculate representative feed conversion ratios Keep records documenting frequency of cleaning, inspections, maintenance, and repair
e) Training Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond in the event of a spill to ensure proper clean-up and disposal of spilled materials Train personnel on proper operation and cleaning of production and wastewater treatment systems, including feeding procedures and proper use of equipment
Source: EPA 2006
Therapeutants used in aquaculture include FDA approved vaccines, antibiotics, and EPA approved compounds used to control parasites. Over the past 20 years, the use of antibiotics in marine fish farms has declined by up to 95 percent due to the rise of effective vaccines and improvements in fish husbandry and management (Price and Morris 2013). Currently three antibiotics are approved for use in the United States, and they are allowed only in fresh water.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-7 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental
Application in marine aquaculture requires extra-label approval by a licensed veterinarian or under an INAD approval through the FDA, generally with direct oversight by a veterinarian (Price and Morris 2013). Other therapeutants approved for use in U.S. aquaculture include emamectin benzoate (an insecticide), hydrogen peroxide (used as a general treatment for external parasites, bacteria, and fungi), and formalin (used as a fungicide). The FDA Center for Veterinary Medicine regulates animal drugs under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Extensive toxicity studies are required before drug approval by the FDA; however limited data on potential environmental effects is available for some medications that are currently authorized for investigational uses; and limited or no data is available characterizing the ecological significance of releases of drugs and chemical at aquaculture facilities in the United States (EPA 2016). Although uncertainty remains regarding the fate of therapeutants in the environment, several layers of regulatory protection are in place to reduce the risk of water quality degradation. The first line of defense is the stringent FDA approval process (described above). Additionally, the CAAP NPDES conditions require that the SWRCB be notified of the use of any INAD or extra-label use of an approved drug. This provides the agency with the opportunity to determine whether additional controls on the discharge from the facility may be warranted during the use of the drug (EPA 2006). The CAAP conditions also require the permittee to develop site-specific BMPs (as shown in Table 4.9-1) that facilitate cultural practices such as cleaning and removal of mortalities (which reduces the risk of disease and the need for therapeutants), and proper storage of drugs, pesticide, and feed to prevent spills or inadvertent discharges. Finally, the California Ocean Plan requires that NPDES permits or WDRs include regular chronic and acute toxicity monitoring and requires bioaccumulation monitoring for discharges greater than 0.1 million gallons per day and one nautical mile or less from shore or a State Water Quality Protection Area, State Marine Reserve, Park or Conservation Area (SWRCB 2015). The Proposed Program could result in the development of land-based support facilities such as offices, feed storage facilities, as well as onshore aquaculture facilities. Onshore aquaculture facilities require a significant supply of seawater which must be regularly replaced and may require discharge to sheltered or nearshore marine waters. Water from cultural facilities may contain particulate matter, nutrients, and residuals of therapeutants and other chemicals. Additionally, discharge may be generated by process waters used in washing, cleaning, and other associated activities. These discharges have the potential to degrade water quality and affect the beneficial uses established in the Ocean Plan or the relevant basin plan (in the case of bays and estuaries not covered by the Ocean Plan). The potential for water quality degradation would be reduced through the required compliance with the conditions of the NPDES permitting system, which includes water quality protections tailored for aquaculture. Although these protections cannot eliminate any risk of degradation to water quality from the development of land- based aquaculture support facilities, they would ensure degradation would not be substantial or violate water quality standards or conflict with a water quality control plan. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact WQ-2: Substantially Degrade Water Quality, Violate Water Quality Standards, or Conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan Due to Discharge from Marine Finfish Facilities
The Proposed Program would result in the development of offshore finfish leases which could discharge particulate matter, nutrients, and residuals of therapeutants and other chemicals which have the potential to degrade water quality. The potential for water quality degradation would be reduced through required compliance with the conditions of the NPDES permitting system, which includes water quality protections tailored for aquaculture. Although these protections would reduce the risk to water quality, the potential for substantial degradation of water quality, violation of water quality standards, or conflict with a water quality control plan would remain for aquaculture facilities located in sites without sufficient water movement or depth for adequate dispersion. For this reason, the development of finfish aquaculture under the Proposed Program would have a potentially significant impact on water quality.
The Proposed Program would allow up to two new offshore finfish leases each two-year period, with a maximum area of 200 acres each. These facilities would consist of floating or submerged net-pens or cages where young finfish are grown to maturity. The potential pollutants in offshore finfish cage aquaculture are similar to those discussed California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography above for land-based aquaculture facilities. Discharges would include excess feed, fish feces, nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus, residuals of therapeutants, and residuals of anti-fouling chemicals used for cleaning equipment. These pollutants have the potential to contribute to a number of negative water quality effects related to eutrophication (algal blooms), increased turbidity, low dissolved oxygen, changes in benthic organisms, and stimulation of harmful microbial activity. The potential for adverse effects to water quality from offshore finfish cage aquaculture is largely dependent on farm management practices and site conditions. Uneaten feed and fish wastes are the main sources of excess nutrients from net-pens. Because nutrients are discharged directly to the ocean, effluent treatment is not feasible. Instead, farms seek to manage nutrient waste with farm practices, efficient feeds and feeding, optimal pen configurations, and farm orientation to optimize fish growth, waste distribution, and nutrient assimilation by the food web (Rust et al. 2014). The NPDES permit requirements for Net-Pen Marine Aquaculture (as prescribed by EPA’s CAAP standards) recognize the water quality benefits of these management practices and incorporate them into standard BMPs as shown in Table 4.9-2. The required feed management BMP states that feed must be efficient and limited to the minimum necessary to achieve production goals and that active feed monitoring (such as video monitoring via underwater cameras and pellet detection software) are used to minimize the discharge of uneaten feed. The NPDES permit requirements also call for the minimization of discharge associated with harvest and the removal and proper disposal of mortalities to prevent their discharge ocean waters.
Table 4.9-2 NPDES Permit Requirements for Qualifying Net-Pen Marine Aquaculture Facilities
Reporting Requirements Use of unapproved drugs under an Written report of intent to use INAD within 7 days of participation agreement, oral report of investigational new animal drug application as soon as possible but no later than 7 days, written report or application within 30 days (INAD) approval or extra-label use of an approved drug. Failure or damage to the structure Oral report within 24 hours, written report within 7 days of a containment system Spills of drugs, pesticides, or feed Oral report within 24 hours, written report within 7 days Required Best Management Practices (BMPs) 2. Develop and maintain a BMP plan on site that described how the permittee will achieve the following seven requirements a) Feed management Employ efficient feed management and feeding strategies that limit feed input to the minimum amount reasonably necessary to achieve production goals and sustain targeted rates of aquatic animal growth Minimize accumulation of uneaten feed beneath the pens through active feed monitoring and management strategies approved by the permitting authority
b) Waste collection and Collect, return to shore, and properly dispose of all feed bags, packaging materials, waste rope, and disposal netting
c) Transport and harvest Minimize any discharge associated with the transport or harvesting of aquatic animals (including discharge blood, viscera, aquatic animal carcasses, or transport water containing blood)
d) Carcass removal Remove and dispose of aquatic animal mortalities properly on a regular basis to prevent their discharge into the waters of the United States
e) Material storage Ensure proper storage of drugs, pesticides, and feed in a manner designed to prevent spills that may result in the discharge of drugs, pesticides, or feed to waters of the United States Implement procedures for properly containing, cleaning, and disposing of any spilled materials
f) Maintenance Inspect production systems on a routine basis to identify and promptly repair any damage Conduct regular maintenance on the production system to ensure its proper function
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-9 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental
Table 4.9-2 NPDES Permit Requirements for Qualifying Net-Pen Marine Aquaculture Facilities
Reporting Requirements g) Record Keeping Maintain records for aquatic animal net-pens documenting the feed amounts and estimates of the numbers and weight of aquatic animals to calculate representative feed conversion ratios Keep records of net changes, inspections, and repairs
h) Training Train all relevant personnel in spill prevention and how to respond to spills to ensure proper clean- up and disposal of spilled materials Train staff on proper operation and cleaning of production system, including feeding procedures and equipment
Source: EPA 2006
One of the most well documented effects of finfish aquaculture on the marine environment, in areas of still or very slow-moving water outside of California, is the degradation of the seabed beneath and around pens and cages (Kalantzi and Karakassis 2006). Under these conditions, nutrients that fall out of the water column can accumulate in the sediments below net-pens. If nutrients do not decompose quickly enough by aerobic bacterial processes, sediments will shift toward anaerobic conditions which affects the chemistry and diversity of marine life (Rust et al. 2014). In heavily impacted sediments bubbling methane gas may be visible. Although the methane itself if relatively nontoxic the bubbles can transport hydrogen sulfide, which is produced under anaerobic conditions and is toxic to fish and other marine life, into the water column above (Price and Morris 2013). The feed management requirements discussed above greatly reduce the risk to ocean sediments and impacts, when they occur, are typically limited to the substrate within 100 meters of the farm (Price and Morris 2013). In California, the potential effects to the benthic environment are directly addressed through the NPDES permit and required compliance with the water quality objectives of the California Ocean Plan. The Ocean Plan requires that the concentration of organic materials in marine sediments not be increased to levels that would degrade marine life. Additionally, the Ocean Plan requires that the dissolved sulfide concentrations of water in and near sediment are not significantly increased above background conditions (SWRCB 2015). These objectives are enforced through the monitoring and reporting program included in the NPDES permit process. Some therapeutants used in offshore finfish aquaculture, such as pesticides, antibiotics, and fungicide, could potentially affect water quality in the vicinity of the proposed farms. As discussed above in relation to land-based aquaculture facilities, the use of therapeutants is limited in U.S. aquaculture due to the stringent FDA approval process. Additionally, improvements in finfish cultural practices and the availability of effective vaccines has greatly reduced the industry’s need for antibiotics. Cultural practices that reduce the need for therapeutants include reserving the use of appropriate and approved therapeutants for severe outbreaks, rearing a single year-class of fish at a marine pen site or zone, fallowing sites for 8-12 months between production cycles to minimize cross-infection between groups, and general management practices that ensure the health of aquatic animals (Rust et al 2014). Finally, the California Ocean Plan requires that NPDES permits or WDRs include regular chronic and acute toxicity monitoring (SWRCB 2015). The management and cultural practices discussed above can reduce the overall volume of organic material, nutrients, and chemicals released into the water in the vicinity of the proposed farms. However, without adequate water movement to flush net-pens and circulate water in the farm vicinity, these materials may accumulate in the water column and benthic sediments over time and result in water quality degradation. A meta-analysis of aquaculture research related to water quality (Price et al. 2015) found that although there is much variety between species and sites, in general measurable increases in nutrients were more likely in the vicinity of farms located in sheltered coastal areas. Conversely, when farms were sited in well-flushed areas with adequate current (mean of >2.75 in/s [7 cm/s]) and depth of at least twice that of the net-pens, nutrients were diluted within a short distance from the farm. This finding is confirmed by a recent 6-year study of a large net-pen farm in Panama that incorporated these recommendations (Welch et al. 2019). The modern offshore farm evaluated in the study was located in between 180 and 213 feet (ft) (55-65 meter [m]) deep water where currents ranged from 0.16 to 2.3 ft/s (0.05 to 0.7 m/s). This study found no consistent
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography evidence of higher nutrient concentrations or reduced dissolved oxygen levels in the water column outside of the farm perimeter (Welch et al. 2019). As described in Section 4.9.2, “Environmental Setting,” the State-managed waters of the coast of California are strongly influenced by the California current and, in the case of the Bight, the southern California countercurrent. Due to the active current environment it is likely that many potential finfish farm locations within the Bight would experience excellent flushing and dispersion. However, connectivity to the open ocean is varied within the Bight (Mitarai et al. 2008) and some potential farm locations could retain farm discharges, resulting in adverse effects to water quality. Additionally, with the continued development of offshore aquaculture technology capable of withstanding high-energy ocean conditions, finfish aquaculture could expand north of the Bight. The proposed program would result in the development of offshore finfish leases which could discharge particulate matter, nutrients, and residuals of therapeutants and other chemicals. These discharges have the potential to degrade water quality and affect the beneficial uses established in the Ocean Plan or the relevant basin plan (in the case of bays and estuaries not covered by the Ocean Plan). The potential for water quality degradation would be reduced through the required compliance with the conditions of the NPDES permitting system, which includes water quality protections tailored for aquaculture. Although these protections would reduce the risk to water quality, the potential for substantial degradation of water quality, violation of water quality standards, or conflict with a water quality control plan would remain for aquaculture facilities located in sites without sufficient water movement or depth for adequate dispersion. For this reason, the development of finfish aquaculture facilities would have a potentially significant impact on water quality.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure WQ-3: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1.
Significance after Mitigation Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require careful assessment of a proposed aquaculture site to ensure that the site has sufficient water circulation and depth to allow dispersion of nutrients and other constituents so that the risk of water quality degradation is not substantial. With implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the potential for offshore finfish aquaculture permitted through the Proposed Program to substantially degrade water quality, violate water quality standards, or conflict with a water quality control plan would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact WQ-3: Substantially Degrade Water Quality, Violate Water Quality Standards, or Conflict with a Water Quality Control Plan Due to Discharge from Shellfish or Seaweed Aquaculture
Shellfish and seaweed aquaculture are passive aquaculture systems and are generally understood to positively affect water quality. However, under intensive production scenarios shellfish aquaculture can alter nutrient cycling and may result in increased productivity in algae and microbial communities. The Proposed Program would manage and reduce this risk through the gradual expansion of shellfish and seaweed leases coupled with a well-structured and effective adaptive management process that requires review every 5 years of conditions that could be affected by aquaculture, such as organic and benthic loading and changes in water quality. Because shellfish and seaweed aquaculture is expected to result in an overall benefit to water quality and because the potential for adverse effects related to intensive production would be managed through Proposed Program limitations and adaptive management, substantial degradation of water quality, violation of water quality standards, or conflict with a water quality control plan would not occur. This impact would be less than significant.
Shellfish and seaweed aquaculture are passive aquaculture systems and do not require the addition of feed or nutrients. Because of this, the EPA has determined that these systems generate minimal pollutant discharges and NPDES permitting is required only if the jurisdictional water board determines that a specific project may be a significant source of pollution (EPA 2006). Where water quality is poor, unfed species such as shellfish and seaweeds can help reduce coastal eutrophcation through filter feeding and nutrient uptake (Clavelle et al. 2019). Because of these properties, shellfish and seaweed California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-11 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental mariculture can also be combined with finfish systems to reduce overall nutrient discharge. This system, referred to as Integrated Multi-Trophic Aquaculture, has been expanding in many parts of the world and has the potential for both water quality and economic benefits (Price and Morris 2013). While unfed mariculture generally has a positive effect on water quality, there is evidence that overly intensive application can be detrimental. Unfed mariculture can alter the natural cycling of nutrients and at large scales this can increase sedimentation, weaken the flushing capability of bays and coastal areas and potentially induce eutrophication or algal blooms (Clavelle et al. 2019). Bivalve shellfish consume phytoplankton and particulate organic matter in the water column. Some of this material is incorporated into the animal’s shell and tissue, but the unneeded constituents are released back into the water. Through this process, filter feeders such as oysters and mussels convert organic nitrogen in algae, bacteria, and detritus into bioavailable nitrogen such as ammonia (NH3). There is no net increase in nitrogen during aquaculture, and a net reduction in nutrients occurs when shellfish are harvested (Lindahl et al. 2005); however, the conversion of immobile nitrogen to readily available nitrogen can cause increased productivity in algae and microbial communities (Ray et al. 2015). This effect would be more pronounced in warm waters, areas without tidal activity or sufficient currents, and in areas with greater densities of cultured shellfish. The positive effects of shellfish and seaweed aquaculture on water quality may be reduced or reversed under intensive production scenarios. While the Proposed Program does not envision such scenarios, there is a degree of uncertainty related to overall effects of the Proposed Program at buildout. To combat this uncertainty, the Proposed Program would use a gradual expansion of shellfish and seaweed leases coupled with a well-structured and effective adaptive management process that requires review every 5 years of conditions that could be affected by aquaculture, such as organic and benthic loading and changes in water quality. Additionally, the adaptive management process provides an avenue for reevaluation of permit application requirements, siting requirements, monitoring, and other relevant management measures to ensure that the Proposed Program can respond appropriately to changing conditions. Because shellfish and seaweed aquaculture are expected to result in an overall benefit to water quality and because the potential for adverse effects related to intensive production would be managed through Proposed Program limitations and adaptive management, substantial degradation of water quality or violation of water quality standards would not occur. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact WQ-4: Alter Circulation Patterns in a Way That Results in a Substantial Increase in Erosion or Siltation
The Proposed Program would allow the limited development of marine aquaculture facilities, which could result in modification of local circulation patterns. However, these changes would not generate substantial changes in erosion or siltation. Additionally, the potential structural changes to the benthic environment from the installation of anchors would have isolated and localized effects and would not alter benthic function. For these reasons, the Proposed Program would not alter circulation patterns in a way that results in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation. This impact would be less-than-significant.
Land-based aquaculture facilities have little potential to alter water circulation patterns. If new water intakes and discharges for such facilities were constructed their potential effect on currents and circulation would be limited to the immediate area. Additionally, the discharge from these facilities would be subject to NPDES permit conditions as discussed for Impact WQ-1, requiring effluent treatment so that sedimentation does not occur. Existing aquaculture facilities in intertidal and sheltered waters consist primarily of oyster aquaculture facilities and, to a lesser degree, other shellfish aquaculture facilities, including mussels and clams. Shellfish aquaculture in these settings typically requires placement of in-water structures, such as racks, longlines, or rafts. These structures, coupled with the shellfish growing on them, have the potential to alter water circulation patterns by altering the hydraulics of water flow through and around such structures. A similar effect would be anticipated from finfish net-pens.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography
Water circulation and sediment effects depend on the density of the aquaculture system, ambient currents, tidal flows, wave energies, bottom topography and elevations, as well as sediment type and deposition characteristics. Several studies have shown potential effects on water circulation from aquaculture when examining dense, three- dimensional suspended raft systems of scallops and kelp (Grant and Bacher 2001) and mussels (Saxby 2002, McKindsey et al. 2011). While alteration of water currents and accumulation of silt and solids have been documented in large and densely seeded molluscan shellfish operations, these impacts are unusual and have not been reported in the United States. In a review of literature for estuaries in the western United States, limited sediment accumulation has been observed and no substantial adverse effects from existing aquaculture facilities have been documented (Dumbauld et al. 2009). In addition, records and observations in Humboldt Bay, Willapa Bay and Totten Inlet in Puget Sound have indicated that localized increases to water sediment are minimized through currents and seasonal patterns (Jones & Stokes 2004, Barnhard et al. 1992, NRC 2009). In deeper nearshore or open waters, the potential impacts on water circulation are similar but reduced as a result of the stronger currents, the larger area of the water body, and the greater water depths relative to the size of the aquaculture structures. For aquaculture in deeper waters, benthic structure may also be modified by placement of anchors. Anchors are typically large, heavy pieces of concrete with an embedded steel bolt, or new modified plow anchors to which an anchor chain and cable is affixed. In some settings, alternative anchors such as screw anchors may be used. Generally, the effect is to place hard structure on the bottom. Under the Proposed Program, leases would not be available rocky bottom settings. In soft bottom settings, they may temporarily disturb benthic structure and currents may result in small-scale (order of meters) areas of scour and fill in the immediate vicinity of the anchor. This does not constitute a substantial alteration of seafloor structure, however, and does not alter benthic functions except by creating a slight and local increase in substrate heterogeneity and providing a site for colonization by organisms using hard substrates (Rensel and Forster 2007). The potential for changes to circulation patterns and sedimentation or erosion rates from aquaculture are linked to the size and density of the facilities and the local hydrologic conditions (Grant and Bacher 2001; Dumbauld et al. 2009). Protected bays with high-density aquaculture development and areas with limited water circulation would be more likely to experience adverse effects. As discussed for Impact WQ-3, the Proposed Program would use a gradual expansion of aquaculture leases coupled with a well-structured and effective adaptive management process that requires review every 5 year of conditions that could be affected by aquaculture, such as organic and benthic loading and changes in water quality. Additionally, the adaptive management process provides an avenue for reevaluation of permit application requirements, siting requirements, monitoring, and other relevant management measures to ensure that the Proposed Program can respond appropriately to changing conditions. Although marine aquaculture facilities could result in some modification of local circulation patterns, these changes are unlikely to substantially alter erosion or siltation rates beyond the immediate farmed area. Additionally, the potential structural changes to the benthic environment from the installation of anchors would have isolated and localized effects and would not alter benthic function. The gradual and limited expansion of the Proposed Program coupled with effective adaptive management would prevent the development of high-density aquaculture scenarios that could lead to effects beyond the local farm areas. For these reasons, the Proposed Program would not alter circulation patterns in a way that results in a substantial increase in erosion or siltation; this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Impact WQ-5: Release Pollutants Due to Tsunami
California’s coastal areas are susceptible to tsunami. Many of the potential land based, nearshore, or offshore aquaculture facilities that would be permitted through the Proposed Program would be located in areas that could experience large tsunami waves, potentially resulting in damage to feed and chemical storage systems causing an uncontrolled discharge of pollutants. Additionally, tsunami could damage anchors or net-pen infrastructure generating debris. This would be a potentially significant impact.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-13 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental
All of California’s coastal areas could be subject to tsunami, however the severity of the hazard is dependent on the location and size of the earthquake generating the tsunami and the configuration of the local coastline. Local tsunami sources include the north coast’s Cascadia Subduction Zone (which stretches from Cape Mendocino to Vancouver Island), and offshore strike-slip faults in southern California (Borrero et al. 2004). Modeling of potential tsunami in the Southern California Bight generated potential wave heights up to 20 feet (6 m) (Borrero et al. 2004). Additionally, flooding could occur near river outlets and in estuaries. Many of the potential land based, nearshore, or offshore aquaculture facilities that would be permitted through the Proposed Program would be located in areas that could experience flooding or tsunami. Although the NPDES permit required for aquaculture facilities requires secure storage of feed, drugs, and other chemical, flooding or tsunami events could damage storage systems potentially resulting in an uncontrolled discharge. Additionally, tsunami could damage anchors or net-pen infrastructure generating debris. This impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure WQ-5a: Require the Preparation of an Emergency/Disaster Plan for All Facilities The Commission shall require the preparation of an Emergency/Disaster Plan for each aquaculture facility that includes, but is not limited to, procedures for management of aquaculture systems, equipment, and cultured organisms in the event of a disaster (e.g., tsunami, harmful algal bloom, chemical or oil spill) to prevent degradation of water quality from accidental release aquaculture materials. This plan must include site-specific protocols for securing feed, therapeutants, and any other materials that may be detrimental to water quality, if released. If land-based facilities are proposed as part of a lease application to be considered by the Commission, the Commission shall include the preparation of an emergency/disaster plan as part of the lease agreement.
Mitigation Measure WQ-5b: Require the Use of Location Devices for In-Water System Components The Commission shall require the lessee to maintain a minimum of one properly functioning electronic locating device (e.g., Global Positioning System device, pinger with radio signal) on each allowable aquaculture system (i.e., net-pen or cage) placed in the water at the aquaculture facility. Locating devices must be monitored to ensure their function after storm events. In the event that the system breaks free of its mooring and becomes located away from the original permitted site, the locating device will be used to find it and either remove it from the water or return it to the permitted site.
Significance after Mitigation Implementing Mitigation Measure WQ-5a would reduce the potential for tsunami to damage aquaculture facilities and would ensure that the lessee is prepared to take appropriate action to control an unplanned discharge should damage occur. In addition, implementing Mitigation Measure WQ-5b would reduce the potential for damaged aquaculture components to generate marine debris. With implementation of these mitigation measures, water quality impacts from a release of pollutants due to tsunami would be less than significant.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Alternative 2 differs from the Proposed Program primarily in that larger aquaculture facilities could be developed under Alternative 2. The pace of lease approvals would not change, and future projects would continue to comply with the stringent protective conditions of State NPDES permitting. Additionally, the adaptive management system implemented for Alternative 2 would be the same as described for the Proposed Program and would provide a mechanism for modification to lease requirements or additional protections as needed. For the same reasons described under the Proposed Program, Impacts WQ-1, WQ-3, and WQ-4 would continue to be less than significant due to protections in place under existing regulation, in conjunction with protections that would be established under the proposed management framework. Impacts WQ-2 and WQ-5 would be less than significant with mitigation. Because marine finfish aquaculture facilities could be larger under Alternative 2, the potential for water quality degradation (Impact WQ-
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Water Quality and Oceanography
2) is slightly greater than under the Proposed Program. The same mitigation recommended under the Proposed Program (Mitigation Measure BIO-1) would also reduce impacts under this alternative to less than significant.
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under Alternative 3, no management framework would be adopted and California aquaculture in marine waters would continue in much its present form, although with foreseeable growth in the number and size of land-based facilities and of shellfish facilities in waters of the state. CDFW would not issue leases for finfish aquaculture in marine waters of the state and would not approve stock transfers for any finfish aquaculture in marine waters. Because such approvals are essential for operation of an aquaculture facility, finfish aquaculture in marine waters of the state or in offshore waters is not foreseeable. Therefore, impacts specific to finfish aquaculture in marine waters would not occur. Impact WQ-1 would be similar under Alternative 3 and the Proposed Program. Discharges from land-based aquaculture facilities would be effectively minimized by the existing NPDES permitting process; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Impact WQ-2 relates specifically to finfish aquaculture and therefore would not occur under Alternative 3. Impacts WQ-3 and WQ-4 would be similar under Alternative 3 and the Proposed Program and would be less than significant. Impact WQ-5 would be less than significant because only finfish aquaculture would require the storage of feed and therapeutants, which could potentially be released as pollutants during a tsunami. Overall, water quality and oceanography impacts under Alternative 3 would be less than under the Proposed Program because there would be fewer new aquaculture leases without a new management framework.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.9-15 Water Quality and Oceanography Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.9-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
4.10 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
4.10.1 Introduction This section presents a summary of regulations applicable to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a summary of climate change science and GHG sources in California, quantification of Proposed Program–generated GHGs and a discussion about their contribution to global climate change, and analysis of the Proposed Program’s resiliency to and mitigation of climate change–related risks. In addition, mitigation measures are recommended to reduce the Proposed Program’s contribution to climate change. This section also includes a discussion of the potential energy impacts of the Proposed Program, with an emphasis on considering whether implementing the Proposed Program would result in inefficient, wasteful, and unnecessary consumption of energy, as required by Section 15126 and Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines. Two comment letters regarding GHG emissions and two comment letters regarding energy use were received in response to the Notice of Preparation (see Appendix A). The commenters requested that the environmental analysis evaluate GHG emissions associated with implementing the Proposed Program. They also requested that it evaluate energy use associated with the Proposed Program. These issues are addressed in this section. The commenters requested that the environmental analysis consider the Proposed Program’s impact on competing activities that could occur within the same offshore areas, such as renewable energy facilities (e.g., offshore wind farms). This issue is addressed in Section 4.11, “Cumulative Impacts.”
4.10.2 Environmental Setting
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
The Physical Scientific Basis of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. The earth has a much lower temperature than the sun; therefore, the earth emits lower frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Human-caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations (IPCC 2014). Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas most pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent is estimated to be sequestered through ocean and land uptake every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remain stored in the atmosphere (IPCC 2013:467). The quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere that ultimately results in climate change is not precisely known but is enormous; no single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature or to global climate, local climates, or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts relative to global climate change are inherently cumulative.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Sources GHG emissions are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial, and agricultural emissions sectors. The most recent California statewide GHG emissions inventory is summarized in Table 4.10-1. In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (CARB 2017). Emissions of CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. CH4, a highly potent GHG, primarily results from off-gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions) and is largely associated with agricultural practices, leaks from petroleum operations, and landfills. N2O is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. Additionally, gases with high global warming potential (GWP) have atmospheric insulative properties that are hundreds to tens of thousands of times greater than those of CO2, meaning that high-GWP gases can trap far more heat in the atmosphere than the same amount of CO2. HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are some of the most common types of high-GWP gases and result from a variety of industrial processes. According to the latest statewide GHG inventory, statewide emissions in 2016 were 429 million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e). As noted in the 2000–2016 GHG Emissions Trends Report, in 2016 California met the statewide 2020 GHG reduction target of 431 MMTCO2e 4 years ahead of the target year (CARB 2018a).
Table 4.10-1 California Statewide Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
MMTCO2e Percent of Percent Change Emissions Sector 19901 2000 2010 2016 Total (2016) from 1990 to 2016 Transportation 151 181 165 169 39% 12% Electricity Generation2 111 105 90 67 16% -38% Industrial 103 97 92 90 21% -13% Commercial and Residential Fuel Use 44 43 45 39 9% -11% Agriculture 23 32 34 34 8% 48% High GWP —3 6 14 20 5% NA Recycling and Waste —3 7 8 9 2% NA Total4 431 471 448 429 100 NA Notes: CARB = California Air Resources Board; GHG = greenhouse gas; GWP = global warming potential; IPCC = Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; MMTCO2e = million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent; NA = not available. 1 California’s first 1990 GHG emissions inventory was prepared in 2007 by CARB using GWP values from the IPCC Second Assessment Report. All other inventory years shown use GWP values from the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 2 Includes the generation of both in-state electricity and electricity imported from out of state. 3 GHG emissions generated in the High GWP and Recycling and Waste sectors were included in the emission total for the Industrial sector for the 1990 inventory only. 4 Totals may not sum exactly because of rounding. Source: CARB 2018b, data compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Effects of Climate Change on the Environment According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, global average temperature is expected to increase by 3–7 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by the end of the century, depending on future GHG emission
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
scenarios (IPCC 2014). According to California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, temperatures in California are projected to increase by 5.6 to 8.8°F by 2100 (OPR et al. 2018a:23). Other environmental resources could be indirectly affected by the accumulation of GHG emissions and resulting rise in global average temperature. In recent years, California has been marked by extreme weather and its effects. According to the California Natural Resources Agency’s (CNRA’s) draft report Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update, California experienced the driest 4-year statewide precipitation on record from 2012 through 2015; the warmest years on average in 2014, 2015, and 2016; and the smallest and second smallest Sierra Nevada snowpack on record in 2015 and 2014 (CNRA 2018a). In contrast, the northern Sierra Nevada experienced its wettest year on record in 2016 (CNRA 2018a). The changes in precipitation exacerbate wildfires throughout California with increasing frequency, size, and devastation. As temperatures increase, the increase in precipitation falling as rain rather than snow also could lead to increased potential for floods because water that would normally be held in the snowpack of the Sierra Nevada and Cascade Range until spring would flow into the Central Valley concurrently with winter rainstorm events. This scenario would place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system (CNRA 2018a). Furthermore, in the extreme scenario involving the rapid loss of the Antarctic ice sheet, sea level along California’s coastline could rise up to 10 feet by 2100, which is approximately 30–40 times faster than sea level rise experienced over the last century (CNRA 2018a). Water availability and changing temperatures, which affect the prevalence of pests, disease, and species, also directly affect terrestrial crop development and livestock production. Other environmental concerns include decline in water quality, groundwater security, and soil health (CNRA 2018a). Water resource–related vulnerabilities also include potential degradation of watersheds, alteration of ecosystems and loss of habitat, impacts on coastal areas, and ocean acidification (CNRA 2018a). The ocean absorbs approximately one-third of the CO2 released into the atmosphere every year from industrial and agricultural activities, changing the chemistry of the ocean by decreasing the pH of seawater. Ocean acidification affects many shell-forming species, including oysters, mussels, abalone, crabs, and the microscopic plankton that form the base of the oceanic food chain (Kroeker et al. 2010, 2013). In addition, significant changes in the behavior and physiology of fish and invertebrates attributable to rising CO2 and increased acidity have already been documented (OPR et al. 2018a). California’s ocean supports a vast diversity of marine life, as well as fishing communities that depend on fish and shellfish for their livelihoods and that provide a diverse supply of seafood to the state and for export. In 2012, approximately 1,900 commercial fishing vessels operated in California, and 7,700 jobs were supported by recreational marine fishing. California is much less susceptible to the impacts of climate change on recreational and commercial fishing than other regions, but the state’s role in providing wild-caught fish to a global market will be affected. In the last few years, California has experienced an unprecedented marine heat wave, resulting in closures of fisheries and a significant loss of northern kelp forests. There is increasing evidence that sea-level rise, ocean acidification, and ocean warming associated with climate change are transforming and degrading California’s coastal and marine ecosystems (OPR et al. 2018b). Aquaculture is uniquely positioned both to be a tool to mitigate the effects of climate change, while being susceptible to the effects of climate change. There are a variety of ways the Program would affect and be affected by climate change, including the following.
Adverse effects on oceanic conditions due to climate change, such as ocean acidification, which can affect shellfish production;
The potential for aquaculture of shellfish and seaweed to reduce net GHG emissions through mechanisms such as sequestering carbon and bioextraction1;
The use of marine aquaculture to make up a portion of the potential seafood deficit due to loss of wild fisheries affected by climate change; and
The use of marine aquaculture to make up a portion of the potential food deficit due to reduced or unreliable water supplies for terrestrial agriculture and inland aquaculture affected by climate change.
1 The removal of nutrients from an aquatic ecosystem California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-3 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
ENERGY
Energy Facilities and Services in the Program Area Electric and natural gas services along the coast of California are provided by San Diego Gas & Electric, Southern California Gas Company, Southern California Edison, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, and PacifiCorp. It is anticipated that the new offshore facilities associated with the Proposed Program would not require new natural gas and electricity infrastructure.
Energy Types and Sources California relies on a regional power system composed of a diverse mix of natural gas, petroleum, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. One-third of the energy consumed in California is natural gas. In 2014, approximately 35 percent of the natural gas consumed in the state was used to generate electricity. Residential land uses represented approximately 17 percent of California’s natural gas consumption, with the balance consumed by the industrial, resource extraction, and commercial sectors (EIA 2014). Power plants in California meet approximately 68 percent of the in-state electricity demand, hydroelectric power from the Pacific Northwest provides another 12 percent, and power plants in the southwestern United States provide another 20 percent (EIA 2014). The contribution of in-state and out-of-state power plants depends on the precipitation that occurred in the previous year, the corresponding amount of hydroelectric power that is available, and other factors.
Alternative Fuels A variety of alternative fuels are used to reduce demand for petroleum-based fuel. The use of these fuels is encouraged through various statewide regulations and plans (e.g., Low Carbon Fuel Standard). Conventional gasoline and diesel may be replaced (depending on the capability of the vehicle) with many transportation fuels, including biodiesel, electricity, ethanol, hydrogen, natural gas, renewable diesel, and gas-to-liquid and coal-to-liquid fuels. California has a growing number of alternative fuel vehicles through the joint efforts of the California Energy Commission (CEC), the California Air Resources Board (CARB), local air districts, the federal government, transit agencies, utilities, and other public and private entities.
4.10.3 Regulatory Setting Chapter 3 describes the federal, state, and local regulations applicable to the Proposed Program. This section identifies the pertinent regulations and summarizes their applicability to GHG emissions and energy. Refer to Chapter 3 for additional information.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy. This regulation would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon, limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025 (77 FR 62630) and would affect emissions rates for vehicles used by construction workers and employees of new facilities under the Proposed Program.
State Assembly Bill 32. This law requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. CEQA requires that projects be analyzed for whether they are in line with the statewide GHG reduction targets established through legislation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Senate Bill 32. This law requires the state to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. CEQA requires that projects be analyzed for whether they are in line with the statewide GHG reduction targets established through legislation.
California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. This plan prepared by the CARB, outlines the main strategies California will implement to achieve the legislated GHG emission target for 2030 and “substantially advance toward our 2050 climate goals” (CARB 2017:1, 3, 5, 20, 25–26). The plan includes a guidance on how local plans and projects should be analyzed to ensure consistency with the statewide GHG reduction targets.
CARB’s Advanced Clean Cars program: This program established more stringent GHG emission standards and fuel efficiency standards for fossil fuel–powered on-road vehicles. In addition, the program’s zero-emission vehicle regulation requires battery, fuel cell, and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles to account for up to 15 percent of California’s new vehicle sales by 2025 (CARB 2016:15). This program would affect emissions rates for vehicles used by construction workers and employees of new facilities under the Proposed Program.
CARB’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard. This regulation will reduce the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard applies to fuels used by on-road motor vehicles and by off-road vehicles, including construction equipment (Wade, pers. comm., 2017).
Senate Bill 375. This law requires metropolitan planning organizations to adopt plans showing reductions in GHG emissions from passenger cars and light trucks in their respective regions for 2020 and 2035 (CARB 2018b:1). These plans link land use and housing allocation to transportation planning and related mobile-source emissions. This would affect the land use planning decisions made for the location of future aquaculture facilities as well as the construction worker and employee commute emissions associated with new aquaculture facilities.
Senate Bill 100. This law requires that electricity utilities increase the use of renewables to produce electricity for customers. California utilities are required to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020 (SB X1-2 of 2011); 52 percent by 2027 (SB 100 of 2018); 60 percent by 2030 (also SB 100 of 2018); and 100 percent by 2045 (also SB 100 of 2018). This would affect the emissions associated with electricity use at new aquaculture facilities developed under the Proposed Program.
Senate Bill 743. This law requires that CEQA transportation analysis move away from focusing on vehicle delay and level of service (OPR 2019) and move toward a vehicle mile travel analysis. This would affect the construction worker and employee commute emissions associated with new aquaculture facilities.
Local The following local air quality management agencies have jurisdiction in the study region: the North Coast Unified Air Pollution Control District, Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, and South Coast Air Quality Management District. Under CEQA, each air district is responsible for establishing thresholds of significance for GHG emissions. GHG emissions thresholds for projects at the local level are intended to identify the emissions level for which a project would not be expected to substantially conflict with existing California legislation adopted to reduce statewide GHG emissions needed to move us towards climate stabilization. If a project would generate GHG emissions above the established threshold level, it would be considered to contribute substantially to a cumulative impact and would be considered significant (refer to Section 4.10.4, “Environmental Consequences.”
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-5 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
ENERGY
Federal Corporate Average Fuel Economy. This regulation would increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 miles per gallon, limiting vehicle emissions to 163 grams of CO2 per mile for the fleet of cars and light-duty trucks by model year 2025 (77 FR 62630) and would affect the energy (fuel) use rates for vehicles used by construction workers and employees of new facilities under the Proposed Program.
Energy Policy Act of 1992. 2005 provides renewed and expanded tax credits for electricity generated by qualified energy sources, such as landfill gas; provides bond financing, tax incentives, grants, and loan guarantees for clean renewable energy and rural community electrification; and establishes a federal purchase requirement for renewable energy. This would affect the emissions associated with electricity use at new aquaculture facilities developed under the Proposed Program.
Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. This law requires the U.S. to increase the supply of alternative fuel sources by setting a mandatory Renewable Fuel Standard requiring fuel producers to use at least 36 billion gallons of biofuel in 2022, which represents a nearly five-fold increase over current levels; and reduces U.S. demand for oil by setting a national fuel economy standard of 35 miles per gallon by 2020—an increase in fuel economy standards of 40 percent.
State Executive Order S-06-06. This executive order establishes targets for the use and production of biofuels and biopower, and directs state agencies to work together to advance biomass programs in California while providing environmental protection and mitigation. This executive order set the target that the State produce a minimum of 20 percent of its biofuels within California by 2010, 40 percent by 2020, and 75 percent by 2050. This would affect the emissions associated with electricity use at new aquaculture facilities developed under the Proposed Program as well as energy (fuel) use rates for vehicles used by construction workers and employees of new facilities under the Proposed Program.
4.10.4 Environmental Consequences
METHODOLOGY
Greenhouse Gas Emissions This section describes the greenhouse gas emissions impact analysis relating to existing and future aquaculture under the three management frameworks described in Chapter 2. It describes the methods used to determine the impacts and lists the thresholds used to conclude whether an impact would be significant. Measures to mitigate (i.e., avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for) significant impacts accompany each impact discussion. The Program would result in construction of both onshore and offshore aquaculture facilities. The specific locations of new onshore and offshore aquaculture facilities are not known at this time but could, as part of the Program, be built in any feasible location along the coast of California. The various jurisdictions along the coast of California, where future onshore aquaculture facilities could be built, include varied sets of requirements for new development. As a result, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that prior to implementation/construction, all future aquaculture-related development (onshore and offshore) under the Proposed Program would be regulated by the state’s and local jurisdictions’ discretionary review processes, which would require consistency with applicable standards pertaining to greenhouse gas emissions.
Construction Consistent with the parameters identified in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” emissions modeling assumed that implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the construction of one offshore finfish facility, one offshore/subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore/subtidal seaweed facility per year. Emissions modeling California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
assumed that the offshore finfish facility would occupy a maximum of 200 acres and the offshore/subtidal shellfish and seaweed facilities would each occupy a maximum of 400 acres. Assumptions regarding equipment usage rates during the construction of offshore facilities were derived from the California Fish and Game Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Santa Barbara Mariculture Company Continued Shellfish Operation (Santa Barbara Mariculture MND) (CNRA 2018b) and scaled based on the size of the Proposed Program’s offshore facilities compared to the size of the facility assessed in the Santa Barbara Mariculture MND. Assumptions regarding worker commute trips for construction of offshore facilities were modeled using CalEEMod Version 2016.3.2. Modeled emissions from marine vessels during Proposed Program construction were estimated using the Harborcraft, Dredge and Barge Emission Factor Calculator developed by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). See Appendix C for full emission modeling assumptions and details.
Operations Modeling assumptions regarding the use of marine vessels as part of annual operations (e.g., maintenance and feeding operations) at the offshore facilities were derived from the Santa Barbara Mariculture IS/MND, as well as discussions with California Department of Fish and Wildlife staff regarding characteristics of the new facilities to be developed as part of the Proposed Program (Lovell, pers. comm., 2019). See Appendix C for full emission modeling assumptions and details. Use of marine vessels for operation activity were modeled using the Harborcraft, Dredge and Barge Emission Factor Calculator developed by the SMAQMD. Modeling assumed that fish feed would be delivered to the offshore finfish facilities by a feed barge being transported by a tugboat twice per week. Offshore facility operations would also include three trips by marine vessels to offshore facilities per week for operations and maintenance tasks.
Location and Number of Facilities Regarding the location of potential new aquaculture facilities, modeling assumed that the location of the offshore facilities could occur in any location along the coast of California and would be restricted by the siting criteria discussed in Section 2.4.4 of the Chapter 2. Modeling assumed a scenario in which one offshore finfish facility, one offshore subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore subtidal seaweed facility could all be constructed within the same air district simultaneously. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a total of 10 of each type of facility could be built over the projected buildout period for the Proposed Program for a total of 30 facilities. It is assumed that one facility of each type (three total) could be built per year.
Energy
Construction Energy use associated with construction of offshore facilities was estimated using the same assumptions stated above for GHG emissions and based on the parameters identified in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives.” Levels of construction-related energy consumption by the Proposed Program are measured in kilowatt-hours of electricity, gallons of gasoline, and gallons of diesel fuel. Fuel consumption estimates for construction were based on activity data for offshore facility construction worker commute and use of marine vessels. Worker commute and truck trip fuel consumption were calculated based on the statewide average commute distance included in CalEEMod and average miles per gallon provided by CARB’s EMFAC 2017. See Appendix D for energy consumption modeling assumptions and details.
Operations Energy use associated with operations of offshore facilities was estimated using the same assumptions stated above for GHG emissions. Assumptions regarding fuel usage rates in marine vessels as part of annual operations (e.g., offshore facility maintenance and feeding operations) were estimated using information regarding the horsepower of marine vessel equipment included in the Harborcraft, Dredge and Barge Emission Factor Calculator developed by SMAQMD, as well as information regarding fuel use rates based on horsepower identified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Table A9-3E (SCAQMD 1993). See Appendix D for energy consumption modeling assumptions and details.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
Location and Number of Facilities Modeling assumed that the offshore facilities could be located anywhere along the coast of California that is consistent with the siting criteria identified in Section 2.4.4 in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives.” Modeling assumed a scenario in which one offshore finfish facility, one offshore/subtidal shellfish facility, and one offshore/subtidal seaweed facility could all be constructed within the same air district simultaneously. For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a total of 10 of each facility type could be built and operate over the lifetime of the Proposed Program (2020–2030), for a total of 30 facilities statewide by 2040. Because it is not known how many of each type of facility would be built, modeling assumed that there would be an even distribution in the type of facilities to be developed (one-third finfish facilities, one-third shellfish facilities, and one-third seaweed facilities).
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
GHG Emissions The issue of global climate change is inherently a cumulative issue because the GHG emissions of individual projects cannot be shown to have any material effect on global climate. Thus, the Proposed Program’s impact on climate change is addressed only as a cumulative impact. State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064 and relevant portions of Appendix G recommend that a lead agency consider a project’s consistency with relevant, adopted plans and discuss any inconsistencies with applicable regional plans, including plans to reduce GHG emissions. Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Program would result in a significant impact related to climate change if it would:
generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment or
conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Consistency with CARB’s 2017 scoping plan was used to demonstrate whether the Proposed Program would conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs. Guidance for evaluating the GHG emissions associated with a project is provided in CARB’s 2017 scoping plan. CARB’s 2017 scoping plan demonstrates how the State will achieve its emissions reduction target set forth SB 32 (i.e., reducing statewide emissions to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030) and makes progress towards the State’s long- term reduction target of reducing statewide emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 (Executive Order S-3-05) through GHG reductions from various sectors of the State’s economy and, as a result, mitigating the worst impacts climate change. The scoping plan suggests several approaches for showing a project’s consistency with State targets, including showing consistency with an adopted applicable GHG reduction plan or adopted threshold of significance. Given the longer timeline for the implementation of the Proposed Program (approximately 10 years), no significance thresholds applicable to the Proposed Program have been established for this time horizon to ensure projects would not generate GHG emissions at levels that would have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with the States long-term GHG reduction goals. Absent these approaches, CARB also states that achieving no net additional increase in GHG emissions is appropriate (CARB 2017:101–102). Given there is no other applicable threshold available, the no net increase emissions threshold has been used for this analysis. Consistent with the proposed 2017 scoping plan, a threshold of no net increase in GHG emissions over existing conditions was applied for the purposes of the GHG impact analysis. When this threshold is applied, the existing condition (i.e., without the program) is considered, and any increase in GHG emissions over this baseline is identified as a significant increase for CEQA purposes. GHG emissions typically are discussed in terms of annual emissions so that emissions can be attributed to the operational life of a project. If a portion of a project’s emissions are covered through other applicable State or local regulations or GHG reduction plans (e.g., cap and trade), they would be considered an increase in emissions but would not be considered significant because they would be adequately accounted for by these policies or plans.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Energy Based on Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Proposed Program would have a significant impact related to energy if it would:
result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during Proposed Program construction or operation or
conflict with or obstruct a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Alternative 1 (Proposed Program): New Management Framework with Limits on Facility Size and Rate of Expansion
Impact GHG-1: Generate GHG Emissions That May Have a Significant Impact on the Environment or Conflict with an Applicable Plan, Policy, or Regulation Adopted for the Purpose of Reducing the Emissions of GHGs
Implementation of the Proposed Program could result in the development and operation of new aquaculture facilities along the coast of California. GHG emissions would be generated during the construction and decommissioning of offshore aquaculture facilities. GHG emissions also would be generated during normal operations of aquaculture facilities. Based on the significance threshold of no-net-increase used for the Proposed Program, GHG emissions generated during construction, decommissioning, and operations of the aquaculture facilities could result in a considerable contribution to global climate change and associated significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, this impact would be potentially significant.
Implementing the Proposed Program would result in the construction and operation of offshore finfish, offshore/subtidal shellfish, and offshore/subtidal seaweed facilities located at various points along the California coast. Each new facility would include offshore facilities for the rearing of finfish, rearing of shellfish, or production of seaweed. Under the Proposed Program, up to 30 new facilities could be developed along the California coast, with no more than three facilities developed per year. This section discusses the GHG emissions associated with constructing, decommissioning, and operating the offshore aquaculture facilities that would be developed under the Proposed Program. Construction and decommissioning phases are considered together in the section below because activities to implement these phases would be similar.
Aquaculture Facility Construction and Decommissioning The construction of each new aquaculture facility (offshore finfish, offshore/subtidal shellfish, and offshore/subtidal seaweed facilities) would involve installing offshore aquaculture facilities and potential onshore facilities to support each offshore aquaculture facility. Construction of offshore facilities for all three facility types would result in GHG emissions associated with the use of marine vessels and auxiliary engines on the marine vessels; however, because of the specific characteristics of offshore finfish facilities (e.g., construction and deployment of large cages for the finfish), there would be a higher level of GHG emissions associated with constructing those facilities (708 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent [MTCO2e]) when compared to constructing shellfish and seaweed facilities (157 MTCO2e). (See Appendix C for calculation details.) GHG emissions also would be generated from construction worker commute trips during construction of both the onshore and offshore facilities. Implementing the Proposed Program also would involve decommissioning of both the onshore and offshore aquaculture facilities at the end of the useful life of the facilities. Decommissioning of offshore facilities would result in GHG emissions from the use of marine vessels to deconstruct and retrieve materials associated with the offshore aquaculture facilities. Table 4.10-2 identifies the total estimated GHG emissions that would be generated during construction and decommissioning of offshore facilities under the Proposed Program. The potential construction of onshore facilities would include site preparation, building construction, and parking lot construction, which could generate greenhouse gas emissions from the use of construction equipment and worker commute vehicles during California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-9 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
various phases of construction. However, per existing lease requirements, land-based facilities would be required to adhere to existing regulations and processes of local jurisdictions and, potentially, the Coastal Commission. While CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including greenhouse gas reduction requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. As a result, it is reasonable to expect that similar requirements would be imposed during review of onshore facilities by local jurisdictions and/or the Coastal Commission to reduce any impacts associated with onshore facilities.
Aquaculture Facility Operations Implementing the Proposed Program would involve the operation of new offshore finfish, offshore/subtidal shellfish, and offshore/subtidal seaweed facilities. The operation of these facilities would result in GHG emissions associated with the use of marine vessels during maintenance and operations of the offshore facilities. For shellfish and seaweed operations, this would include the use of marine vessels and on-board equipment for the seeding, inspection, and harvesting of shellfish and seaweed, as well as regular repairs, maintenance, and inspection of the offshore facilities. For finfish facilities, this would include the use of marine vessels and on-board equipment for the delivery of fish into fish cages, fish feeding operations, and fish harvesting. Marine vessels would also be used for regular repairs, maintenance, and inspection of the offshore finfish facilities. Table 4.10-2 summarizes total and amortized annual construction emissions, annual operational emissions, and total annual emissions associated with full buildout of the Proposed Program. See Appendix C for modeling details.
Table 4.10-2 GHG Emissions Estimates for Aquaculture Facility Construction, Decommissioning, and Operations
Construction and Decommissioning Activity GHG Emissions
Total Proposed Program construction and 1 10,215 MTCO2e decommissioning (30 facilities statewide)2 Total Proposed Program construction and 409 MTCO2e/year decommissioning (annually, amortized over 25 years) Operational Activity Annual GHG Emissions One Finfish Facility 128 One Shellfish/Seaweed Facility 63
Total Proposed Program operation (30 facilities statewide) 2,533 MTCO2e/year Combined Activities Annual GHG Emissions Total Proposed Program operations (30 facilities statewide) 2,941 MTCO2e/year + Amortized (25 years) construction emissions
Notes: GHG = greenhouse gas; MTCO2e/year = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year
1 Construction and decommissioning emissions account for a one-time increase in GHG emissions or activity associated with the construction and, at a later point, decommissioning of the facility.
2 This estimate accounts for the total emissions associated with construction and decommissioning of 30 facilities that would be permitted under the Proposed Program. Up to three facilities could be constructed per year.
Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2019
As shown in Table 4.10-2, implementation of the Proposed Program would result in an estimated annual increase of 2,941 MTCO2e per year over existing conditions. This emission estimate is considered conservative because of the programmatic nature of this analysis and level of detail available. It should be noted that coastal and marine ecosystems, specifically mangroves, seagrasses, and salt marshes, serve as natural areas of carbon sequestration through the process of photosynthesis and can effectively sequester carbon. Aquaculture, particularly shellfish and seaweed aquaculture operations, also have the potential to sequester carbon through the production of species of seaweed and shellfish that sequester carbon during the growing process (Ahmed et al. 2017). The potential for
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
carbon sequestration in aquaculture varies depending on a number of factors, including the type of products being produced at aquaculture facilities (e.g., varieties of seaweed and shellfish), the end use of these products (e.g., human consumption, biofuels, agricultural fertilizers), and the type of management practices being used for aquaculture operations (Ahmed et al. 2017). Despite these variabilities in carbon sequestration potential, some forms of aquaculture have the potential to serve as net CO2 sinks and have the potential to serve as a viable GHG reduction strategy. These include the use of seaweed for bio-fuel production, use in agricultural fertilizers, use in cattle feed to reduce methane emissions from cattle production (Duarte et al. 2017). Additionally, shellfish sequester carbon as part of the development of their shells, serving as a carbon sink (Filgueira et al. 2015). CNRA recently released the draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. Through this plan and other efforts, the State is actively exploring carbon sequestration potential through the management of natural and working lands in the state, including marine habitats, to serve as a long-term GHG reduction strategy in helping the State to meet its long-term GHG reduction goals (CNRA 2019). The Proposed Program would include the permitting and development of up to 30 new aquaculture facilities along the coast of California. As discussed above, the potential for aquaculture products to sequester carbon depends on several key factors that cannot be known at this time; of particular importance is the end use of seaweed and shellfish, which have the greatest potential to sequester carbon. Therefore, although new aquaculture facilities developed under the Proposed Program may result in additional carbon sequestration, it is not possible to quantify the level of sequestration as part of this analysis.
Effects of Climate Change with Respect to Aquaculture Operations CEQA requires the evaluation of the effects of a project on the environment but does not require the consideration of impacts of the environment on a project, except under special circumstances. For that reason, the following is presented as expository information regarding the potential effects of climate change with respect to the Proposed Program. Under the Proposed Program, new aquaculture facilities could be developed at various locations along the coast of California. As a result of climate change, sea level rise will continue to threaten coastal communities and infrastructure through more frequent flooding followed by permanent inundation of low-lying areas and increased erosion of cliffs, bluffs, dunes, and beaches. Projections under all global GHG emissions scenarios predict accelerating sea level rise. By 2050, at least 12 inches (30 centimeters) of sea level rise is projected. Over the next few decades, the greatest coastal impacts associated with sea level will very likely occur when large storms coincide with elevated sea levels during El Niño events or high astronomical tides (OPR et al. 2018b). As noted in the Coast and Oceans Report, part of California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, commercial and recreational fishing infrastructure and businesses are especially vulnerable to impacts from sea level rise and associated storm surge (OPR et al. 2018b). The combination of sea level rise and coastal flooding during storm events would have an impact on future onshore aquaculture facilities developed as part of the Proposed Program. This impact could result in permanent damage to onshore aquaculture facilities or the harbors and marine facilities that support aquaculture operations. Permanent damage caused by sea level rise or temporary coastal flooding events could also cause temporary interruptions in the operation of aquaculture facilities, leading to lost revenue for the facilities. Conversely, offshore facilities may also be resilient to sea-level changes with anticipatory designs and anchorage adjustments over time within the lease area. Climate change is affecting fish stocks and ecosystems in California, as well as the human communities that depend on them, through warmer temperatures, sea level rise, acidification, extreme events, and changing ocean chemistry. Ocean acidification affects many shell-forming species, including oysters, mussels, abalone, crabs, and the microscopic plankton that form the base of the oceanic food chain (Kroeker et al. 2010, 2013). Species vulnerable to ocean acidification include economically important species such as Dungeness crab and Olympia oysters (Cooley and Doney 2009, Marshall et al. 2017). The impacts of increased ocean temperatures and ocean acidification could have a considerable effect on fish stocks and ecosystems in California and, in turn, affect the new aquaculture facilities constructed under the Proposed Program. In particular, increased ocean temperatures and ocean acidification resulting from climate change could have an impact on the overall health of the finfish, shellfish, and seaweed varieties that are being produced at new aquaculture facilities and could lead to a loss of productivity for the new
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
facilities; increased risk of disease in the finfish, shellfish, and seaweed varieties being produced; and potential increases in the cost of operations or loss of revenue for the facilities. As discussed in Section 2.4.4 of Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” administration of the Proposed Program would include an adaptive management approach to implementation of the Proposed Program, which would involve continuously observing and assessing the production system performance, the variability of environmental conditions, and the extent and specifics of permitting and monitoring requirements governing new projects. This approach would involve considering the potential variability of environmental conditions, including the impacts of climate change, and would ensure that necessary changes to the Proposed Program would be made to effectively adapt to these impacts. The financial sustainability of aquaculture operations requires the consistent production and sale of aquaculture products. It is anticipated that as climate change continues to affect marine habitats and potentially negatively affect production, aquaculture operations will adjust operations accordingly (e.g., shift to more resilient fish, shellfish, or seaweed species) to maintain the financial stability of their operations. Additionally, the permitting process for new facilities would include hazard analysis and specific siting criteria for the location of new facilities, which would also reduce the overall risk of the impacts of climate change on new aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program. These components would greatly reduce the impact of climate change on new aquaculture facilities developed under the Proposed Program.
Summary As shown in Table 4.10-2, construction and decommissioning of aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program would collectively generate 10,215 MTCO2e, equivalent to 409 MTCO2e per year when amortized over 25 years, and the operation of these facilities would result in 2,533 MTCO2e per year. Total Proposed Program operation emissions, including amortized GHG emissions from construction and operational activity, would be 2,941 MTCO2e per year. Therefore, the Proposed Program would result in emissions above the no-net-increase threshold used for this analysis. As a result, the Proposed Program would conflict with CARB’s 2017 scoping plan and the State’s long-term GHG reduction targets, resulting in a considerable contribution to global climate change. As noted above this does not account for the carbon sequestration potential of aquaculture to reduce GHG emissions because the ultimate fate of the harvested product cannot be predicted. However, to meet CEQA’s mandate of good faith disclosure (California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz, supra, 177 Cal.App.4th at p. 979) and to not risk understating potential future impacts in light of the uncertainties, this PEIR classifies this GHG impact as potentially significant, notwithstanding the reasonably foreseeable GHG reductions that could result.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure GHG-1: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1
Mitigation Measure GHG-2: Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-2
Mitigation Measure GHG-3: Quantify and Offset Remaining GHG Emissions CDFW shall make recommendations to the Commission to adopt the following requirements for the approval of aquaculture facilities and ensure that all aquaculture leases adopted by the Commission will be required to meet these terms. All GHG emissions generated by facilities under the Proposed Program (i.e., construction and operational) shall be fully offset to achieve net-zero emissions, including mobile-source GHG emissions, through the use of renewable energy at offshore facilities, the purchase of carbon offsets as described in CCR Title 3, Division 8, Chapter 1, Section 8305(a)(1), or other mechanisms approved by the FGC in consultation with CARB. To determine the magnitude of carbon offsets required for each facility to meet the standard of no net increase in GHG emissions, before permits are issued for individual facilities, a GHG reduction plan (GHGRP) shall be developed and submitted for approval to CDFW. The GHGRP shall quantify construction and operational GHG emissions from the individual offshore facility seeking entitlement approval based on specific facility size, type, and design at that time.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
The GHGRP to be developed for each new permitted facility may include quantification of the carbon sequestration potential of the products to be produced at the facility. The quantified reductions may be used in the estimation of the facility’s net GHG emissions as part of the GHGRP and may demonstrate that facility would result in net-zero emissions, in which case no carbon offsets would need to be purchased. Quantification of the carbon sequestration potential for the facility shall use the best available methodology and must be supported by substantial evidence to ensure that carbon sequestered through facility operations is stored in perpetuity and would not be rereleased by the end use of the products produced at the facility. Carbon offset protocols established by CARB or affiliated entities should be used to verify the carbon sequestration potential of new facility operations. If offsets are purchased, the total magnitude of carbon offsets for an individual facility shall be determined based on a one-time mass emissions level associated with total construction activity plus an annual operational emission estimate (multiplied by a 25-year period) less the GHG reductions associated with any end-use sequestration potential, such that construction, operations, and decommissioning of the facility result in no net increase in GHG emissions.
Significance after Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-1, GHG-2, and GHG-3 would require the quantification and reduction of GHG emissions associated with construction, decommissioning, and operation of each aquaculture facility as well as potential carbon sequestration associated with facility operations. Also pursuant to Mitigation Measure GHG-3, any remaining emissions identified would be offset at a sufficient amount to demonstrate that no net increase in GHG emissions would result. With implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-3 as part of the Proposed Program would result in no net increase in GHG emissions. As a result, the Proposed Program would not conflict with CARB’s 2017 scoping plan or any other plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs and would not result in a considerable contribution to global climate change. This impact would be less than significant. While there would be GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the Program, marine aquaculture produces relatively low levels of GHG emissions compared to the production of other proteins on a full life-cycle basis, particularly animal based products. For example, beef results in approximately eight times more GHG emissions than finfish aquaculture per ton of food produced (Gaines n.d.). Of all proteins, only soybean production results in fewer GHG emissions per ton of food product than marine finfish aquaculture. Of all food products evaluated by the University of California at Santa Barbara Bren School, marine aquaculture (finfish, shellfish, and seaweed) represented the second, fourth, and seventh lowest GHG-producing food products, with beef, mutton/goat, poultry, pork, and dairy representing the highest levels of GHGs emissions per ton of food product. Other research has been able to quantify the specific range of GHG emissions associated with various sources of protein sources. This research found that aquaculture products produce 4–75 kilograms (kg) CO2 per kg protein; poultry, 10–30 kg CO2 per kg protein; pork, 20–55 kg CO2 per kg protein; beef, 45–640 kg CO2 per kg protein; lamb, 51–750 kg CO2 kg protein (Nijdam et al. 2012). This illustrates that as California’s population grows and demand for protein sources increases, aquaculture- based seafood production provides a unique opportunity to provide a low GHG intensive protein source to Californians. Research has also shown that the GHG intensity of seafood is largely dependent on the end use of seafood products with lower GHG emissions associated with seafood which is produced for human consumption rather than processed as feed or other products (Parker et al. 2018). Imported seafood consumed in California can, depending on the circumstances (Farmery et al. 2015), be more GHG intensive than seafood produced in state. Research has shown that transportation related emissions from imported seafood is often a large portion of the product’s total life-cycle emissions with products traveling “thousands of kilometers from their origin to their point of processing and ultimately to the market, in some cases passing through multiple national borders in the process” (Parker et al. 2018, 336). As noted, in the Project Description, one of the objectives of the Proposed Program is to substantially reduce the associated carbon footprint and lost economic opportunities associated with imported marine aquaculture product. Although it is not possible to quantify the exact reductions, it is anticipated that implementation of the Program would result in a net life-cycle reduction in GHG emissions from in-state production of seafood that is consumed in California. Further, as California continues to reduce GHG emissions from activities within the state in general (e.g., State Renewable Portfolio Standard for energy, fuel efficiency standards for vehicles), activities associated with the production of seafood in-state would be less GHG intensive than imported seafood which may not have as strict GHG emissions regulations as California. Finally, as California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-13 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
discussed above, marine aquaculture has the potential to serve as a source of carbon sequestration, particularly for shellfish and seaweed production and could result in reductions of GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Program.
Impact GHG-2: Result in the Wasteful, Inefficient, or Unnecessary Consumption of Energy, or Wasteful Use of Energy Resources or Conflict with or Obstruct a State or Local Plan for Renewable Energy or Energy Efficiency
Implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the construction, operation, and eventual decommissioning of new offshore finfish, offshore/subtidal shellfish, and offshore/subtidal seaweed facilities. Construction and decommissioning of offshore facilities would result in the use of passenger vehicles for construction worker commute trips, marine vessels, and auxiliary equipment on marine vessels, resulting in the consumption of gasoline and diesel fuel. Operational activity at the offshore facilities under the Proposed Program would result in the use of diesel fuel in marine vessels and auxiliary equipment on marine vessels. Energy use as part of construction, operation, and decommissioning of the offshore facilities that would be developed under the Proposed Program would not be considered a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. This impact would be less than significant.
Implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the construction and operation of offshore finfish, offshore/subtidal shellfish, and offshore/subtidal seaweed facilities located at various points along the California coast. Each new facility would include both offshore facilities for the rearing of finfish, rearing of shellfish, or the production of seaweed. Implementation of the Proposed Program would also include the decommissioning of both the offshore facilities at the end of each facility’s useful life. As discussed above in the methodology section, the following sections include a discussion of energy use associated with the construction, decommissioning, and operations of new aquaculture facilities that would be developed under the Proposed Program.
Aquaculture Facility Construction and Decommissioning The construction of each new type of aquaculture facility would involve installing offshore aquaculture facilities. For the construction and decommissioning of offshore facilities, the use of marine vessels and auxiliary equipment on the vessels would result in the consumption of diesel fuel; gasoline and diesel fuel also would be consumed for construction worker commute trips to and from the construction site. Table 4.10-3 presents information on energy use for the construction and decommissioning of offshore aquaculture facilities to be developed under the Proposed Program.
Table 4.10-3 Aquaculture Facility Construction and Decommissioning Energy Use Estimate
Construction and Decommissioning Activity Diesel Fuel (Gallons) Gasoline (Gallons) One finfish facility 25,869 2,394 One shellfish facility 9,416 2,394 One seaweed facility 9,416 2,394 Total Proposed Program (30 facilities statewide) 894,018 143,665 Notes: Gasoline gallons include on-road gallons from worker trips. Diesel gallons include marine vessel and auxiliary equipment usage. The sum of each facility type may not equal the total due to rounding. Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2019
Aquaculture Facility Operations Implementing the Proposed Program would result in the operation of new offshore finfish, offshore/subtidal shellfish, and offshore/subtidal seaweed facilities. For shellfish and seaweed operations, the use of marine vessels for the seeding, maintenance, and harvesting of shellfish and seaweed would result in the consumption of diesel fuel. For finfish facilities, the use of marine vessels for the distribution of young fish into cages, fish feeding operations, and fish harvesting would result in the consumption of diesel fuel. Table 4.10-4 presents fuel consumption estimates for each type of aquaculture facility, as well as the total annual fuel consumption with full buildout of the Proposed Program.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy
Table 4.10-4 Aquaculture Facility Operation Energy Use Estimate
Operational Activity Diesel Fuel (Gallons) One finfish facility 25,273 One shellfish facility 15,858 One seaweed facility 15,858 Total Proposed Program (30 facilities statewide) 569,898 Notes: Diesel gallons include marine vessel and auxiliary equipment usage. The sum of each facility type may not equal the total due to rounding.
Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental in 2019
As shown in Table 4.10-3, construction and decommissioning activity associated with the implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the consumption of 143,665 gallons of gasoline and 894,018 gallons of diesel fuel. The use of marine vessels and auxiliary equipment for the construction of offshore aquaculture facilities as part of implementation of the Proposed Program is considered a necessary part of the construction process and would not be considered a waste of energy. As shown in Table 4.10-4, operational activity associated with the implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the consumption of 569,898 gallons of diesel fuel. The use of marine vessels and the associated consumption of diesel fuel are considered a necessary part of facility operations and not wasteful. Energy use as part of construction and operation of the offshore facilities under the Proposed Program would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. This impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures No mitigation is required.
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size) Under Alternative 2, there would be no size limit on the new aquaculture facilities. So, although the same number of new facilities would be permitted, the anticipated increase in the size of each new facility would result in increased levels of construction, operation, and decommissioning activity at each facility, resulting in higher levels of GHG emissions. Without specific details on the size of new facilities under Alternative 2, it is not possible to quantify the increased level of GHG emissions at each facility or for the whole Proposed Program. Through implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG-1, facilities would need to offset all GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of the facilities, resulting in a no net increase in GHG emissions. Mitigation Measure GHG-1 would also apply to Alternative 2. As a result, the facilities under Alternative would also result in a no net increase in GHG emission and the significance conclusions reached for the Proposed Program would be the same for Alternative 2. For the same reasons identified for the increase in GHG emissions, implementing Alternative 2 also would result in a greater level of energy use than would implementing the Proposed Program. Although the size of offshore facilities would be larger under Alternative 2, the energy use associated with operation of the facilities is considered a necessary component of facility operations and would not be a wasteful or inefficient use of energy. The differences between the Proposed Program and Alternative 2 are not substantial enough to change the characteristics of how energy would be used and would not alter the significance conclusions reached for the Proposed Program.
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program) Under the No Program Alternative, there would be no development of in-water finfish culture and no change in the current CDFW management of aquaculture operations in the state. All aquaculture expansion would occur either in land-based facilities (shellfish or finfish) or in in-water shellfish facilities. Without a new management framework, there would be fewer new aquaculture leases. The potential effect on GHG emissions of land-based facility expansion would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program. Given the no-net- increase threshold used in this analysis, it is very likely that GHG emissions would be generated under the No
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.10-15 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Ascent Environmental
Program Alternative and would result in a considerable contribution to global climate change. With implementation of the same mitigation, the significance conclusions for the No Program Alternative would be the same as those reached for the Proposed Program, but GHG emissions would be less owing to fewer new leases. Similarly, the potential effect on energy use at land-based facilities would occur under the same existing regulatory processes identified for the Proposed Program, but there would be fewer aquaculture leases. Through new permits for land-based facilities, there would be a decrease in energy use under the No Program Alternative. However, the significance conclusions reached for Alternative 3 would be the same as those for the Proposed Program as the characteristics of how energy would be used (in terms of wastefulness, inefficiency and unnecessary consumption would be the same.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.10-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
4.11 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
4.11.1 Introduction to Cumulative Analysis This PEIR provides an analysis of cumulative impacts of the Proposed Program considered together with other past, present, and probable future projects producing related impacts, as required by Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines. The goal of such an exercise is twofold: first, to determine whether the overall long-term impacts of all such projects would be cumulatively significant, and second, to determine whether the incremental contribution to any such cumulatively significant impacts by the Proposed Program would be “cumulatively considerable” (and thus significant). Cumulative impacts are defined in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” A cumulative impact occurs from “the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15355[b]). Consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, the discussion of cumulative impacts in this draft PEIR focuses on significant cumulative impacts. Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides, in part, the following: [t]he discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact. A proposed project is considered to have a significant cumulative effect if:
the cumulative effects of development without the project are not significant and the project’s additional impact is substantial enough, when added to the cumulative effects, to result in a significant impact, or
the cumulative effects of development without the project are already significant, and the project contributes measurably to the effect. The term “measurably” is subject to interpretation. The standards used herein to determine measurability are that the impact must be noticeable to a reasonable person or must exceed an established threshold of significance (defined throughout the resource sections in Chapter 4 of this draft PEIR). An adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts must include either a list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative effects or a summary of projections from an adopted local, regional, or statewide plan, related planning document, or related environmental document that describes conditions contributing to the cumulative effect (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130[b][1]). Because of the extensive Program area under consideration and the programmatic nature of this analysis, the following discussion includes a description of the general types of projects that occur or could occur within the Program area and could contribute to cumulative impacts, as well as coastal development projections and plans pertaining to cumulative effects within the Program area.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.11-1 Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
The geographic area that could be affected by the Program and is appropriate for cumulative impact analysis varies depending on the environmental resource topic, as presented in Table 4.11-1.
Table 4.11-1 Geographic Scope of Cumulative Impact Analysis
Resource Topic Geographic Area Aesthetics Local (public viewpoints) Air quality Regional (affected air basin–pollutant emissions that have regional effects) Local (immediate project vicinity—pollutant emissions that are highly localized) Biological resources Regional (special-status species populations) Local (project vicinity) Cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources Regional (affected tribal territories) Land use Local (local government jurisdictions) Recreation Local (project vicinity) Transportation, traffic, and marine navigation Local (project vicinity) Regional (offshore shipping channels) Water quality and oceanography Regional (offshore) Local (onshore—immediate project vicinity) Greenhouse gas emissions and energy Global (greenhouse gas emissions) Regional (energy)
TIMEFRAME
The timeframe of the projects, programs, and plans considered in the cumulative setting is 10 years from March 23, 2018, which is the release date of the notice of preparation for this PEIR. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125(a), the release date for the notice of preparation reflects the PEIR’s “baseline,” or “existing conditions” setting. Potential future projects are considered approximately 10 years into the future because this is the timeframe assumed for implementation of the Proposed Program and constitutes the period within which cumulative impacts could occur.
4.11.2 Related Projects and Plans
TYPES OF EXISTING OR POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJECTS IN PROGRAM AREA
Because of the extensive Program area under consideration and the programmatic nature of this analysis, including a list of specific projects is not feasible. Descriptions of the general types of projects that exist and are anticipated to occur within the Program area and could contribute to cumulative impacts are presented below.
Marine Aquaculture Marine aquaculture in the United States includes production of fish and shellfish with the primary species being salmon, oysters, clams, and shrimp. Finfish production occurs in ponds, raceways, recirculating systems, and ocean net-pens. Shellfish farmers employ on- and off-bottom culture techniques with mesh bags and trays, floating bags and trays, rack and bag, and long lines suspended from submerged lines and floats. Other farmed fish and shellfish include cobia and moi, mussels and abalone, as well as nonfood ornamental fish, and species used for restoration and enhancement programs, such as white seabass and redfish. Generally, the three types of marine aquaculture facilities, determined based on their location, are land-based, subtidal/offshore, and intertidal. Land-based facilities can include tanks, raceways, or ponds and related administrative or support structures. Water used for land-based facilities can be municipally supplied and discharged California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.11-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts to sanitary sewers or can be drawn from and discharged to the marine environment. Subtidal and offshore waters encompass the area deeper than the intertidal zone and extend out to the 3-nautical-mile (nm) limit of State jurisdiction. Facilities within subtidal/offshore areas may include net-pens or tethered lines with anchors. Most current marine aquaculture operations in California occur in intertidal waters that are shielded from exposure to the open ocean, such as bays or estuaries. The intertidal zone, also known as foreshore and seashore and sometimes referred to as the littoral zone, is the area that is above water at low tide and underwater at high tide. Intertidal zones along the California coast include sandy beaches, rocky shores, tidal flats, and coastal marsh along the shores of estuaries and lagoons. Under the Program, the maximum size limit of an offshore finfish facility would be 200 surface acres; offshore shellfish and seaweed facilities would be limited to 400 surface acres each. These size limitations would not apply to land- based marine aquaculture and support facilities; however, for the purposes of this analysis, land-based facilities supporting offshore operations are anticipated to be approximately 10,000 square feet per lease. In addition to size, a limited rate of expansion under the Proposed Program would constrain the number of new offshore or subtidal leases per 2-year period to no more than two projects of each type (finfish, shellfish, and seaweed), potentially resulting in approvals of up to six new aquaculture leases per 2-year period. Accordingly, full buildout of the Proposed Program would result in up to 10 projects of each type of aquaculture facility, for a combined total of 30 aquaculture facilities within a 10-year period.
Energy Development
Oil and Gas Development Off the coast of California, oil and natural gas development occurs in both federal and state waters. The Pacific Outer Continental Shelf Region of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) manages oil and gas facilities in federal waters offshore of California. There are 34 federal oil and gas leases offshore of southern California that cover approximately 89 million acres (BOEM 2019a). Existing oil and gas facilities in state waters are managed by the California Coastal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission, and any local government with authority offshore. Oil production from offshore wells accounts for roughly 6 percent of California’s total oil production. New oil and gas development along the coast of California is limited by the fact that there is a permanent moratorium on new offshore oil and gas leasing in state waters. A similar ban was in place for federal offshore waters until it was rescinded in 2008 to allow for new leases. Although there is a leasing moratorium in state waters, the California Department of Conservation permits the drilling, reworks, and abandonments of existing wells in state waters extending 3 miles from the coastline (California Department of Conservation 2019). The types of potential impacts of existing and future oil development that could combine with the effects of the Proposed Program include temporary construction effects on water quality and marine biota, loss of habitat on the ocean floor due to permanent structures, and risk of damage to biological resources and water quality from vessel discharges and oil leaks.
Ocean Energy The development of renewable energy from the ocean is of increasing interest off the coast of California. Sources of renewable ocean energy include wind energy, wave energy, ocean currents, and solar. BOEM is the bureau within the U.S. Department of the Interior responsible for managing development of the nation’s offshore energy resources in an environmentally and economically responsible way. In 2018, BOEM published a call for information and nominations to obtain nominations from companies interested in commercial wind energy leases within the proposed areas off central and northern California. BOEM is currently working with the State of California on planning for potential leasing for offshore wind energy in federal waters off California (BOEM 2019b). For example, in 2018, the Redwood Coast Energy Authority (RCEA) submitted a lease application to BOEM as a first step in developing an offshore wind energy project. RCEA is currently engaging the community of local organizations through public outreach and awaiting lease approval (RCEA 2018).
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.11-3 Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
The types of potential impacts of ocean energy development that could combine with the effects of the Proposed Program include loss of surface and bottom habitat to permanent structures, obstruction to navigation, possible interference of mooring and anchorage lines with commercial and recreational fishing, hazard to migrating marine mammals and fish, localized water quality degradation from equipment leakage and sediment disturbance, destruction of marine life, and degradation of scenic oceanfront views.
Transmission and Telecommunication Lines The California Energy Commission regulates the construction and operation of transmission and telecommunication lines off the coast of California. Transmission and telecommunication lines are typically laid on or buried in the seafloor and may extend throughout the Program area, from the shoreline to the outer edge of the coastal zone. Transmission lines are associated with offshore oil, gas facilities, and renewable energy. As of 2016, there were more than 12 underwater transmission cables in California (California Energy Commission 2017:12). The types of potential impacts associated with installation of transmission and telecommunication lines that could combine with the effects of the Proposed Program include disturbance of bottom habitat, hazards to shipping and navigation, water quality degradation from sediment disturbance, and hazards to marine mammal migration.
Commercial Fisheries Commercial fisheries span the coast from southern to northern California. Both recreational and commercial fishermen follow the regulations enforced by CDFW and the California Fish and Game Commission in state waters and the National Marine Fisheries Service and the Pacific Fishery Management Council in federal waters. For many years, there has been a significant commercial fishery off the California coast. In 2015, commercial fishing in California landed 186 million pounds of finfish and shellfish, generated 113,900 jobs, and $23.1 billion in sales (U.S. Department of Commerce 2017:36). In 2017, 26 whale entanglements were reported off the coast of California. The majority of large whale entanglements reported were associated with specific fisheries or gear types (NOAA 2017) that would not be used under the Proposed Program. Potential cumulative impacts associated with commercial fisheries include hazards to marine navigation and disturbance to marine bird and mammal migration, feeding, and breeding. Commercial fishing can also result in mortality to unmarketable fish species as a result of incidental catch (also referred to as bycatch).
Marine Transportation Shipping channels and safe transport lanes are demarcated throughout the coastal zone (Program area) and offshore in federally regulated waters. The demarcated lanes are regulated for safe passage by large ocean-going vessels that do not often enter the nearshore zone except to make calls at ports with facilities and physical conditions that are able to accommodate larger vessels. In addition to State-regulated and federally regulated maritime traffic, the Program area supports a large volume of recreational and commercial boaters operating closer to shore (sheltered and protected waters and nearshore waters). A serious concern exists about the number of whales seriously injured or killed due to vessel strikes in southern California, how this may be affecting their populations, and measures that can be taken to minimize the risk. The only known source of juvenile and adult mortality for blue whales is fatal collisions between ships and whales, although noise, chemical pollution, and fishery interactions likely also affect the population. Between 1988 and 2007, 21 blue whale deaths were reported along the California coast (McKenna et al. 2015:221). Potential cumulative impacts associated with marine transportation include navigational hazards and air emissions.
Other Land-Based Development within Coastal Counties This PEIR considers expansion of the aquaculture industry over a 10-year period. Most pending development applications currently before local and State agencies are focused on market demand in the nearer term. To account for some of this yet unknown development that is likely to occur along the California coastline within the timeframe considered by the PEIR, the analysis considers the projected population growth through 2028. Population growth is associated with an increase in residential and commercial development, an increased labor force, and an increased
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.11-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts use of public services. The California Department of Finance’s projected population growth in coastal counties is presented in Table 4.11-2.
Table 4.11-2 Projected Population Growth in California Coastal Counties
Jurisdiction 2018 Estimated Population 2028 Estimated Population Statewide 39,952,483 43,304,691 Del Norte County 26,901 27,450 Humboldt County 136,785 140,497 Los Angeles County 10,327,815 10,794,209 Marin County 263,394 271,007 Mendocino County 89,459 92,865 Monterey County 446,873 482,647 Orange County 3,220,451 3,402,027 San Diego County 3,346,155 3,589,032 San Francisco County 888,817 968,416 San Luis Obispo 280,488 297,326 San Mateo County 779,546 835,614 Santa Barbara County 453,733 485,180 Santa Cruz County 278,495 297,962 Sonoma County 507,490 547,012 Ventura County 860,426 909,352 Source: DOF 2019
PROGRAMS AND PLANS APPLICABLE TO PROGRAM AREA
The following overarching plans and programs apply to or affect the Program area.
Marine Protected Areas In California, CDFW has taken a regional approach to implementing the Marine Life Protection Act. The act directs the State to evaluate marine protected areas (MPAs) to improve recreational, educational, and research opportunities. An MPA is a discrete area located seaward of the mean high tide line that is managed with regulations that are more restrictive than the regulations in the general area, designed to protect or conserve marine life and habitat. MPAs include state marine reserves, state marine parks, and state marine conservation areas. California is divided into five regions with respect to implementation of the Marine Life Protection Act:
North Coast—California/Oregon border to Alder Creek near Point Arena,
North Central Coast—Alder Creek to Pigeon Point,
Central Coast—Pigeon Point to Point Conception,
South Coast—Point Conception to the California-Mexico border, and
San Francisco Bay—waters within the San Francisco Bay.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.11-5 Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
National Marine Sanctuaries Across the U.S., the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration manages 13 national marine sanctuaries and one marine national monument. Of those, the West Coast Regional Office manages four national marine sanctuaries encompassing 15,333 square miles along California’s coast: the Channel Islands, Cordell Bank, Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries. Each of these sanctuaries provides comprehensive and coordinated conservation management through the implementation of a management plan. Each management plan includes a policy framework that guides current and future activities within the sanctuary. Future aquaculture operations seeking permits to operate within a sanctuary would be assessed by the sanctuary administrator and be required to comply with that sanctuary’s specific regulations. A Memorandum of Agreement coordinating the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries with State agency parties having aquaculture oversight or related public trustee responsibilities is in place related to nonnative shellfish aquaculture activities in Greater Farallones and Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuaries.
California Coastal National Monument The U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM) manages more than 20,000 rocks, islands, exposed reefs, and pinnacles off the California coast as well as 7,924 acres of public land in six onshore units: Trinidad Head, Waluplh-Lighthouse Ranch, Lost Coast Headlands, Point Arena-Stornetta, Cotoni-Coast Dairies, and Piedras Blancas. BLM prepares resource management plans that serve as land use management tools for sensitive resources. The resource management plans contain guidance, objectives, policies, and management actions designed to resolve a wide range of natural resource and land use issues that exist for this picturesque portion of California’s coastal landscape. BLM manages only the portion of these rocks and islands that extends above the mean high tide line, so submerged lands in state waters are the responsibility of the State of California. The management plan’s principal focus is the protection and preservation of the geologic, biological, and cultural values that exist on these federal lands. Development of any kind is discouraged on California Coastal National Monument (BLM 2019).
California Coastal Act The California Coastal Act was enacted in 1976 by the State legislature to provide long-term protection of the state’s 1,100-mile coastline for the benefit of current and future generations. The act created the CCC to regulate development along the coast through permitting authority. In addition to establishing the permitting procedure for development along the coast, the California Coastal Act prioritizes the creation and retention of public access. The California Coastal Act requires each city or county within the coastal zone to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) for certification by the CCC. LCPs contain a land use plan and implementation measures that specify the appropriate location, type, and scale of development within the coastal areas they govern. After an LCP has been certified, a local government may issue coastal development permits. In the absence of an LCP for a specific city or county and in certain areas on land and throughout state waters, the CCC issues coastal development permits. It is important to note that coastal development permits issued by local governments are subject to appeal to the CCC.
City and County General Plans and Zoning Ordinances Under California law, cities and counties are required to prepare a general plan, a long-range, comprehensive planning document, to guide future development at the local level. Pursuant to Section 65302, each general plan is mandated to include the following elements: land use, circulation, conservation, housing, open space, noise, safety, environmental justice, and air quality. Each element contains a policy framework that guides future development and resource conservation. All subdivisions, public works projects, and zoning decisions must be consistent with the general plan. Each jurisdiction is also required to adopt a zoning ordinance. The purpose of the zoning ordinance is to implement the policies of the general plan; therefore, all zoning designations must comply with the general plan.
CLIMATE CHANGE REGULATION
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth’s surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past 20 years. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.11-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases (GHGs)—primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how Earth’s climate responds to them. Increasing concentrations of GHGs are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. With respect to the regulation of GHGs, the California Legislature has adopted climate change-related bills to control and reduce the emission of GHGs in order to slow the effects of global climate change. These actions are briefly summarized as follows:
Executive Order No. S-3-05 directed California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050.
AB 32 established regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions. AB 32 put a cap on GHG emissions, setting a target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020.
Executive Order No. B-30-15 established a new GHG emissions reduction target 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
4.11.3 Cumulative Impact Analysis The following sections contain a discussion of the cumulative effects anticipated from implementation of the Proposed Program, together with related projects and planned development within the state, for each of the nine environmental issue areas evaluated in this PEIR. The analysis conforms with Section 15130(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, which specifies that the “discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the effects attributable to the project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.” This cumulative analysis assumes that all mitigation measures identified in Chapter 4 to mitigate impacts of the Proposed Program are implemented. The analysis herein analyzes whether, after implementation of Proposed Program–specific mitigation that minimizes environmental effects, the residual impacts of the Proposed Program would cause a cumulatively significant impact or would make a considerable contribution to existing/anticipated (without the project) cumulatively significant effects. Where the Proposed Program would so contribute, the availability and feasibility of additional mitigation is considered.
AESTHETICS
Cumulative impacts on aesthetics and visual resources represent the sum of changes in the visible environment over time. These may occur slowly over time or at a rapid pace depending on the development timeline. Large land-based projects tend to introduce substantial changes, as they alter an appreciable portion of a viewer’s observed environment and generally introduce new structures, surfaces, textures, and colors that may contrast with the existing environment. Smaller land-based projects are visually less intrusive or obvious and may go largely unnoticed when viewed in the context of the larger visual environment of an observer. Development along the California coast is regulated by adopted plans and regulations. However, development has altered scenic resources, degrading the existing visual character, and introduced new sources of light and glare. These activities have resulted in an existing significant cumulative effect on visual resources along the coastline. Cumulative development, including that described in Section 4.11.2, continues to contribute to the degradation of scenic resources. The continued construction of aquaculture facilities could result in additional changes to the visual landscape of the California coast. These changes have the potential to be cumulatively significant when considered along with other visual changes that could occur as a result of other reasonably foreseeable future development in the Program area, as described above. However, compliance with the required environmental processes for individual aquaculture projects as outlined in Section 4.2, “Aesthetics,” and Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting,” would ensure that future
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.11-7 Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental aquaculture did not result in cumulatively considerable visual impacts. Specifically, offshore aquaculture facilities would be required to apply for a Coastal Development Permit, granted by the CCC or a city or county to which the CCC has delegated this authority. Future onshore facilities would also be required to comply with local plans and regulations adopted to protect scenic resources such as an LCP, bay management plan, general plan, and zoning ordinance. As discussed for Impacts AES-1, AES-2, and AES-3, enforcement of regulatory requirements adopted to protect visual resources would ensure that impacts on scenic resources are minimized to the extent feasible. Further, while CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including visual-resource-mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. Therefore, implementing the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative visual resource impact. With respect to nighttime illumination and glare impacts, all future onshore development under the Proposed Program would be regulated by the local jurisdiction’s discretionary review process, which would require consistency with applicable standards for outdoor lighting. Future projects under the Proposed Program would be required to implement Mitigation Measure AES-1; and future onshore development would be required to comply with local plans and regulations related to lighting, including downlighting and shielding to reduce light spillover. Therefore, the Proposed Program with mitigation is not anticipated to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to light and glare conditions, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
AIR QUALITY
Future levels of emissions from cumulative projects would be a function of the type and scale of the projects under construction and operation, including those described in Section 4.11.2. Projected increases in population would likely increase traffic and associated emissions. Existing emissions have resulted in an existing significant cumulative effect on air quality within coastal counties, specifically within those air districts that are not in attainment of ambient air quality standards. Cumulative development and future population growth would continue to contribute to air pollutant emissions. Implementing the Proposed Program would result in the construction, operation, and the eventual decommissioning of aquaculture facilities located at various points along the California coast. This would all result in emissions of criteria air pollutants from marine vessels, heavy-duty construction equipment, passenger vehicles, and truck trips. As discussed for Impact AQ-1, construction of onshore and offshore aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program would result in generation of emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROG) above the significance thresholds for all air districts where new facilities would be located. Additionally, as discussed for Impact AQ-2, operation of new aquaculture facilities would generate levels of NOX and ROG that would exceed the significance thresholds for all air districts where new facilities could be located. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would apply on-site ROG and NOX control measures for aquaculture facility construction and operation. With implementation of this mitigation, ROG emissions during construction and operation would be reduced below the significance threshold for all air districts, similarly reducing its contribution to cumulative impacts. However, even with implementation of mitigation, the construction- and operations-related emissions of NOX, as a precursor emission contributing to the formation of ozone, could exceed air district thresholds, thereby resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact for any air district that is in nonattainment for ozone.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Threats to fish and wildlife habitat, including native vegetation and sensitive natural communities, throughout California include development, habitat loss and fragmentation due to land use changes, the spread of invasive species, water quality issues, and direct injury and mortality. As discussed in Section 4.4, “Biological Resources,” a variety of habitats, sensitive communities, and special-status plant and animal species are known to occur along the California coast. Development and population growth have resulted in an existing significant cumulative effect on
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.11-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts biological resources. Cumulative development, including that described in Section 4.11.2, continues to contribute to the disturbance and degradation of onshore and offshore biological resources. Installation and operation of future offshore aquaculture facilities could adversely affect special-status species and sensitive benthic communities due to increased nutrient discharge, nutrient deposition, food web alteration, bottom disturbance from anchor placement, and decreased light penetration/shading. As discussed for Impacts BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require CDFW to establish criteria for the siting of aquaculture facilities and determine that the location of facilities avoid or minimize adverse effects as part of the aquaculture lease application process under the Proposed Program. Therefore, implementing the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact with respect to special-status species and sensitive benthic communities. As discussed for Impact BIO-4, aquaculture operations could result in entanglements, vessel collision, and noise and light disturbance to special-status species and nesting birds. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4a (BIO-1) would require a proposed aquaculture facility be sited to ensure it is located away from seabird and special-status species habitat so that the risk of entanglement, noise and light disturbance, and collision is not substantial. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-4b includes best practices, including prohibition of acoustic harassment devices, to minimize these impacts. With implementation of this mitigation, the Proposed Program’s contribution to an impact with respect to special-status species and common nesting birds would not be cumulatively considerable. As discussed for Mitigation Measure BIO-5a, CDFW establish best management practices for use of marine aquaculture gear, including netting, the design of which would be critical for preventing escape of cultured finfish and the introduction and spread of nonnative invasive species. Mitigation Measures BIO-5b, BIO-5c, BIO-5d, and BIO-5e would require that marine aquaculture operators demonstrate that plans are in place for addressing the potential for introduction of nonnative invasive species or escape of cultured finfish to avoid adverse effects on native species, including special-status species To address this impact, lease applicants will, as part of mitigation measure implementation, implement adaptive management, as described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” and may be required to revise/amend plans during their respective lease periods. Preparation and implementation of these plans (including amendments to the plans) would substantially reduce the potential for substantial adverse effects on special-status species and habitat; however, the potential for introduction of nonnative invasive species (including cultured shellfish species) and of uncontrolled reproduction between escaped finfish and wild fish cannot be precluded. Therefore, the Proposed Program’s contribution to potential impacts on special-status species from effects associated with gamete release would be cumulatively considerable. Mitigation Measure BIO-5e includes various practices and requirements that comprise all known feasible mitigation available to reduce the impact and allows for the implementation of new and increasingly effective management strategies if they are developed in the future to reduce this impact. As discussed for Impact BIO-6, cultured fish and shellfish under the Proposed Program could introduce pathogens into the marine environment, potentially infecting wild organisms. The adaptive management program, as described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” would reduce impacts by regularly reviewing and addressing effects related to aquaculture and would implement any necessary revisions of operational requirements. Additionally, existing FGC regulations require rigorous measures to prevent pathogen introduction, monitor cultured populations for disease, and address infections within cultured populations if they arise. Enforcement of regulatory requirements would ensure that the Proposed Program would not contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact. As discussed in Mitigation Measure BIO-6a, shellfish and finfish aquaculture facilities will be spaced a sufficient distance from one another to reduce the likelihood of disease outbreak. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO- 6b (Mitigation Measure BIO-5d) will further reduce the likelihood of disease transmission by escaped finfish by requiring a Finfish Escape Prevention and Response Plan. As discussed in Mitigation Measure BIO-6c, aquaculture operations must prepare and implement a Plan for Shellfish or Finfish Disease Transmission and Response. With implementation of this mitigation, the Proposed Program’s contribution to an impact with respect to transmission of disease from cultured shellfish or finfish to wild shellfish or finfish would not be cumulatively considerable. Construction of land-based support facilities as part of the Proposed Program could result in adverse effects on special-status plants, special-status wildlife, or sensitive habitats (e.g., waters of the United States, waters of the state,
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.11-9 Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities) if present within the footprint or in the vicinity of these facilities. Any proposed land-based facilities would be required to comply with local jurisdiction requirements, including CEQA requirements. Existing lease requirements for state water bottom lease applicants mandate compliance with applicable resource management and preservation requirements, including those established by the Coastal Zone Act and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. While CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including biological- resource-mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. As discussed for Impact BIO-7, lease applicants would be required to mitigate any site-specific impacts to sensitive species or habitat and either avoid or provide site-specific mitigation (e.g., mitigation lands, preservation in perpetuity, etc.) such that substantial adverse effects would not occur as a result of development of onshore facilities and thereby reducing the cumulative contribution of the Program to less than considerable. As a result, the Proposed Program’s cumulative impact on special-status species and habitat through construction of land-based facilities would be less than significant. As discussed for Impact BIO-8, finfish aquaculture could reduce wild fish populations through the use of fish meal and fish oil, as well as feed ingredients produced from harvested wild fish. Reduced wild fish populations could limit food supplies for special-status fish, seabirds, and marine mammals. However, SB 201 (FGC Section 15400) requires that aquaculture leases and regulations adopted by the California Fish and Game Commission for marine finfish aquaculture minimize the use of fish meal and fish oil and, where feasible, use alternative ingredients in the formulation of fish feeds. (Refer to Section 2.4.4, “Lease Requirements Common across Program Alternatives.”) Due to the limited supply of fish meal and oil and the increasing cost differential between fish meal and oil and other protein and oil sources, it is reasonable to assume that in order to maintain a cost-efficient industry, the development and use of alternate ingredients will progressively reduce use of fish meal and fish oil. Because SB 201 requires that finfish aquaculture leaseholders minimize the use of fish meal and fish oil, substantial adverse effects to wild fish populations and the special-status species that rely on them would also be minimized. If fish meal and fish oil use are not being minimized, new best management practices would be developed and implemented as part of the plan update. Thus, the Proposed Program’s contribution to potential impacts on wild fish populations would not be cumulatively considerable. Installation of offshore aquaculture facilities could result in placement of marine aquaculture structures within important migratory corridors or in the vicinity of nursery sites, which could result in a disruption in the normal movement, breeding, and foraging behavior of marine organisms. Proposed Program operation, including the use of vessels to transport feed, equipment, and personnel, could also result in disruption of movement corridors or disturbance to nursery sites. As discussed for Impact BIO-9, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-9a (BIO-1) and BIO-9b (BIO-4b) would reduce impacts on migratory and movement corridors or nursery sites because they would require marine aquaculture operations to identify and avoid important wildlife movement or migratory corridors, seabird colonies, marine mammal rookeries, and special management areas (e.g., MPAs, Areas of Special Biological Significance) and to establish best management practices (e.g., vessel speed limits). Therefore, the Proposed Program’s contribution to potential impacts on movement corridors or nursery sites would not be cumulatively considerable. In and of themselves, construction of onshore aquaculture facilities has the potential to result in adverse effects on special-status species or sensitive habitats if they are present within the vicinity of these facilities, thereby potentially conflicting with local policies, local ordinances, or provisions of a habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP). However, existing lease requirements would require applicants under the Proposed Program to demonstrate consistency with local policies and ordinances or provisions of an HCP or NCCP to the extent applicable. Consistency would be achieved by reducing impacts on special-status species and sensitive habitats through developing project design features or implementing avoidance and minimization measures, or by compensating for impacts. Therefore, the Proposed Program’s contribution to local plan conflicts would not be cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.11-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts
CULTURAL, TRIBAL CULTURAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Because all significant cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources are unique and nonrenewable members of finite classes, meaning there are a limited number of these resources, all adverse effects erode a dwindling resource base. The loss of any one archeological, tribal cultural, and paleontological site could affect the scientific value of others in a region because these resources are best understood in the context of the entirety of the cultural system of which they are a part. The cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological system is represented by the total inventory of all sites and other remains in the region. As a result, a meaningful approach to preserving and managing cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources must focus on the likely distribution of cultural resources, rather than on a single project or parcel boundary. The historic lands of California tribal peoples, including along the California coast, have been affected by development since the arrival of Sir Francis Drake of England in 1579 and quickly grew with the establishment of 21 missions from San Diego to Sonoma between 1769 and 1821. Development of tribal lands continued with the discovery of gold, followed by California’s admission to statehood in 1850, the agricultural boom from the late 1800s through the 1930s, and the post–World War II population growth. Similarly, historic resources throughout California have been affected by suburban sprawl, downtown redevelopment projects, and transportation projects. These activities have resulted in an existing significant cumulative effect on historic resources, archaeological resources, tribal cultural resources, and human remains. Cumulative development, including that described in Section 4.11.2, continues to contribute to the disturbance and degradation of cultural resources. The development of onshore aquaculture facilities under the Proposed Program could affect historic, archaeological, tribal cultural resources, or paleontological resources. Pursuant to existing state water bottom lease requirements, lease applicants are required to comply with local jurisdiction’s requirements related to cultural resource protection, as well as PRC Sections 5024 and 5097, as well as the US Secretary of the Interior’s Guidelines for Historic Preservation. As noted above, while CDFW does not have authority over land use, local environmental requirements, or CDP approvals, enforcement of environmental standards, including cultural-resource-mitigating requirements, would be reinforced by CDFW’s ability to terminate a lease, if non-compliance occurred and was not resolved in a timely manner. With respect to previously undiscovered human remains, the Proposed Program identifies a performance measure requiring that project work stop if human remains are discovered during project activities. Compliance with this requirement of project design and compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 7050.5 and 7052 and PRC Section 5097 would avoid disturbance of previously undiscovered human remains. As discussed for Impact CUL-4, compliance with PRC Sections 21080.3.2, 21084.3, and 5097.9 would require consultation with tribes, avoidance of tribal cultural resources, and proper care of significant artifacts if they are recovered. Through adherence with existing lease requirements and other federal, state, and local regulations, the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cultural, tribal cultural, or paleontological resource impact.
LAND USE
The scale and type of development within California is typically regulated by each jurisdiction through adopted long- range plans and zoning ordinances. Before project approval, jurisdictions are required to review applications for consistency with adopted plans. As shown in Table 4.11-2, jurisdictions along the California coast are expected to experience significant population growth through 2028. Planned population growth and local and regional regulation of associated development prevent the occurrence of an existing cumulative land use impact. Implementing the Proposed Program would result in the construction of onshore and offshore aquaculture facilities located at various points along the California coast. Local and regional agencies have authority over the physical development of land within their jurisdictional boundaries through the implementation of adopted land use regulations and policies in general plans, zoning ordinances, and other applicable regulatory standards. Therefore, future onshore aquaculture facilities would be required to undergo the discretionary review processes of local jurisdictions, which would require the project to be consistent with applicable plans, policies, and regulations. As discussed for Impact LU-1, enforcement of adopted regulations by the applicable jurisdiction would ensure that all
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.11-11 Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental future aquaculture facilities are consistent with adopted plans, policies, and regulations. Therefore, the Proposed Program’s contribution to land use impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
RECREATION
As shown in Table 4.11-2, jurisdictions along the California coast are expected to experience significant population growth through 2028. Planned population growth and local and regional regulation of associated development prevent the occurrence of an existing cumulative recreation impact. Future aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program would be commercial in nature and would not involve the development of residential communities or other similar types of development or induce substantial population growth in an area that would require the construction of or expansion of recreational facilities. However, future aquaculture employees may increase the use of existing recreational facilities. As discussed for Impact REC-1, the Proposed Program is expected to create up to 1,500 new employees, which is roughly equivalent to 50 employees at up to 30 marine aquaculture leases (10 of each type) throughout the Program area. Future facilities would likely be spread over a large area, such as the Southern California Bight (as well as throughout the state) rather than concentrated in the same location. This would disperse pressure on recreational facilities from employees associated with the Proposed Program. Therefore, implementing the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact with respect to the physical deterioration of recreational facilities. As discussed for Impact REC-2, construction and installation activities may temporarily restrict public access to surrounding areas for safety reasons, which would disrupt the recreation experience. Implementation of Mitigation Measure REC-2 would require applicant(s) to coordinate with recreation agencies and/or authorized officers of potentially affected recreation areas to minimize disruptions to recreational users and identify alternative recreational areas, as needed. Therefore, the Proposed Program’s contribution to recreation impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND MARINE NAVIGATION
As shown in Table 4.11-2, jurisdictions along the California coast are expected to experience significant population growth through 2028. Planned growth within each coastal jurisdiction includes permanent population increases and development projects that could contribute to the number of vehicles that travel along existing highways, roadways, and local streets, exacerbating transportation impacts. Population growth and development that contribute to the number of on-road vehicles and marine vessels have resulted in an existing cumulative effect on transportation. Construction and operation of future offshore aquaculture facilities permitted under the Proposed Program could increase marine vessel congestion within navigable waters, resulting in potential oceanic hazards, if not regulated properly. As discussed for Impact NAV-1, all aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with State and federal regulations adopted to enhance navigation and vessel safety. Enforcement of navigation and vessel regulations would ensure that impacts on oceanic hazards are minimized to the extent feasible. Therefore, implementing the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to oceanic hazards, in particular due to changes in vessel traffic concentration (i.e., congestion). Similarly, as discussed for Impact NAV-2, future offshore aquaculture facilities would be required to comply with 33 CFR 166, which prohibits the placement of surface structures (e.g., oil platforms or similar offshore installations) within safety fairways to ensure safe navigation, and 33 CFR Section 67.05-25, which requires all structures located in or adjacent to the edges of navigable channels and fairways, or lines of demarcation, to be marked by the lights for the safety of marine commerce. Compliance with these regulations would ensure that implementing the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant marine navigation impact related to disruption of existing vessel traffic patterns and marine navigation. As discussed for Impact NAV-3, operation of onshore aquaculture facilities would generate vehicle trips that could result in increased traffic volumes and delay on roadway segments and intersections. Existing lease requirements for state water bottoms require adherence by applicants with all applicable local laws, including those related to transportation management, which would extend to onshore facilities. Adherence to existing requirements (both California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.11-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Cumulative Impacts imbedded within existing state water bottom lease requirements and within local regulations) would avoid substantial adverse changes and associated conflicts with applicable plans and policies that address the local/regional transportation network. As a result, it is reasonable foreseeable that potential conflicts would be resolved through adherence with existing local regulations, as reinforced by existing state water bottom lease requirements such that no conflicts with plans, policies, or regulations pertaining to the circulation system would occur, and the Proposed Program would not be cumulatively considerable. Development of onshore structures could require or result in new access roads; driveways to facilitate ingress and egress of vehicles; or minor alterations to existing roadways, such as restriping. In addition, onshore development could impede on-site emergency access and/or interrupt the flow of emergency vehicles on nearby roadways if not regulated properly. As discussed for Impacts NAV-4 and NAV-5, future onshore aquaculture development would be regulated by the local jurisdictions’ discretionary review process, which would require consistency with land use regulations, zoning requirements, and applicable policies adopted to ensure adequate emergency access. Enforcement of adopted regulations by applicable jurisdictions would ensure that future aquaculture facilities would not increase hazards, result in incompatible uses, or obstruct emergency access. Therefore, implementing the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant roadway impacts related to increased hazards or inadequate emergency access.
WATER QUALITY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
Water quality is designated as impaired when the levels of a particular pollutant threaten the identified beneficial uses of the water body. Activities that contribute to the impairment and degradation of water quality in California are typically related to land use and development, such as agricultural uses, industrial facilities, and construction activities. In addition, a variety of stressors can affect water quality, including municipal wastewater discharges, nonpoint source contaminants in urban runoff, wet and dry deposition of airborne pollutants, harbor discharges, marine transportation discharges, and discharges of contaminated groundwater. These activities have resulted in an existing significant cumulative effect on water quality. Cumulative development and existing land uses, including those described in Section 4.11.2, continue to contribute to the water quality degradation. As more and varied marine aquaculture facilities become operational, there will be a proportionate increase in the potential for water quality impacts. As discussed for Impact WQ-1, water from land-based aquaculture facilities may contain particulate matter, nutrients, and residuals of therapeutants and other chemicals. However, compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting system, which includes water quality protections tailored for aquaculture would reduce the potential for water quality degradation. Similarly, compliance with the NPDES permitting system would reduce the potential for water quality degradation as discussed for Impact WQ-2. Additionally, implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-3 (BIO-1), which requires aquaculture leases to be sited to ensure sufficient water circulation and depth to allow dispersion of nutrients and other constituents, would also ensure that implementing the Proposed Program would not violate water quality standards or conflict with a water quality control plan. As discussed for Impact WQ-3, intensive production of shellfish aquaculture could alter nutrient cycling and may result in increased productivity in algae and microbial communities. However, the Proposed Program would gradually expand shellfish and seaweed leases and establish an adaptive management process that requires review every 5 years of conditions that could be affected by aquaculture, such as organic and benthic loading and changes in water quality. Therefore, the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to significant cumulative water quality impacts related to substantial degradation of water quality, violation of water quality standards, or conflict with a water quality control plan. As discussed for Impact WQ-4, marine aquaculture facilities could result in some modification of local circulation patterns. However, these changes are unlikely to substantially alter erosion or siltation rates beyond the immediate farmed area. Additionally, the potential structural changes to the benthic environment from the installation of anchors would have isolated and localized effects and would not alter benthic function. The gradual limits on expansion of facilities coupled with the adaptive management process would prevent the development of high-density aquaculture scenarios that could lead to effects beyond the local farm areas. Therefore, implementing the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant erosion or siltation impact. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 4.11-13 Cumulative Impacts Ascent Environmental
Many of the potential land-based, nearshore, or offshore aquaculture facilities that would be permitted through the Proposed Program would be located in areas that could experience tsunami waves, potentially resulting in damage to feed and chemical storage systems and causing an uncontrolled discharge of pollutants. As discussed for Impact WQ-5, implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-5a would reduce the potential for tsunami to damage aquaculture facilities and would ensure that the lessee is prepared to take appropriate action to control an unplanned discharge if damage occurs. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure WQ-5b would reduce the potential for damaged aquaculture components to generate marine debris. Therefore, the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact from pollutant release.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
As discussed in Section 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy,” impacts of GHG emissions and climate change are inherently cumulative. GHG emissions from one project cannot, on their own, result in changes in climatic conditions; therefore, the emissions from one project must be considered in the context of their contribution to cumulative global emissions. For this reason, the impact analysis presented in Section 4.10 addresses cumulative GHG impacts. As discussed for Impact GHG-2, construction and decommissioning activity associated with implementing the Proposed Program would result in the consumption of 143,665 gallons of gasoline and 894,018 gallons of diesel fuel. The use of marine vessels and heavy-duty equipment for the construction of offshore and onshore aquaculture facilities as part of the Proposed Program is considered a necessary part of the construction process and would not be considered a waste of energy. Operational activity associated with the implementation of the Proposed Program would result in the consumption of 569,898 gallons of diesel fuel per year. The use of marine vessels and the associated consumption of diesel fuel are considered a necessary part of facility operations and not wasteful. Energy use as part of construction and operation of the onshore and offshore facilities under the Proposed Program would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. Therefore, the Proposed Program would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant impact related to wasteful or inefficient use of energy.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.11-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
5 OTHER STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter describes other statutory considerations required under CEQA and Senate Bill (SB) 201 that have not been previously addressed. In addition to an examination of project- or program-level impacts, CEQA requires an EIR to evaluate a project’s effect in relation to broader changes occurring or potentially occurring in the surrounding environment. This chapter presents a discussion of CEQA-mandated analysis for growth inducement, significant and unavoidable impacts, and the irreversible commitment of resources for the Proposed Program. In addition, this chapter provides a discussion of user conflict issues, as required by SB 201 (see Section 1.4, “Scope of this PEIR,” for additional information).
5.2 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(e) requires an EIR to evaluate the potential growth-inducing impacts of a proposed project. Specifically, an EIR must discuss the ways in which a proposed project could foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. Growth can be induced in a number of ways, including by eliminating obstacles to growth and by encouraging or facilitating other activities that could induce growth. Examples of projects likely to have growth- inducing impacts include extensions or expansions of infrastructure systems beyond what is needed to serve project- specific demand, and development of new residential or commercial uses in areas that are currently only sparsely developed or are undeveloped. The State CEQA Guidelines are clear that although an analysis of growth-inducing effects is required, it should not be assumed that induced growth is necessarily significant or adverse. Direct growth inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project resulted in:
substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial, or governmental enterprises); substantial short-term employment opportunities (e.g., construction employment) that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary employment demand; or removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess capacity through an undeveloped area). The State CEQA Guidelines do not distinguish between planned and unplanned growth for purposes of considering whether a project would foster additional growth. Therefore, for purposes of this EIR, to reach the conclusion that a project is growth-inducing as defined by CEQA, the EIR must find that the project would foster (i.e., promote or encourage) growth in economic activity, population, or housing, regardless of whether the growth is already approved by and consistent with local plans. The conclusion does not determine that induced growth is beneficial or detrimental, consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15126.2[e]). Environmental effects resulting from induced growth fit the CEQA definition of “indirect” effects in the State CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15358[a][2]). These indirect or secondary effects of growth may result in significant environmental impacts. CEQA does not require that the EIR speculate unduly about the precise location and site- specific characteristics of significant indirect effects caused by induced growth, but a good-faith effort is required to disclose what is feasible to assess. Potential secondary effects of growth could include consequences—such as conversion of open space to developed uses, increased demand on community and public services and infrastructure, increased traffic and noise, degradation of air and water quality, or degradation or loss of plant and wildlife habitat—that are the result of growth fostered by the project.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 5-1 Other Statutory Requirements Ascent Environmental
First and foremost, the Program would not involve the direct development of new housing. The Program is intended to guide the policy, management, and regulatory components of marine aquaculture in the state, which may foster future development of aquaculture-related operations. As it relates to growth inducement, implementing the Program might result in the creation of new jobs and economic opportunities in California. As described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” the reasonably foreseeable compliance responses related to the Program include development of approximately 20 new facilities of each type of aquaculture facility, which could result in up to 3,000 new jobs. This would occur over a period of at least 20 years and generally would be located in harbors, marinas, and other, similar industrial locations. As noted in Section 4.1, “Introduction and Scope of the Environmental Analysis,” this would not represent a substantial increase in the local/regional workforce and would not generate substantial increases in population or housing demand in the coastal zone. Jobs are anticipated to be filled primarily by nearby residents. Substantial demand for new housing as a result of the program implementation is not anticipated. In terms of economic growth and as discussed in Section 1.1, “Background on Marine Aquaculture,” the state’s ocean fishing industry has fluctuated dramatically in recent years. However, an increase in demand has been recognized by the federal government and the aquaculture industry as a strong opportunity for future industry growth and food security. The Program is intended to provide for this expected industry growth; however, it would not eliminate obstacles to growth or otherwise substantially encourage or facilitate other activities that could induce growth. Rather, it would accommodate and regulate activities associated with increased demand for aquaculture products that would be sourced from California instead of elsewhere in the world market. Thus, because the Program would not foster substantial economic or population growth, there would not be significant growth-inducing impacts associated with Program implementation.
5.3 SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS Significant and unavoidable impacts are those significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. Chapter 4 of this PEIR identifies the following potentially significant and unavoidable impacts of the Proposed Program.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Construction or Decommissioning
Impact AQ-2: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Operation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-5: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through the Introduction and Spread of Nonnative Invasive Species during Finfish or Shellfish Aquaculture or Wild Fish Populations through Escaped Cultured Finfish
5.4 IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES CEQA requires a discussion of the irreversible environmental changes that would occur as the result of a project (Section 15126.2[d] of the State CEQA Guidelines). This includes a discussion of the commitment of current or future uses of nonrenewable resources, potential irreversible environmental damage from accidents associated with the project, and secondary or growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar use. The construction and operation of existing and future aquaculture facilities would involve the commitment of renewable and nonrenewable environmental resources, including land, water resources, construction materials, and fossil fuels. Conversion of state land to aquaculture uses would require a lease for use of state water bottoms. Conversion of land owned by other government entities or by private entities would require some form of permitting;
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Other Statutory Requirements
at a minimum, a coastal development permit would be required. If a state lease was not renewed or operations ceased on privately owned lands, land formerly used for aquaculture operations could revert to its natural state. The existing management framework includes a requirement that provisions for removing structures be included in the terms of a state lease. However, it is less likely that some land-based facilities, such as large warehouses, tank structures, and paved processing areas, would be fully restored to their natural state. By comparison, most in-water facilities could be more easily removed and the areas returned to their natural state. If larger energy generation or extraction facilities are eventually used to house aquaculture operations, these facilities may also represent an irreversible change. Irretrievable commitments of nonrenewable resources associated with the Program would include those described below. These issues are addressed in various sections of Chapter 4, as follows:
The consumption of significant amounts of nonrenewable energy for construction, maintenance, and operation of new development or transportation projects is discussed in Chapter 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy.”
The use of building materials, fossil fuels, and other resources for construction, maintenance, and operation of new development or transportation improvements is addressed in Chapter 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy.”
Degradation of ambient air quality through construction and operation of new facilities is addressed in Chapter 4.3, “Air Quality.”
Emission of greenhouse gases that would contribute to global climate change is addressed in Chapter 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy.”
5.5 POTENTIAL FOR OCEAN USER CONFLICT As discussed in Section 1.4, “Scope of This PEIR,” SB 201 identifies 10 factors that must be addressed in this PEIR. These factors direct consideration of the effects of the Proposed Program on user groups, including commercial fishing and recreational users. This factor is consistent with California Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 1700, which sets forth policy of the state to encourage the conservation, maintenance, and utilization of the living resources of the ocean and other waters under the jurisdiction and influence of the state. Further, FGC Section 15411 requires that aquaculture operations not “unreasonably impede public access to state waters for purpose of fishing, navigations, commerce, or recreation.” FGC does however allow for limited public access to the extent necessary to avoid damage to the operation and the culture of aquatic life therein. In other words, the SB 201 factors and FGC recognize that marine aquaculture may require consideration with respect to other marine activities (e.g., commercial and recreational fishing), which are also identified in the code and by the Commission as part of the Commission’s and CDFW’s public trust responsibility. The potential for conflicts with commercial fishing and recreational users is an important issue. Because it would result in economic and social impacts rather than environmental consequences, the issue would not qualify for analysis in an EIR (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15131). However, to provide valuable information to decision makers and the public, and to satisfy the requirements set forth under SB 201, this discussion presents an analysis of potential conflicts of use between recreational and commercial fishers and aquaculture uses in the ocean under the Proposed Program. Under the Proposed Program, offshore marine finfish aquaculture may occur from the oceanward edge of the intertidal zone outward to 3 nm. That area generally coincides with desirable locations for various recreation activities, such as surfing, kayaking, canoeing, snorkeling, scuba diving, sightseeing from watercraft, and passenger fishing vessel fishing (CDFW 2009a). Commercial fishing may also occur within 3 nm of the coast and further out into the open ocean (CDFW 2009b). In general, offshore marine finfish aquaculture typically consists of a collection of cages or net-pens that contain the cultured fish through most of the growth cycle, from minimum juvenile size to harvestable market size. The potential for conflicts between aquaculture practices and commercial fishing and recreational users, including fishing is related to the physical presence of net-pens and anchor/moorings systems, which could prohibit passage to certain areas or be placed in an area where a commercial or recreational fishing may be considered desirable.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 5-3 Other Statutory Requirements Ascent Environmental
Generally, people who participate in ocean recreation and commercial fishing activities are not bound to a specific site. That is, people kayaking, canoeing, snorkeling, scuba diving, and sightseeing are likely to seek areas where substantial flora and fauna are present, such as kelp forests, and areas likely to contain interesting marine species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, and seabirds. Commercial and recreational fishers would generally follow schools of fish, appropriate to the season, or areas designated for commercial fishing. Sonar is typically used to locate fish in the open ocean. As discussed in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” up to 10 offshore marine finfish facilities could be expected to be installed through 2030. These facilities would occupy a total of 2,000 acres (approximately 3 square miles) along the California coast within 3 nm of the shore. Although facilities may be placed anywhere along the 840- mile California coastline, it is expected that most would be located in the Southern California Bight. Further, prior to any lease approval, each proposed facility would be evaluated for site suitability by CDFW staff, which would take into consideration essential commercial and recreational fishing opportunities, and would also undergo a public hearing process before the Commission, as well as site-specific CEQA analyses (and their associated public disclosure requirements). Refer to Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives” for further information. For operational facilities, to ensure that ocean users are made aware that aquaculture facilities are present, the FGC contains the following minimum marking requirements (CCR Title 14, Section 237[c][7]): (A) One buoy anchored on each of the four corners and one buoy, possessing radar-reflecting capabilities, anchored in the center of each aquaculture lease. All buoys used to define the boundaries of an aquaculture lease shall be marked in conformance with the International Association of Lighthouse Authorities Maritime Buoyage system regulations (33 CFR Section 62.33 and 66.01-10). (B) All buoys shall bear the Aquaculture Lease No. M- (followed by the appropriate number). (C) Buoys marking the boundaries of an aquaculture lease shall be maintained at all times. If buoys are lost, displaced or are otherwise removed from an aquaculture lease, they must be replaced within a two-week period, weather conditions permitting, or the lease may be subject to termination. (D) If aquaculture leases are located in areas too shallow to effectively maintain buoys, the four corners (boundaries) of a lease may be defined by stakes extending no less than three feet above the surface of the water at mean higher high water supporting the markings prescribed in subsection (A). Stakes used to define the limits of an aquaculture lease shall be marked and maintained in the same manner as buoys in the preceding subsections. (E) Each aquaculture lessee shall make application to the U.S. Coast Guard, Aids to Navigation Branch, 400 Ocean Gate, Long Beach, CA 90822, for approval of the buoys and markings to be established on aquaculture leases. These markings would provide sufficient notification to oceangoing vessels, scuba divers, and other open water users to avoid conflicts. In addition, the potential for conflicts would be limited because of siting constraints and considerations placed on aquaculture facilities. Under the Program, these siting requirements, currently under the jurisdiction of several agencies, would be compiled and considered as preliminary screening criteria for suitability, including consideration of places that would be of interest to fishers and recreational users. For instance, the following siting criteria would be considered:
Through implementation of the aforementioned screening criteria, the associated aquaculture activities would not significantly harm the ability of the marine environment to support ecologically significant flora and fauna.1 Specifically, leases will avoid aggregating and breeding areas, and migratory routes of specially protected marine species, such as sea turtles, marine mammals, seabirds, and listed species protected under federal or State law, Essential Fish Habitat, eelgrass, kelp stands, rocky bottom settings, and habitat-forming invertebrates, such as sea pens.
1 Per FGC Section 15400(b)(2): “A lease shall not…significantly harm the ability of the marine environment to support ecologically significant flora and fauna.” Eelgrass and kelp beds are examples of ecologically significant flora that would be considered under this criterion. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Other Statutory Requirements
The associated aquaculture activities would not significantly interfere with commercial or recreational fishing or shellfishing activities, nor with public access to state waters for the purpose of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation.2 Furthermore, as noted in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” a proposed lease site may be dismissed for various reasons, including the following conditions:
It is not separated by an appropriate minimum distance from other aquaculture leases. The minimum distance between leases should be sufficient to avoid cumulative impacts on water quality and wildlife interactions that could be caused by interactive effects between multiple aquaculture facilities. This consideration would be site specific and depend on multiple oceanographic and biological factors.
It is located within a Marine Protected Area, as established through the Marine Life Protection Act, or an Area of Special Biological Significance, as established by the California Ocean Plan.
It is located within areas that have a documented record of being important fishing grounds for a given fishery. Because each site would be evaluated individually, these requirements would limit the location of aquaculture operations to areas with less chance of conflict with groups such as commercial fishers and recreational users and therefore be more appropriate to finfish leases. Minimum marking requirements would also allow for open water users to be aware of lease locations and avoid collisions with nets or anchor systems. Thus, conflicts between recreational and commercial fishers, and aquaculture users would not be substantial.
2 Per FGC Section 15401: “Areas used by the public for digging clams shall not be leased.” Also, FGC Section 15411: “Lessees under a state water bottom lease may not significantly impede public access to state waters for purpose of fishing, navigation, commerce, or recreation.” California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 5-5 Other Statutory Requirements Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
6 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 INTRODUCTION State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a) requires EIRs to: describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason. This section of the State CEQA Guidelines also provides guidance regarding what the alternatives analysis should consider. Subsection (b) further states that the purpose of the alternatives analysis is as follows: Because an EIR must identify ways to mitigate or avoid the significant effects that a project may have on the environment (Public Resources Code Section 21002.1), the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. The State CEQA Guidelines require that the EIR include information about each alternative sufficient to allow meaningful evaluation, analysis, and comparison with the proposed project. If an alternative would cause one or more significant effects in addition to those that would be caused by the project as proposed, the significant effects of the alternative must be discussed, but in less detail than the significant effects of the project as proposed (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[d]). The State CEQA Guidelines further require that the “no project” alternative be considered (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[e]). The purpose of describing and analyzing a no project alternative is to allow decision makers to compare the impacts of approving a proposed project with the impacts of not approving the proposed project. If the no project alternative is the environmentally superior alternative, CEQA requires that the EIR “shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126[e][2]). In defining “feasibility” (e.g., “feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project”), State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)(1) states, in part: Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). No one of these factors establishes a fixed limit on the scope of reasonable alternatives. In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to consider the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations (e.g., legislative mandates). These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by the lead agency’s decision-making body, which in this case is the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission). (See PRC Sections 21081.5, 21081[a][3].)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 6-1 Alternatives Ascent Environmental
6.2 CONSIDERATIONS FOR SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
6.2.1 Attainment of Program Objectives As described above, one factor that must be considered in selection of alternatives is the ability of a specific alternative to attain most of the basic objectives of the project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[a]). Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” articulates CDFW’s objectives for the Program,1 as follows:
Encourage the expansion of marine aquaculture activities in a sustainable, feasible, and environmentally sound manner.
Align the scale and rate of aquaculture development with the State’s capacity to effectively and adaptively manage the Program across the state.2
Substantially reduce reliance on imported shellfish, finfish, and seaweeds to meet the annual seafood demand of the people of California.
Substantially reduce the associated carbon footprint and lost economic opportunities associated with imported marine aquaculture product.
Supplement the sustainable harvest of wild seafood supplies, while ensuring the protection of the state’s natural, marine resources.
Expand employment opportunities along the California coast, and promote domestic economic activity.
Ensure that the Program does not unreasonably interfere with fishing or other existing maritime uses or public trust values.
Ensure that the Program does not unreasonably disrupt existing native marine fish and wildlife and their habitats and does not unreasonably harm the marine environment’s ability to support the health and populations of ecologically significant flora and fauna.
Minimize the risk of introduction or spread of invasive species in California state waters.
6.2.2 Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Program Implementing the Proposed Program could result in the following potentially significant and unavoidable impacts, which are described in detail in Chapter 4 of this PEIR.
AIR QUALITY
Impact AQ-1: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Construction or Decommissioning
Impact AQ-2: Exceed Emissions Thresholds for Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors during Operation
1 Chapter 2 also cites the various statutory authorities for the Program Objectives, including PRC Section 825 et seq., FGC Sections 1700(f), 13.5, 703.3, AB32, provisions of SB 201, 2014 Assembly Joint Resolution 43 (Chesbro), and CA Food & Ag Code Sections 5260 and 7700 et seq. 2 This may include funding and staff capacity, as well as scientific understanding, and may be informed by technological developments, scientific studies and monitoring feedback, and changing oceanographic or market conditions, among other factors. California Department of Fish and Wildlife 6-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Alternatives
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Impact BIO-5: Substantially Affect Special-Status Species and Habitat through the Introduction and Spread of Nonnative Invasive Species during Finfish or Shellfish Aquaculture or Wild Fish Populations through Escaped Cultured Finfish
6.3 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT NOT EVALUATED FURTHER As described above, State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(c) provides that the range of potential alternatives for a project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and that could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. Alternatives that fail to meet the fundamental project purpose need not be addressed in detail in an EIR (In re Bay-Delta Programmatic Environmental Impact Report Coordinated Proceedings [2008]) 43 Cal.4th 1143, 1165–1167). In determining what alternatives should be considered in the EIR, it is important to acknowledge the objectives of the project, the project’s significant effects, and unique project considerations. These factors are crucial to the development of alternatives that meet the criteria specified in Section 15126.6(a). Although, as noted above, EIRs must contain a discussion of “potentially feasible” alternatives, the ultimate determination as to whether an alternative is feasible or infeasible is made by lead agency decision makers. (See PRC Section 21081[a][3].) At the time of action on the project, the decision makers may consider evidence beyond that found in this EIR in addressing such determinations. The decision makers, for example, may conclude that a particular alternative is infeasible (i.e., undesirable) from a policy standpoint and may reject an alternative on that basis provided that the decision makers adopt a finding, supported by substantial evidence, to that effect and provided that such a finding reflects a reasonable balancing of the relevant economic, environmental, social, and other considerations supported by substantial evidence (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego [1982] 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 417; California Native Plant Society v. City of Santa Cruz [2009] 177 Cal.App.4th 957, 998). The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected during the planning or scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. The following alternatives were considered by CDFW but are not evaluated further in this draft PEIR.
6.3.1 New Management Framework with Limit on Facility Size Only CDFW considered an alternative that would limit only the size of new leases of various types in the subtidal or offshore setting, and the associated land-based support facilities, that would be approved by the Commission. Similar to the Proposed Program, acreage limitations for marine finfish would be different from those set for offshore shellfish or macroalgae, based in part on anchoring requirements. In either case, such limits would be intended to align maximum lease size limits with projects that provide meaningful tests of both economic feasibility and environmental impact. The lease size limitations (200 acres for finfish and 400 acres for shellfish and macroalgae) would apply to the area occupied by the facility itself (whether at the surface or within the water column) with a corresponding lease footprint on the bottom determined by anchoring requirements that will be depth dependent and project specific. Prototypical or conceptual offshore aquaculture production facilities and land-based support facilities would likely be similar to those described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” for Alternatives 1 and 2. Under this alternative, no explicit limitations would be established on the number of new leases the Commission could approve in a given period, other than the existing reviews, checks, and considerations already in place for individual proposed projects. As a result, the rate at which marine aquaculture could develop along the California coast would be potentially faster than it would be under Alternatives 1, 2, and 3; however, no other discernible differences between the Proposed Program and this alternative would exist. With a potentially increased rate of development, the ability for implementation of adaptive management strategies and for CDFW to conduct monitoring, reporting, and enforcement of aquaculture facility operations across the state would be reduced. As a
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 6-3 Alternatives Ascent Environmental
result, this alternative would not achieve one of the basic project objectives and would not potentially reduce the impacts of the Proposed Program. It may result in impacts greater than those of the Proposed Program by constraining CDFW’s, or other responsible entities’, abilities to conduct monitoring, reporting, and enforcement of aquaculture facility operations. Therefore, it was dismissed from further analysis in this EIR.
6.3.2 New Management Framework with Less Acreage per Lease CDFW also considered further reducing the maximum lease area for aquaculture operations to 100 acres for marine finfish and 200 acres for shellfish and aquaculture. Compared with the Proposed Program, this alternative would likely require a similar amount of land disturbance for land-based facilities. Impacts to biological and cultural resources impacts that would be commensurate with the relative maximum acreage of the different facilities. Further, although the overall yield of each facility might be smaller because less acreage would be used, the number of employees required would remain the same or would be similar; therefore, the associated operational impacts (e.g., related to transportation, air quality, noise, and greenhouse gases) would not be reduced compared to those of the Proposed Program. In addition, a reduction in the size of each lease would not reduce the need for monitoring, reporting, and enforcement by CDFW staff. With a commensurate increase in the number of smaller leases approved by the Commission, which would be counter to CDFW’s ability to “effectively and adaptively manage the Program across the state,” this alternative would not achieve several other basic project objectives. For these reasons, this alternative was dismissed from further analysis in this EIR.
6.4 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED FOR DETAILED ANALYSIS The alternatives identified in this section have been selected for detailed analysis in this PEIR. Alternative 1 is the Proposed Program. Alternatives 2 and 3 are listed below. They are described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” and the environmental impacts of each are analyzed in Chapter 4. In addition to the Proposed Program and Alternatives 2 and 3, this chapter also evaluates two additional alternatives (Alternatives 4 and 5).
Alternative 2: New Management Framework with Limit on Rate of Expansion Only (No Limit on Facility Size)
Alternative 3: No New Management Framework (No Program)
6.4.1 Alternative 4: New Management Framework with Geographic Limitations This alternative would involve size and timing restrictions similar to those identified for the Proposed Program, as stated in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives.” Marine finfish leases would be limited to 200 acres, and no more than two would be approved within a 2-year period. Shellfish and macroalgae leases would be limited to 400 acres, and no more than two of each type would be approved within a 2-year period. However, under this alternative, future marine aquaculture operations would be restricted to available areas within the Southern California Bight. No leases would be approved for areas north of Point Conception in Santa Barbara County. Therefore, this alternative would concentrate aquaculture development in a geographic region smaller than that identified for the Proposed Program.
AESTHETICS
Implementing this alternative could result in a greater concentration of marine aquaculture operations within coastal waters of the Southern California Bight, which could be viewed from various points along the California coast, including scenic vistas. As a result, impacts within the Southern California Bight could be greater than those of the Proposed Program. However, north of Point Conception, potential aesthetic impacts would be less than would occur under the Proposed Program because of the lack of marine aquaculture operations. Therefore, although the overall level of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as under the Proposed Program, potential aesthetic
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 6-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Alternatives
impacts would occur within a smaller portion of the California coastline, and from a programmatic perspective, impacts would be considered less than would occur under the Proposed Program but would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to light and glare.
AIR QUALITY
Under this alternative, the same level of development and operations would likely occur as under the Proposed Program. With a potential densification of marine aquaculture operations within the Southern California Bight, there may be opportunity for shared use of land-based facilities and/or marine equipment; however, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that any shared costs/equipment between lease holders would be minimal. As a result, potential air quality impacts during construction and operation of marine aquaculture facilities would be similar to those that would occur under the Proposed Program and would remain potentially significant and unavoidable.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As noted above, implementing this alternative could result in a greater concentration of marine aquaculture operations within coastal waters of the Southern California Bight and could result in greater impacts in that area, compared to the Proposed Program. However, north of Point Conception, potential biological resources impacts would be less than would occur under the Proposed Program because of the lack of marine aquaculture operations. Therefore, although the overall level of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as under the Proposed Program, potential biological resources impacts would occur within a smaller portion of the California coastline, and from a programmatic perspective, impacts would be considered less than those that would occur under the Proposed Program but would remain potentially significant and unavoidable.
CULTURAL, TRIBAL CULTURAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed, implementing this alternative could result in a greater concentration of marine aquaculture operations within coastal waters of the Southern California Bight, as well as land-based development, and could result in greater impacts in that area, compared to the Proposed Program. However, north of Point Conception, potential impacts on cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources would be less than under the Proposed Program because of the lack of marine aquaculture operations, including construction and operational impacts. Therefore, although the overall level of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as would occur under the Proposed Program, potential impacts on cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources would occur within a smaller portion of the California coastline, and from a programmatic perspective, impacts would be considered less than would occur under the Proposed Program but would remain less than significant with mitigation.
LAND USE
Any development of marine aquaculture facilities under this alternative would be subject to the rules and regulations of local and regional agencies that govern physical development within their jurisdictional boundaries, as under the Program. As a result, even though a greater concentration of land development might occur within the Southern California Bight under this alternative, the level of consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations would remain the same as under the Program. Because regulatory compliance is required, impacts would be less than significant.
RECREATION
Implementing this alternative could result in a greater concentration of marine aquaculture operations within coastal waters of the Southern California Bight and could result in greater recreation-related impacts in that area, compared to the Proposed Program. However, north of Point Conception, potential impacts on recreation facilities and opportunities would be less than would occur under the Proposed Program because of the lack of marine California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 6-5 Alternatives Ascent Environmental
aquaculture operations. Therefore, although the overall level of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as the Proposed Program, potential impacts would occur within a smaller portion of the California coastline, and from a programmatic perspective, impacts would be considered less than would occur under the Proposed Program but would remain less than significant with mitigation.
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND MARINE NAVIGATION
Implementing this alternative could result in a greater concentration of marine aquaculture operations within coastal waters of the Southern California Bight, which could result in greater vehicle and marine traffic in that area. As a result, impacts within the Southern California Bight could be greater than those that would occur under the Proposed Program, including potential further limitations on marine travel lanes. However, north of Point Conception, potential transportation impacts would be less than would occur under the Proposed Program because of the lack of marine aquaculture operations and associated roadway and marine travel. Therefore, although the overall level of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as would occur under the Proposed Program, potential transportation impacts would occur within a smaller portion of the California coastline, and from a programmatic perspective, impacts would be considered less than would occur under the Proposed Program but would remain significant and unavoidable with respect to operational traffic conflicts with a local plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the roadway circulation system.
WATER QUALITY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
As noted above, implementing this alternative could result in a greater concentration of marine aquaculture operations within coastal waters of the Southern California Bight and could result in greater hydrology and water quality impacts in that area, compared to the Proposed Program. However, north of Point Conception, potential hydrology and water quality impacts would be less than would occur under the Proposed Program because of the lack of marine aquaculture operations. Therefore, although the overall level of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as would occur under the Proposed Program, potential impacts would occur within a smaller portion of the California coastline, and from a programmatic perspective, hydrology and water quality impacts would be considered less than would occur under the Proposed Program but would remain less than significant with mitigation.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
Under this alternative, the same level of development and operations would likely occur as would occur under the Proposed Program. With a potential densification of marine aquaculture operations within the Southern California Bight, there may be opportunity for shared use of land-based facilities and/or marine equipment; however, for the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that any shared costs/equipment between lease holders would be minimal. As a result, potential greenhouse gas and energy impacts during construction and operation of marine aquaculture facilities would be similar to those that would occur under the Proposed Program and would be less than significant with mitigation.
6.4.2 Alternative 5: New Management Framework with Reduced Lease Size Limitations Under this alternative, the management framework would be altered to reduced lease size limitation. As stated in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” the Proposed Program would limit marine finfish offshore facilities to 200 acres, and no more than two would be approved within a 2-year period; and shellfish and seaweed leases would be limited to 400 acres, and no more than two of each type would be approved within a 2-year period. Under Alternative 5, the number of new leases would remain the same as under the Proposed Program; however, individual shellfish and seaweed cultivation systems would be limited to 200 acres.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 6-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Alternatives
AESTHETICS
Implementing this alternative could result in smaller size of individual shellfish and seaweed cultivation systems compared to the Proposed Program. Because aquaculture systems may be inconsistent with the existing surrounding aesthetic, smaller area shellfish and seaweed system would reduce the area of visual intrusion. In addition, because lease sizes would be smaller, there would be a reduced need for safety and security lighting. Therefore, although the overall number of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as under the Proposed Program, potential aesthetic impacts would occur within a smaller area on an individual basis. From a programmatic perspective, impacts would be considered less than would occur under the Proposed Program but would remain less than significant with mitigation with respect to light and glare.
AIR QUALITY
Under this alternative, the same number and type of facilities could be developed as under the Proposed Program; however, the size of shellfish and seaweed operations would be substantially reduced. Although the overall yield of shellfish and seaweed facilities may be smaller because less acreage would be used, the number of employees required would remain the same or would be similar; therefore, the associated operational air quality emissions would not be reduced compared to those of the Proposed Program. The level of construction, operation, and demolition of facilities would be similar under Alternative 5 and the Proposed Program, and as a result air emissions would be similar. Thus, potential air quality impacts during construction and operation of marine aquaculture facilities would be similar to those that would occur under the Proposed Program, but would remain potentially significant and unavoidable.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Implementation of this alternative would result in a similar number of leases, as the Proposed Program; however, individual shellfish and seaweed systems would cover a smaller area. Smaller sized shellfish and seaweed facilities would result in less culture gear in the water with which wildlife might interact, and would also allow for greater light penetration than under the Proposed Program, thereby resulting in a lower potential to degrade the growth of food web foundation species such as phytoplankton. This could in turn lessen the effect on special-status species that rely upon these foundation species for food, but the accurate measurement or detection of that effect is questionable. Generally, impacts related to marine finfish would be similar to the Proposed Program because the number of leases and their relative sizes would be the same. Because the size of individual shellfish and seaweed leases would be smaller than under the Proposed Program, and thus allow for greater light penetration and less culture gear in the water for potential wildlife interactions, impacts would be considered less than those that would occur under the Proposed Program. but would remain potentially significant and unavoidable.
CULTURAL, TRIBAL CULTURAL, AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed, implementing this alternative would reduce the potential maximum area of individual shellfish and seaweed systems compared to the Proposed Program. All other components related to the Program would remain the same, including finfish cultivation lease sizes and land-based facilities. Generally, shellfish and seaweed systems float above the ocean floor and would not require excavation or other activities that could uncover cultural or paleontological resources. Activities that would require earth-moving activities, such as development of net pens and land-based facilities would be similar in size and number to the Proposed Program. Thus, potential impacts on cultural, tribal cultural, and paleontological resources under Alternative 5 would be similar to those that would occur under the Proposed Program and would remain less than significant with mitigation.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 6-7 Alternatives Ascent Environmental
LAND USE
Any development of marine aquaculture facilities under this alternative would be subject to the rules and regulations of local and regional agencies that govern physical development within their jurisdictional boundaries, as under the Program. While individual shellfish and seaweed facilities would cover a smaller area under Alternative 5, the same number would be developed. Under Alternative 5, the level of consistency with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations would be the same as under the Proposed Program. Because regulatory compliance is required, impacts would be less than significant.
RECREATION
Implementing this alternative would result in a similar numbers and types of facilities as under the Proposed Program. However, shellfish and seaweed facilities would cover half of the area under Alternative 5 compared to the Proposed Program. Potential impacts on recreation facilities and opportunities would be similar to the Proposed Program because of a similar number of facilities would be constructed and similar types of impacts on recreation facilities would be expected. Therefore, because the overall number of marine aquaculture operations would be the same as the Proposed Program, potential impacts would be similar under Alternative 5. Under Alternative 5, impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation, for the same reasons as under the Proposed Program.
TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC, AND MARINE NAVIGATION
Alternative 5 would place limits on the maximum area of shellfish and seaweed operations but would not change the number and type of facilities compared to the Proposed Program. As a result, impacts on vehicle and marine traffic under Alternative 5 would be similar to the Proposed Program. Therefore, potential transportation impacts would be similar to those described for the Proposed Program and would remain less than significant.
WATER QUALITY AND OCEANOGRAPHY
The overall number and type of aquaculture operations would be the same under Alternative 5 as the Proposed Program. However, the maximum size of shellfish and seaweed aquaculture systems would be substantially reduced. While shellfish and seaweed aquaculture are generally expected to result in an overall benefit to water quality the potential adverse effects related to intensive production would be managed through Proposed Program limitations and adaptive management. Impacts related to finfish product and other program aspects would be the same under Alternative 5 and the Proposed Program. Thus, overall, potential water quality and oceanography impacts would be similar to the Proposed Program and under Alternative 5 and would remain less than significant with mitigation.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND ENERGY
Under this alternative, the same type and number of aquaculture facilities would be developed as under the Proposed Program. Alternative 5 differs from the Proposed Program because the maximum area of individual and shellfish and seaweed systems would be substantially decreased. Similarly to the discussion above related to air quality, although the overall yield of each facility might be smaller, because less acreage would be used, the number of employees required would remain the same or would be similar; therefore, the associated operational greenhouse gas emissions would not be reduced compared to those of the Proposed Program. Thus, potential greenhouse gas and energy impacts during construction and operation of marine aquaculture facilities would be similar than those that would occur under the Proposed Program and would be less than significant with mitigation.
6.5 ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE Because Alternative 3 (No Program Alternative), as described in Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives,” would avoid all adverse impacts resulting from construction and operation of marine aquaculture facilities under the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 6-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Alternatives
Proposed Program, it would be the environmentally superior alternative. However, Alternative 3 would not meet the objectives of the Program as presented in Section 6.2 In addition, as noted in Section 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy,” and Chapter 6, “Alternatives”, it is reasonable to assume that, under Alternative 3, the State’s continued reliance on beef, poultry, pork, and dairy, as well as imported seafood (as noted in Section 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy”) would result in substantially greater GHG emissions per ton of food product compared to potential marine aquaculture industry operations within California. Refer to Section 4.10 for further clarification. When the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the State CEQA Guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) require selection of an environmentally superior alternative from among the other action alternatives evaluated. As illustrated in Table 6-1, Alternative 4 would be the environmentally superior action alternative because although the environmental impacts would be similar to those that would occur under the Proposed Program, the geographic span of impacts would be reduced and concentrated on the Southern California Bight. No significant impacts of the Proposed Program would be completely avoided.
Table 6-1 Summary of Environmental Effects of the Alternatives Relative to Those of the Proposed Program
Alternative 5 Proposed Program Alternative 4 Alternative 3 (Smaller Shellfish Environmental Topic (Alternative 1) Alternative 2 (Geographic (No Program) and Seaweed Significance Limitations)* Facilities) Less than significant Less Aesthetics Greater Less Less with mitigation Potentially Similar Air Quality significant and Greater Less Similar unavoidable Potentially Less Biological Resources significant and Greater Less Less unavoidable Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Less than significant Similar Greater Less Less Resources with mitigation Land Use Less than significant Greater Less Similar Similar Less than significant Similar Recreation Greater Less Less with mitigation Less than significant Similar Water Quality and Oceanography Greater Less Less with mitigation Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Less than significant Greater Less Less Similar Less than significant Similar Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Greater Less Similar with mitigation Notes: * - The comparison of effects expressed for Alternative 4 reflects the limited geographic span of the alternative compared to the Proposed Program. The restriction of aquaculture operations to the Southern California Bight would also potentially result in a concentration of effects within the region.
However, on balance, the environmentally superior alternative would be either the Proposed Program, Alternative 4, or Alternative 5 depending on decisions weighing types of environmental benefits and adverse effects by the Commission and CDFW. Implementing the Proposed Program could result in a wider distribution of aquaculture operations, resulting in more widely distributed impacts, whereas implementing Alternative 4 would result in more localized impacts within the Southern California Bight and would eliminate impacts north of the Bight. The reduced size of shellfish and seaweed operations under Alternative 5 would generally result in a lesser degree of impact related to visual and biological resources.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 6-9 Alternatives Ascent Environmental
Nonetheless, these alternatives would likely still result in the potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts identified for the Proposed Program (see Section 6.2.2); none of the alternatives, with the exception of the no program alternative, would reduce all significant impacts to less than significant. In weighing the consideration of the environmentally superior alternative, decision makers must also weigh the relative importance of the intent behind the project, as well as any legislative direction (e.g., SB 201, PRC Section 826, and FGC Section 1700). This would include statements within SB 201 related to preparation of a statewide EIR, which could be interpreted to require that the Program cover marine aquaculture operations statewide, thereby precluding the ability to consider Alternative 4. Therefore, the differences in environmental impacts between these three alternatives are not substantial enough to allow one to be identified as clearly superior to the other.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 6-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
7 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
This chapter describes the public and agency involvement that has occurred and is planned as it pertains to preparation of this PEIR.
7.1 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT As described in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” one of the purposes of CEQA is to establish opportunities for the public to review and comment on projects that may affect the environment. These opportunities include participating in public scoping, commenting on the draft PEIR, and reviewing the final PEIR.
7.1.1 Notice of Preparation Review/Scoping “Scoping” refers to the process used to determine the focus and content of an EIR. It involves soliciting input on the potential topics to be addressed in an EIR, the range of alternatives to be considered, possible mitigation measures, and the agencies with regulatory authority over the program. Scoping is also helpful in establishing methods of assessment and in selecting the environmental impacts to be considered in detail. A notice of preparation (NOP) is submitted to the State Clearinghouse to request public participation and to provide information about the proposed program or project. The tools used in scoping this draft PEIR included stakeholder and interagency consultation before NOP circulation, publication of the NOP, and three public scoping meetings. Stakeholder and interagency consultation is described below.
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
As noted in Chapter 1, “Introduction,” an NOP was submitted to the State Clearinghouse to begin the public scoping period on February 23, 2007. A new NOP was circulated on March 23, 2018. The purpose of an NOP is to solicit participation from responsible and coordinating federal, State, and local agencies and from the public to help determine the scope of an EIR. The 2018 NOP is included in Appendix B. Representatives of agencies, educational institutions, the aquaculture industry, and nonprofit organizations and members of the public provided comments on the NOP during the scoping period. The following key issues were raised during public scoping (see also Appendix B for a summary of scoping comments received):
biological concerns related to:
the escape of cultured organisms and subsequent genetic, disease transmission, and competition effects, including past and present impacts and ecosystem-level impacts;
the impacts associated with a potential increase in disease vectors;
the impacts of predator control activities and devices on nontargeted species;
aquaculture as a pathway for aquatic nuisance species; and
the impacts of aquaculture on protected and sensitive species;
water quality concerns, including pollution and eutrophication from aquaculture operations;
physical impacts on the seafloor affecting sensitive marine habitats;
ecosystem and public health impacts related to the use of fish meal and fish oils and aquaculture discharges into the water;
hazardous materials concerns related to the use of chemicals; and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 7-1 Public and Agency Involvement Ascent Environmental
conflict with existing land uses, including fishery grounds, recreation areas, and natural preserves. Commenters suggested that this PEIR should entail careful and thorough analysis of:
the cumulative impacts of aquaculture;
relevant, available literature and data; and
a No Project Alternative that involves not approving new aquaculture projects SB 201. Also received during scoping was the comment that this PEIR should include a discussion of the types of aquaculture to be covered, including clarification regarding siting restrictions for future operations and the corresponding regulatory jurisdictions over these areas. Furthermore, this PEIR should clarify the regulatory environment for aquaculture permitting to allow for a more streamlined permitting process and to satisfy the requirements of SB 201. It was also suggested that the PEIR should address concerns related to global climate change.
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETINGS
During the scoping period, three meetings were held to share information about the Program and to solicit public participation. The first public scoping meeting was held on March 5, 2007, at the Santa Monica Public Library in Santa Monica, California. The second meeting was held on March 6, 2007, at the Monterey Beach Resort in Monterey, California. The third and final meeting was held on March 7, 2007, at the Wharfinger Building at Eureka Public Marina in Eureka, California. A notice of the meetings was posted on the Internet and sent to resource agencies and members of the public to ensure participation. Approximately 50 people attended the meetings, including several regulatory agency representatives. In 2018, two scoping meetings were held, on April 10, 2018, at the offices of the Sonoma County Water Agency in Santa Rosa, California, and on April 12, 2018, at the Port of San Diego’s offices in San Diego, California. Notice of the 2018 meetings was posted on CDFW’s website for the marine aquaculture PEIR (https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Aquaculture/PEIR) and sent to resource agencies and members of the public to help ensure participation. Approximately 100 people in total attended the 2018 meetings, including several regulatory agency representatives. The scoping meetings provided opportunities for attendees to comment on environmental issues of concern and on alternatives that should be discussed in the draft PEIR. Participants also provided written comments during and after the scoping meeting. The key issues raised during these meetings are included in the list provided above.
7.1.2 Public Review of the Draft PEIR In addition to the opportunities for public input in the earlier phases of developing the PEIR analysis, the draft PEIR will be circulated for public comment. Comments received during the public review period for the draft PEIR will be considered in the final analysis presented in the final PEIR, as described below.
7.1.3 Final PEIR Certification Comments received in response to the draft PEIR will be addressed in a responses to comments addendum. The addendum and the updated version of the draft PEIR together will constitute the final PEIR. The responses to comments will include written responses to substantive issues raised in comments received during the review period. After review of the final PEIR, CDFW staff will recommend to the California Fish and Game Commission (Commission) whether to approve or reject the Program. The Commission will then review the PEIR, CDFW recommendations, and public and agency comments and decide whether to certify the PEIR and adopt the suggested mitigation measures, best management practices, and siting considerations as part of its management strategy.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental Public and Agency Involvement
If the Commission chooses to certify the PEIR, it will then file a notice of determination. The discretionary action would be to adopt a programmatic environmental analysis that can be incorporated by reference into the environmental documents for future discretionary actions of any lead agency that is considering approval of a specific aquaculture project. The framework will achieve the following measures:
guide the issuance of leases and permits, including siting considerations, under existing regulations;
identify best management practices;
provide a set of program-level mitigation measures that future marine aquaculture projects would be required to implement; and
establish basic monitoring guidelines. It is anticipated that the analysis and conclusions of this PEIR can be used to streamline and focus the environmental analysis of specific aquaculture projects in the future. If the draft PEIR identifies significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, a statement of overriding considerations must be included in the record of the project approval and mentioned in the notice of determination (14 CCR 15093[c]). Notice of the availability of the final PEIR will be given to the public, and there will be another opportunity for the public to comment on the revised analysis. These comments will be considered by the Commission in the determination of whether to certify the PEIR.
7.2 STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT Throughout the development of this analysis, CDFW has consulted with an important stakeholder group, the Aquaculture Development Committee (ADC). ADC was established by legislation in 1982 as the Aquaculture Industry Advisory Committee and renamed the Aquaculture Development Committee in 1995 by the Commission to serve in an advisory role related to the development of aquaculture in the state of California. ADC consists of at least 12 aquaculture industry representatives; two representatives from the University of California (science and outreach); and one member each from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the California State Lands Commission (CSLC), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the California Department of Health Services, and the Joint Legislative Committee on Fisheries and Aquaculture. As indicated in SB 201, ADC is also required to participate in the development of the programmatic analysis of current and future aquaculture. ADC meets biannually to discuss aquaculture development and has provided feedback on the scope and content of this PEIR.
7.3 AGENCY INVOLVEMENT In addition to the public and stakeholder involvement described above, an interagency scoping meeting was held in early 2007. Agencies represented at the meeting included CDFW, CCC, CSLC, SWRCB, the California Ocean Protection Council, and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The purpose of this meeting was to gather information from relevant agencies about the scope and content of the PEIR analysis. Issues covered at this meeting included:
potential permitting needs of operations that could come forward under the Proposed Program,
CDFW regulatory program and development of an updated regulatory program,
alternative regulatory approaches,
key environmental impacts of marine aquaculture, and
sources of data. CDFW continues to work with regulatory agencies on this PEIR through the ADC and the CEQA process.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 7-3 Public and Agency Involvement Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
8 REFERENCES
Executive Summary California Sea Grant College Program. 2015 (April). Offshore Aquaculture in the Southern California Bight. Available: https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/RAQ-136_Aquaculture%20Workshop%20FINAL2.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2018.
Chapter 1, “Introduction” American Heart Association. 2016. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics. Available: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIR.0000000000000350. Accessed March 12, 2019. Bardach J.E., J.H. Ryther, and W.O. McLarney. 1972. Aquaculture: The Farming and Husbandry of Freshwater and Marine Organisms. John Wiley & Sons. New York. Barrett, E.M. 1963. The California Oyster Industry. Fish Bulletin 123. California Department of Fish and Game. Berg, C.J. 1971. Review of the Possible Causes of Mortality of Oyster Larvae of the Genus Crassotrea in Tomales Bay, California. California Fish & Game Bulletin 57(1):69–75. Bittenbender, S. 2018 (September 18). US Commerce Department Eyes Aquaculture for Job Creation. Available: https://www.seafoodsource.com/news/aquaculture/us-commerce-department-eyes-aquaculture-for-job- creation. Accessed March 13, 2019. Bourne N. 1982. Distribution, Reproduction and Growth of Manila Clam, Tapes philippinarum (Adams and Reeves) in British Columbia. Journal of Shellfish Research 2:47–54. Burrell, V.C. 1985. Oyster Culture. Pages 235–273 in Crustacean and Mollusk Aquaculture in the United States. California Department of Finance. 2018. E-1 Population Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State—January 1, 2017 and 2018. Available: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-1/. Accessed March 12, 2019. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2018. Final Commercial Landings (2000-2017). Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Fishing/Commercial/Landings#260041375-2015. Accessed March 12, 2019. ———. 2019. Commercial Landings by Year. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=145735&inline. Accessed March 12, 2019. Castagna, M., and P. Chanley. 1973. Salinity Tolerance of Some Marine Bivalves from Inshore and Estuarine Environments in Virginia Waters on the Western Mid-Atlantic Coast. Malacologia 12:47–96. Available: https://archive.org/details/cbarchive_49076_salinitytoleranceofsomemarineb1973. Accessed March 13, 2019. CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clinton, W. J. 1999 (February 8). Executive Order 13112 - Invasive Species. Federal Register 64(25). Corbin, J. S. 2010. Sustainable US Marine Mariculture Expansion, a Necessity. Marine Technology Society Journal 44(3):7–21. DOF. See California Department of Finance. FAO. See Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture: Meeting the Sustainable Development Goals. Available: http://www.fao.org/3/I9540EN/i9540en.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2019. Frey, H.W. 1971. California’s Living Marine Resources and Their Utilization. California Department of Fish and Game.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-1 References Ascent Environmental
Galstoff, P.S. 1964. The American Oyster, Crassostrea virginica Gemlin. Fishery Bulletin 64:1–480. Hidu, H., C. Conary, and S.R. Chapman. 1981. Suspended Culture of Oysters: Biological Fouling Control. Aquaculture 22:189–192. Invasive Species Advisory Committee. 2006 (April 27). Invasive Species Definition Clarification and Guidance White Paper. The National Invasive Species Council. ISAC. See Invasive Species Advisory Committee. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2016 (September). Fisheries of the United States 2015. Available: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/Assets/commercial/fus/fus15/documents/FUS2015.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2019. ———. 2017 (August). Fisheries of the United States 2016. Available: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/resource/document/fisheries-united-states-2016-report. Accessed March 14, 2019 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1989 (February). Life History, and Harvest Summaries for Selected Invertebrate Species Occurring off the West Coast of North America. Volume 1: Shelled Molluscs. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/NWC-160. Available: https://repository.library.noaa.gov/view/noaa/5853/noaa_5853_DS1.pdf?. Accessed March 14, 2019. ———. 2008 (July). Offshore Aquaculture in the United States: Economic Considerations, Implications & Opportunities. Available: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/aquaculture-library. Accessed March 14, 2019. ———. 2016. Marine Aquaculture Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020. Available: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature- story/noaa-fisheries-marine-aquaculture-strategic-plan. Accessed March 14, 2019. NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Quayle, D.B. 1969. Pacific Oyster Culture in British Columbia. Bulletin 169. Ramey, Kirsten. Marine aquaculture coordinator. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Eureka, CA. March 27, 2019—email to Chris Mundhenk of Ascent Environmental with information regarding current marine aquaculture leases in California. Talley, D. M., T. S. Talley, and A. Blanco. 2015. Insights into the Establishment of the Manila Clam on a Tidal Flat at the Southern End of an Introduced Range in Southern California, USA. Available: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0118891&type=printable. Accessed March 14, 2019. USDA. See U.S. Department of Agriculture. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2006. Census of Aquaculture (2005). Available: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/AgCensusImages/2002/02/07/Full%20Report-revised%202.7.07.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2019. ———. 2014 (September). Census of Aquaculture (2013). Available: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Aquaculture/Aqua.pdf. Accessed March 12, 2019.
Chapter 2, “Program Description and Alternatives” Belle, S.M., and C.E. Nash. 2008. Chapter 8, Better Management Practices for Net-Pen Aquaculture. In C. S. Tucker and J. A. Hargreaves (eds.), Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing. Beveridge, M.C.M. 2004. Cage Aquaculture. Third edition. Blackwell Publishing.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
Boyd, C.E., C. Tucker, A. McNevin, K. Bostick, and J. Clay. 2007. Indicators of Resource Use Efficiency and Environmental Performance in Fish and Crustacean Aquaculture. California Sea Grant College Program. 2015 (April). Offshore Aquaculture in the Southern California Bight. Available: https://caseagrant.ucsd.edu/sites/default/files/RAQ-136_Aquaculture%20Workshop%20FINAL2.pdf. Accessed November 20, 2018. California Fish and Game Commission. 2018. Mitigated Negative Declaration for Santa Barbara Mariculture Company Continued Shellfish Aquaculture Operations on State Water Bottom Lease – Offshore Santa Barbara, California. Commission. See California Fish and Game Commission. Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson. 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight. DeCew, J., B. Celikkol, K. Baldwin, M. Chambers, J. Irish, M.R. Swift, and I. Tsukrov. 2012. Assessment of a Mooring System for Offshore Aquaculture. EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. IUCN. See International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources. 2007. Guide for the Sustainable Development of Mediterranean Aquaculture. Interactions between Aquaculture and the Environment. Gland, Switzerland, and Malaga, Spain. Kapetsky, J.M., J. Aguilar-Manjarrez, and J. Jenness. 2013. A Global Assessment of Offshore Mariculture Potential from a Spatial Perspective. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper 549. Lee, C.S., and A. C. Ostrowski. 2001. Current Status of Marine Finfish Larviculture in the United States. Aquaculture 200(2001):89–109. Available: https://eurekamag.com/pdf/003/003396733.pdf. Accessed November 26, 2018. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 2017. Coastal Aquaculture Planning Portal (CAPP). Available: https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/research/marine-spatial-ecology/coastal-aquaculture-planning-portal-capp/. Accessed November 26, 2018. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. 2011. The Future of Aquafeeds. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS F/SPO-124. Available: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/aquaculture/future-aquafeeds. Accessed November 26, 2018. NCCOS. See National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. NOAA. See National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. Phillips, S. 2005 (September). Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture Issue Paper. Available: http://www.aquaticnuisance.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/Issue%20-- %20Aquaculture%20Environmental%20Impacts,%20Atlantic%20Salmon,.pdf. Accessed November 26, 2018. Price, C. S., and J. A. Morris Jr. 2013. Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-First Century Science Informing a Sustainable Industry. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 164. Rust, M. B., K. H. Amos, A. L. Bagwill, W. W. Dickhoff, L. M. Juarez, C. S. Price, J. A. Morris Jr., and M. C. Rubino. 2014. Environmental Performance of Marine Net-Pen Aquaculture in the United States. Fisheries 39:11:508–524. Schuur, Anthonie. Aquaculture Management Services, Pollock Pines, CA. March 14, 2019—email to Heather Blair of Ascent Environmental and others with images of estimated relative project areas in the Southern California Bight and a typical net-pen configuration on a 200-acre lease site. Williams, B.K. 2011. Adaptive Management of Natural Resources—Framework and Issues. Journal of Environmental Management 92(2011):1346–1353. Williams, B.K., R.C. Szaro, and C.D. Shapiro. 2007. Adaptive Management: The U.S. Department of the Interior Technical Guide. Adaptive Management Working Group, U.S. Department of the Interior. Washington, DC.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-3 References Ascent Environmental
Chapter 3, “Regulatory Setting” BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2017. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/ceqa/ceqa_guidelines_may2017- pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed February 25, 2019. BCDC. See San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. California Air Resources Board. 2000 (October). Risk Reduction Plan to Reduce Particulate Matter Emissions from Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/documents/rrpFinal.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2016a (October). 2016 ZEV Action Plan. Available: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2016_ZEV_Action_Plan.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2016b. Facts about the Advanced Clean Cars Program. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/zevprog/factsheets/advanced_clean_cars_eng.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2017 (November). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2018a. California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. 2018 Edition. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2018b. Northern Sonoma County APCD List of Current Rules. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/nsc/cur.htm. Accessed March 18, 2019. ———. 2019a. Air Quality Standards and Area Designations. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2019b. Commercial Harbor Craft Regulatory Activities. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/harborcraft.htm. Accessed February 25, 2019. California Coastal Commission. 2018. Our Mission. Available: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/whoweare.html. Accessed March 25, 2019. California Energy Commission. 2018 (March). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Frequently Asked Questions. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/ 2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. CARB. See California Air Resources Board. CCC. See California Coastal Commission. CEC. See California Energy Commission. EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Federal Highway Administration. 1995. National Scenic Byways Program – Interim Policy. Federal Register 60(96):26759–26762. Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District. 2007. Humboldt Bay Management Plan. Eureka, CA. Humboldt District. See Humboldt Bay Harbor, Recreation, and Conservation District. MBUAPCD. See Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. MCAQMD. See Mendocino County Air Quality Management District.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-4 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
Mendocino County Air Quality Management District. 2010. Air Quality Setting for Environmental Documents. Available: www.co.mendocino.ca.us/aqmd/pdf_files/AQSetting.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2008. CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. Available: http://mbard.org/pdf/CEQA_full%20(1).pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. 2015. New Aquaculture Infographic Available. Available: https://coastalscience.noaa.gov/news/aquaculture-infographic-aquaculture-grows-resilient-coastal- communities/. Accessed March 14, 2019. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2016. Marine Aquaculture Strategic Plan FY 2016-2020. Available: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/feature-story/noaa-fisheries-marine-aquaculture-strategic-plan. Accessed March 14, 2019. NCCOS. See National Centers for Coastal Ocean Science. NCUAQMD. See North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District. NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. North Coast Unified Air Quality Management District. 2009. District Rules & Regulations. Available: http://www.ncuaqmd.org/index.php?page=rules.regulations. Accessed February 25, 2019. San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2019. Welcome to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Available: http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/. Accessed February 13, 2019. San Diego County Land Use and Environmental Group. 2007 (March 19). County of San Diego Guidelines for Determining Significance and Report Format and Content Requirements: Air Quality. Available: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ProjectPlanning/docs/AQ-Guidelines.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2019. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. 2012 (April). CEQA Air Quality Handbook: A Guide for Assessing the Air Quality Impacts for Projects Subject to CEQA Review. Available: https://www.prcity.com/DocumentCenter/View/14604/California-Environmental-Quality-Act-Handbook--- 2012-Volume-1-PDF. Accessed February 25, 2019. Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. 2015 (April 30). Environmental Review Guidelines for the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. Available: https://www.ourair.org/wp- content/uploads/APCDCEQAGuidelinesApr2015.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. SBCAPCD. See Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District. SLOCAPCD. See San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993 (April). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009-08-12_Attachemt_AQ1- 1_CEQA_Air_Quality_Handbook_TN-47534.PDF. Accessed March 17, 2019. ———. 2015a. (March). SCAQMD Air Quality Significance Thresholds. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/ceqa/handbook/scaqmd-air-quality-significance-thresholds.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2015b. Localized Significance Thresholds. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/home/rules-compliance/ceqa/air- quality-analysis-handbook/localized-significance-thresholds. Accessed March 18, 2019. State of California. 2018. California Climate Change Legislation. Available: http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/state/legislation.html. Accessed March 1, 2019. United Nations. 2015. Paris Agreement. Available: https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/english_paris_agreement.pdf. Accessed September 24, 2018.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-5 References Ascent Environmental
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category. EPA-821-B-05-001. Office of Water, Washington DC. ———. 2009. Frequently Asked Questions from Marine Engine Owners and Rebuilders about EPA’s Marine Remanufacture Program. Office of Transportation and Air Quality. Available: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.cgi?Dockey=P1002UMW.TXT. Accessed March 17, 2019. ———. 2011. NAAQS Table. Available: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2018 (April 2). EPA Administrator Pruitt: GHG Emissions Standards for Cars and Light Trucks Should Be Revised. Available: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-administrator-pruitt-ghg-emissions-standards-cars-and- light-trucks-should-be. Accessed March 1, 2019. U.S. White House. 2015. Report on the Implementation of the National Ocean Policy. Available: file:///P:/2014/14010052.06%20-%20CDFW%20- %20Aquac%20PEIR%20Assistance/3_Project%20library/Administrative%20Record/Draft%20EIR%20Reference s/Chapter%203,%20Regulatory%20Setting/White%20House%202015.pdf. Accessed March 14, 2019. VCAPCD. See Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District. 2003 (October). Ventura County Air Quality Assessment Guidelines. Available: http://www.vcapcd.org/pubs/Planning/VCAQGuidelines.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. Wade, Samuel. Branch chief. Transportation Fuels Branch, Industrial Strategies Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. June 30, 2017―e-mail to Austin Kerr of Ascent Environmental regarding whether the Low Carbon Fuel Standard applies to fuels used by off-road construction equipment. White House. See U.S. White House.
Chapter 4, “Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures”
Section 4.1, “Introduction and Scope of the Environmental Analysis” California Department of Finance. 2018. P-1: State Population Projections (2010-2060). Available: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/. Accessed March 21, 2019. DOF. See California Department of Finance. Fire Resource Assessment Program. 2019. Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Available: http://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/. Accessed March 26, 2019. FRAP. See Fire Resource Assessment Program.
Section 4.2, “Aesthetics” Federal Highway Administration. 2019a. California: All Byways. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/states/CA/maps/All%20Byways%20State%20Map. Accessed February 11, 2019. ———. 2019b. California Byways. Available: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/byways/states/CA. Accessed March 20, 2019. National Park Service. 2019. California National Wild and Scenic Rivers. https://www.rivers.gov/california.php. Accessed May 19, 2019. State Parks. 2019. California State Parks. Available: https://www.stateparks.com/california_parks_and_recreation_destinations.html. Accessed May 19, 2019.
Section 4.3, “Air Quality” BAAQMD. See Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-6 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. 2010 (September 15). Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. Volume I. Available: http://www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2010-clean-air-plan/cap-volume-i- appendices.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2019. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model Version 2016.3.2. Available: http://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed February 25, 2019. California Air Resources Board. 2012. South Central Coast Air Basin [map]. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/basins/absccmap.htm. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2014a. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. 2013 Edition. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac13/almanac13.htm. Accessed December 3, 2014. ———. 2014b. California Air Basin Map. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/ei/maps/statemap/abmap.htm. Accessed December 15, 2014. ———. 2018. Northern Sonoma County APCD List of Current Rules. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/nsc/cur.htm. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2019a. Area Designation Maps/ State and National. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed Accessed March 17, 2019. ———. 2019b. Fact Sheet: Commercial Harbor Craft Regulation. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/ports/marinevess/documents/chcfactsheet0508.pdf. Accessed March 17, 2019. California Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Chapter 3.1, Agricultural Resources. In Draft Environmental Impact Report: California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative North Coast Marine Protected Areas Project. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=43465&inline=true. Accessed February 25, 2019. California Department of Public Health. 2014. What Are Air Contaminants? Available: http://www.cehtp.org/faq/air/what_are_air_contaminants. Accessed February 25, 2019. California Natural Resources Agency. 2018 (January). California Fish and Game Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration for Santa Barbara Mariculture Company Continued Shellfish Operations on State Water Bottom Lease Offshore Santa Barbara, California. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153209. Accessed February 15, 2019. CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CARB. See California Air Resources Board. CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game. CDPH. See California Department of Public Health. CNRA. See California Natural Resources Agency. EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Lovell, Randy. State aquaculture coordinator. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. February 8, 2019—e-mail to Heather Blair at Ascent Environmental regarding characteristics of new aquaculture operations. MBUAPCD. See Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. 2013. Triennial Plan Revision 2009–2011. Available: http://mbard.org/pdf/Final_Triennial_Plan_Revision_041913.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. San Diego County Air Pollution Control District. 2016 Revision of the Regional Air Quality Strategy for San Diego County. Available: https://www.sdapcd.org/content/dam/sdc/apcd/PDF/Air%20Quality%20Planning/2016%20RAQS.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-7 References Ascent Environmental
SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District. SDCAPCD. See San Diego Air Pollution Control District. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 2017 (March). Final 2016 Air Quality Management Plan. Available: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/clean-air-plans/air-quality-management-plans/2016-air-quality- management-plan/final-2016-aqmp/final2016aqmp.pdf?sfvrsn=15. Accessed February 25, 2019. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2018a. Criteria Air Pollutants. Available: https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air- pollutants. Last updated March 8, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2018b. 2008 Ground-Level Ozone Standards: Final Designations. Pacific Southwest, Region 9. Available: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/air/ozone/index.html. Last updated: January 9, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2018c. Regulations for Emissions from Heavy Equipment with Compression-Ignition (Diesel) Engines. Available: https://www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/regulations-emissions-heavy- equipment-compression. Last updated May 10, 2018. Accessed February 25, 2019. Zhu, Y., W. C. Hinds, S. Kim, and C. Sioutas. 2002. Concentration and Size Distribution of Ultrafine Particles Near a Major Highway. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 52(9).
Section 4.4, “Biological Resources”
Barrett, E.M. 1963. The California Oyster Industry. Fish Bulletin 123. California Department of Fish and Game. Available: http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt629004n3&query=&brand=calisphere. Accessed March 3, 2019. Belle, S.M., and C.E. Nash. 2008. Better Management Practices for Net-Pen Aquaculture. Pages 261–330 in C. S. Tucker and J. A. Hargreaves, eds., Environmental Best Management Practices for Aquaculture. Blackwell Publishing. Ames, IA. Breaker, L.C., and W.W. Broenkow. 1994. The Circulation of Monterey Bay and Related Processes. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 32:1–64. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2014. Conservation Plan Boundaries, HCP and NCCP. Available: http://portal.gis.ca.gov/geoportal/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B77378AC9-D133-492E- 80F2-ABF9FAB3C39E%7D. Accessed February 27, 2019. ———. 2019. California’s Marine Protected Area (MPA) Network. Available: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Marine/MPAs/Network. Accessed March 25, 2019. California Native Plant Society. 2019. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Available: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org. Accessed March 5, 2019. California Natural Diversity Database. 2019 (February). Results of electronic records search. California Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, CA. Callier, M.D., C.J. Byron, D.A. Bengtson, P.J. Cranford, S.F. Cross., U. Focken, H.M. Jansen, P. Kamermans, A. Kiessling, T. Landry, F. O’Beirn, E. Petersson, R.B. Rheault, O. Strand, K. Sundell, T. Svasand, G.H. Wikfors, and C.W. McKindsey. 2017. Attraction and Repulsion of Mobile Wild Organisms to Finfish and Shellfish Aquaculture: A Review. Reviews in Aquaculture 10:1–26. Capitolo, Phil. Wildlife biologist. University of California, Santa Cruz. February 14, 2019—California seabird colony location data, originally obtained from Gerry McChesney, refuge manager at U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, transmitted by e-mail to Allison Fuller of Ascent Environmental. CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Clavelle, T., S. E. Lester, R. Gentry, and H. E. Froechlich. 2019. Interactions and Management for the Future of Marine Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 2019:1–21.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-8 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
CNDDB. See California Natural Diversity Database. CNPS. See California Native Plant Society. Coen, L.D., and R. E. Grizzle. 2007. The Importance of Habitat Created by Molluscan Shellfish to Managed Species along the Atlantic Coast of the United States. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series 8:1–34. Dailey, M.D., D.J. Reish, and J.W. Anderson. 1993. Ecology of the Southern California Bight: A Synthesis and Interpretation. Berkeley: University of California Press. Davidson, K., R. J. Gowen, P.J. Harrison, L.E. Fleming, P. Hoagland, and G. Moschonas. 2014. Anthropogenic Nutrients and Harmful Algae in Coastal Waters. Journal of Environmental Management 146:206–216. DeAlteris, J., and B.D. Kilpatrick. 2004. A Comparative Evaluation of the Habitat Value of Shellfish Aquaculture Gear, Submerged Aquatic Vegetation and a Non-Vegetated Seabed. Journal of Shellfish Research 23:867–874. Deslous-Paoli, J.M., A.M. Lannou, P. Geairon, S. Bougrier, O. Raillard, and M. Heral. 1992. Effects of the Feeding Behavior of Crassostrea gigas (Bivalve Molluscs) on Biosedimentation of Natural Particulate Matter. Hydrobiologia 231:85–91. Dill, W.A., and A.J. Cordone. 1997. History and Status of Introduced Fishes in California, 1871–1996. Fish Bulletin 178. California Department of Fish and Game. Available: http://content.cdlib.org/view?docId=kt8p30069f&brand=calisphere&doc.view=entire_text. Accessed March 3, 2019. FAO. See Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Farrell, T.M., D. Bracher, and J. Roughgarden. 1991. Cross-Shelf Transport Causes Recruitment to Intertidal Populations in Central California. Limnology and Oceanography 36:279–288. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2016. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2016: Contributing to Food Security and Nutrition for All. Rome. Green Diamond Resources Company. 2006. Aquatic Habitat Conservation Plan and Candidate Conservation Agreement with Assurances. Available: https://www.hrcllc.com/sites/default/files/inline-files/HCP-updated-to- 08-2015.pdf https://greendiamond.com/responsible-forestry/research/california-aquatic-hcp/. Accessed February 25, 2019. Grosholz, E. D., R. E. Crafton, R. E. Fontana, J. R. Pasari, S. L. Williams, and C. J. Zabin. 2015. Aquaculture as a Vector for Marine Invasions in California. Biological Invasions 17:1471–1484. Halwart, M., D. Soto, and J. R. Arthur. 2007. Cage Aquaculture—Regional Reviews and Global Overview. FAO Fisheries Technical Paper. No. 498. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. Hatcher A., J. Grant, and B. Schofield. 1994. Effects of Suspended Mussel Culture (Mytilus spp.) on Sedimentation, Benthic Respiration, and Sediment Nutrient Dynamics in a Coastal Bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 115:219–235. Holmer, M. 2010. Environmental Issues of Fish Farming in Offshore Waters: Perspectives, Concerns and Research Needs. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 1:57–70. Jensen, O., T. Dempster, E. B. Thorstad, I. Uglem, and A. Fredheim. 2010. Escapes of Fishes from Norwegian Sea-Cage Aquaculture: Causes, Consequences and Prevention. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. 1:71-83. Jiang, W., and M.T. Gibbs. 2005. Predicting the Carrying Capacity of Bivalve Shellfish Culture Using a Steady, Linear Food Web Model. Aquaculture 244:171–185. Johnson, K.A., M.M. Yoklavich, and G.M. Cailliet. 2001. Recruitment of Three Species of Juvenile Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) on Soft Benthic Habitat in Monterey Bay, California. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report 42:153–166. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-9 References Ascent Environmental
Koch, E.W., and S. Beer. 1996. Tides, Light and the Distribution of Zostera marina in Long Island Sound, USA. Aquatic Botany 53:97–107. Lafferty, K.D., C.D. Harvell, J.M. Conrad, C.S. Friedman, M L. Kent, A.M. Kuris, E.N. Powell, D. Rondeau, and S.M. Saksida. 2015. Infectious Diseases Affect Marine Fisheries and Aquaculture Economics. Annual Review of Marine Science 7:471–496. Mace, A.J., and S. G. Morgan. 2006. Larval Accumulation in the Lee of a Small Headland: Implications for the Design of Marine Reserves. Marine Ecology Progress Series 318:19–29. Magnell, B.A., N.A. Bray, C.D. Winant, and C.L. Greengrove. 1990. Convergent Shelf Flow at Cape Mendocino. Oceanography 3:4–11. Markowitz, T.M., A.D. Harlin, B. Wursig, and C.J. McFadden. 2004. Dusky Dolphin Foraging Habitat: Overlap with Aquaculture in New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14:133–149. McGinnity, P., P. Prodohl, A. Ferguson, R. Hynes, N.O. Maoileidigh, N. Baker, D. Cotter, B. O’Hea, D. Cooke, G. Rogan, J. Taggart, and T. Cross. 2003. Fitness Reduction and Potential Extinction of Wild Populations of Atlantic Salmon, Salmo salar, as a Result of Interactions with Escaped Farm Salmon. Proceedings of the Royal Society London 270:2443–2450. McKenna, M.F., J. Calambokidis, E.M. Oleson, D.W. Laist, and J. A. Goldbogen. 2015. Simultaneous Tracking of Blue Whales and Large Ships Demonstrates Limited Behavioral Responses for Avoiding Collision. Endangered Species Research 27:219–232. McKindsey, C.W., T. Landry, F.X. O’Beirn, and I.M. Davies. 2007. Bivalve Aquaculture and Exotic Species: A Review of Ecological Considerations and Management Issues. Journal of Shellfish Research 26:281–294. Mendocino Redwood Company. 2015. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Properties of the Pacific Lumber Company, Scotia Pacific Holding Company, and Salmon Creek Corporation, under the Ownership and Management of Humboldt Redwood Company, LLC, as of July 2008. Available: https://www.fws.gov/arcata/es/birds/NSO/documents/Pacific_Lumber_Co_(Humboldt_Redwood_Co.)_1999_Fi nal_HCP.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. Nash, C. E., P. R. Burbridge, and J. K. Volkman (editors). 2005 (December). Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment of Marine Fish Aquaculture. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-71. National Marine Fisheries Service. 2018. Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing: Underwater Acoustic Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts (Version 2.0). NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. 2011. Pinniped rookeries and haulout sites within California. ArcGIS webmap. Available: https://arcg.is/LzWu8. Accessed February 21, 2019. Naylor, R. L, R. W. Hardy, D. P. Bureau, A. Chiu, M. Elliott, A. P. Farrell, I. Forster, D. M. Gatlin, R. J. Goldburg, K. Hua, and P. D. Nichols. 2009. Feeding Aquaculture in an Era of Finite Resources. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106:15103–15110. NMFS. See National Marine Fisheries Service. NOAA Fisheries. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries. Phillips, S. 2005 (September). Environmental Impacts of Marine Aquaculture Issue Paper. Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. Pullen, J., and J. S. Allen. 2001. Modeling Studies of the Coastal Circulation off Northern California: Statistics and Patterns of Wintertime Flow. Journal of Geophysical Research 106:26,959–26,984. Price, C., K. D. Black, B. T. Hargrave, and J. A. Morris, Jr. 2015. Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Effects on Water Quality and Primary Production. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 6:151–174.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-10 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
Price, C. S., E. Keane, D. Morin, C. Vaccaro, D. Bean, and J. A. Morris, Jr. 2017. Protected Species & Marine Aquaculture Interactions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 211. Price, C. S., and J. A. Morris, Jr. 2013. Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-First Century Science Informing a Sustainable Industry. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 164. Reid, J. L., G. I. Gunnar, and J. G. Wyllie. 1958. Studies of the California Current System: Contributions from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. California Cooperative Oceanic Fisheries Investigations Report 6:28–56. Smaal, A., M. v. Stralen, and E. Schuiling. 2011. The Interaction between Shellfish Culture and Ecosystem Processes. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 58:991–1002. Spencer W. D., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. Parisi, and A. Pettler. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for California Department of Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highway Administration. State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Areas of Special Biological Significance Map. Available: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/ocean/asbs_map.shtml. Accessed March 27, 2019. SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board. Tacon, A. G. J., and M. Metian. 2015. Feed Matters: Satisfying the Feed Demand of Aquaculture. Reviews in Fisheries Science & Aquaculture 23:1–10. Taylor, J., and D. Bushek. 2008. Intertidal Oyster Reefs Can Persist and Function in a Temperate North American Atlantic Estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series 361:301–306. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2013. Habitat Conservation Plan for the Community of Los Osos, San Luis Obispo County, CA; Notice of Intent. Available: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2013-09-19/pdf/2013-22778.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. ———. 2019. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Official Species List and IPaC Trust Resource Report for the CDFW Aquaculture Project. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, CA. USFWS. See U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Weitzman, J., L. Steeves, J. Bradford, and R. Filgueira. 2019. Far-Field and Near-Field Effects of Marine Aquaculture. Pages 197–220 in C. Sheppard, ed., World Seas: An Environmental Evaluation, Second Edition, Volume Three: Ecological Issues and Environmental Impacts. Academic Press. Wing, S. R., J. L. Largier, L. W. Botsford, and J. F. Quinn. 1995. Settlement and Transport of Benthic Invertebrates in an Intermittent Upwelling Region. Limnology and Oceanography 40:316–329. Yen, P. W., W. J. Sydeman, K. D. Hyrenback. 2004. Marine Bird and Cetacean Associations with Bathymetric Habitats and Shallow-Water Topographies: Implications for Trophic Transfer and Conservation. Journal of Marine Systems 50:79–99. Zydelis, R., D. Esler, M. Kirk, and W. S. Boyd. 2008. Effects of Off-Bottom Shellfish Aquaculture on Winter Habitat Use by Molluscivorous Sea Ducks. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19:34–42.
Section 4.5, “Cultural, Tribal Cultural, and Paleontological Resources” Barrett, E. M. 1963. The California Oyster Industry. Fish Bulletin 123. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Bean, L., and D. Theodoratus. 1978. Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. Pages 289–305 in R. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC. Bischoff, M. C. 2005 (June). Documentation of the Light Station Complex, Año Nuevo Island, Año Nuevo State Reserve, San Mateo County, California. California Department of Parks and Recreation. Sacramento, CA.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-11 References Ascent Environmental
California Department of Fish and Game. 2009 (July 24). California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: Regional Profile of the South Coast Study Region (Point Conception to California-Mexico Border). Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/regionalprofile_sc.asp. ———. 2010 (April 19). California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative: Regional Profile of North Coast Study Region (California-Oregon Border to Alder Creek). Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/ncprofile.asp. California State Lands Commission. 2019. California Shipwrecks. Available: https://www.slc.ca.gov/shipwrecks/. Accessed March 6, 2019. California State Parks. 2013. Sustainable Preservation: California’s Statewide Historic Preservation Plan 2013-2017. Available: http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/SustainablePreservation_CaliforniaStatePlan_2013to2017.pdf. CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game. Eglash, R. 2002. Computation, Complexity and Coding in Native American Knowledge Systems. In J. Hankes and G. Fast (eds.), Changing the Faces of Mathematics: Perspectives on Indigenous People of North America. Available: http://homepages.rpi.edu/~eglash/eglash.dir/nacyb.dir/nacomplx.htm. Erlandson, J. M., T. C. Rick, T. L. Jones, and J. F. Porcasi. 2007. “One If by Land, Two If by Sea: Who Were the First Californians?” Pages 53–62 in T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar (eds.), California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture and Complexity. AltaMira Press. Lanham, MD. Gould, R. 1978. Tolowa. In Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC. Heizer, R. F. (ed.). 1978. Handbook of North American Indians. Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institution. Washington, DC. InterTribal Sinkyone Wilderness Council. 2010 (April 1). InterTribal Sinkyone Profile. Pages 225–267 in Appendix E, California Tribes and Tribal Communities, Regional Profile of the North Coast Study Region: California‐Oregon Border to Alder Creek. California Natural Resources Agency. Jefferson, George T. 2004. Colorado Desert District Paleontologic Resources and Collections Management Policy. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation. Jones & Stokes. 2006 (November). Draft Environmental Impact Report: California Marine Life Protection Act Initiative, Central Coast Marine Protected Areas Project. Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/impact.asp. Kroeber, A. L., and E. W. Gifford. 1949. World Renewal: A Cult System of Native Northwest California. Anthropological Records 13. University of California Press. Berkeley Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Coyote Press. Salinas, CA. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. 2002. Return to the Ice Age: the La Brea Exploration Guide. Electronic document, http://www.tarpits.org/education/guide/index.html. Accessed November 12, 2011. San Diego Natural History Museum. 2010. Fossil Mysteries: Fossil Field Guide. Electronic document, http://www.sdnhm.org/exhibits/mystery/fg_ankylosaur.html. Accessed November 12, 2011. Sundberg, J. 2008. Trinidad, California, Patrick’s Point State Park: the Yurok Village of Sumeg. In F. H. Kennedy (ed. and prin. author), American Indian Places: A Guide. Houghton Mifflin Company. United States Geological Survey (USGS) Geologic Names Committee. 2010. Divisions of Geologic Time—Major Chronostratigraphic and Geochronologic Units: U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2010–3059. Available: http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2010/3059/pdf/FS10-3059.pdf. Accessed March 24, 2019.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-12 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
Section 4.6, “Land Use” California Coastal Commission. 2018 (August 23). Summary of LCP Program Activity in FY 17-18. San Francisco, CA. ———. 2019. Local Coastal Programs. Available: https://www.coastal.ca.gov/lcps.html. Accessed February 19, 2019. CCC. See California Coastal Commission.
Section 4.7, “Recreation” The National Ocean Economics Program. 2005 (July). California’s Ocean Economy. Available: http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/Documents_Page/Reports/CA_Ocean_Econ_Report.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2013. Census of Aquaculture. Volume 3 of 2012 Census of Agriculture. Available: https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2012/Online_Resources/Aquaculture/Aqua.pdf. Accessed February 25, 2019.
Section 4.8, “Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation” California Department of Transportation. 2019. Seaports. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ogm/seaports.html. Accessed March 11, 2019. Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation. California Fish and Game Commission. 2010 (December). South Coast Marine Protected Areas Project Final Environmental Impact Report. Sacramento, CA. Prepared by URS, Santa Barbara, CA. ———. 2018 (January). Mitigated Negative Declaration for Santa Barbara Mariculture Company Continued Shellfish Operations on State Water Bottom Lease, Offshore Santa Barbara, California. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153209. Accessed February 15, 2019. Commission. See California Fish and Game Commission. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2018 (December). Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA. OPR. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. Transportation Research Board. 2010. HCM2010: Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, DC. U.S. Coast Guard. 2019. U.S. Aids to Navigation System. Available: https://www.uscgboating.org/images/486.PDF. Accessed March 11, 2019.
Section 4.9, “Water Quality and Oceanography” Ackerman, D., and K. Schiff. 2003. Modeling Storm Water Mass Emissions to the Southern California Bight. Journal of Environmental Engineering 129:4:308–317. Ahn, J. H., S. B. Grant, C. Q. Surbeck, P. M. Digiacomo, N. P. Nezlin, and S. Jiang. 2005. Coastal Water Quality Impact of Stormwater Runoff from an Urban Watershed in Southern California. Environmental Science and Technology 39:5940–5953. Barnhart, R. A., M. J. Boyd, and J. E. Pequegnat. 1992 (January). The Ecology of Humboldt Bay, California: An Estuarine Profile. Biological Report 1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, DC. Borerro, J., M. R. Legg, and C. Synolakis. 2004. Tsunami Sources in the Southern California Bight. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles. California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 2019. California Enviroscreen: Impaired Water Bodies. Available: https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/indicator/impaired-water-bodies. Accessed March 15, 2019. Clavelle, T., S. E. Lester, R. Gentry, and H. Froehlich. 2019. Interactions and Management for the Future of Marine Aquaculture and Capture Fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 2019:1–21. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-13 References Ascent Environmental
Dumbauld, B. R., J. L.Ruesink, and S. S. Rumrill. 2009. The Ecological Role of Bivalve Shellfish Aquaculture in the Estuarine Environment: A Review with Application to Oyster and Clam Culture in West Coast (SA) Estuaries. Aquaculture 290(2009):196–223. EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Grant, J., and C. Bacher. 2001. A Numerical Model of Flow Modification Induced by Suspended Aquaculture in a Chinese Bay. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquaculture Science 58:1003–1011. Hickey, B. M. 1998. Coastal Oceanography of Western North America from the Tip of Baja California to Vancouver Island. Pages 345–393 in A. R. Robinson and K. H. Brink (eds.), The Sea. Volume 11. John Wiley and Sons. Jones & Stokes. 2004. Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Analysis: Coast Seafoods Mariculture Operations in Humboldt Bay, California. Kalantzi, I., and I. Karakassis. 2006. Benthic Impacts of Fish Farming: Meta-Analysis of Community and Geochemical Data. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(2006):484–493. Kennish, M. J. 1998. Pollution Impacts on Marine Biotic Communities. CRC Press. Boca Raton, FL. Lindahl, Odd, Rob Hart, Bodil Henroth, Sven Kollberg, Lars-Ove Loo, Lars Olrog, Ann-Sofi Rehnstam-Holm, Jonny Svensson, and Ulf Syversen. 2005. Improving marine water quality by mussel farming: a profitable solution for Swedish society. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment, 34(2):131-138. McKindsey, Christopher, Philippe Archambault, Myriam D. Callier, and Frederic Olivier. 2011. Influence of suspended and off-bottom mussel culture on the sea bottom and benthic habitats: a review. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 89: 622-646. Mitarai, S., D. A. Siegel, J. R. Watson, C. Dong, and J. C. Mc Williams. 2008. Quantifying Connectivity in the Coastal Ocean with Application to the Southern California Bight. Journal of Geophysical Research 114, C10026. NRC. See National Academy of Sciences. National Research Council. 2009. Shellfish Mariculture in Drakes Estero, Point Reyes National Seashore, California. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12667. OEHHA. See California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Price, C., K. D. Black, B. T. Hargrave, and J. A. Morris Jr. 2015. Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Effects on Water Quality and Primary Production. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 6:151–174. Price, C. S., and J. A. Morris Jr. 2013. Marine Cage Culture and the Environment: Twenty-First Century Science Informing a Sustainable Industry. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 164. Ray, N. E., J. Li, P. C. Kangas, and D. E. Terlizzi. 2015. Water Quality Upstream and Downstream of a Commercial Oyster Aquaculture Facility in Chesapeake Bay, USA. Aquaculture Engineering 68(2015):35–42. Rensel, J. E., and J. R. M. Forster. 2007 (July 22). Final Report: Beneficial Environmental Effects of Marine Finfish Mariculture. Prepared for National Marine Fisheries Service, National Sea Grant College Program, Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. Washington, DC. Rust, M. B., K. H. Amos, A. L. Bagwill, W. W. Dickhoff, L. M. Juarez, C. S. Price, J. A. Morris Jr., and M. C. Rubino. 2014. Environmental Performance of Marine Net-Pen Aquaculture in the United States. Fisheries 39:11:508–524. Saxby, S. A. 2002. A Review of Food Availability, Sea Water Characteristics and Bivalve Growth Performance at Coastal Culture Sites in Temperate and Warm Temperate Regions of the World. Fisheries Research Report No. 132. Department of Fisheries, Western Australia. State Water Resources Control Board. 2015. Water Quality Control Plan: Ocean Waters of California. Sacramento, CA. SWRCB. See State Water Resources Control Board.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-14 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Compliance Guide for the Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production Point Source Category. EPA-821-B-05-001. Office of Water, Washington DC. ———. 2016. Fact Sheet for the Re-Issue of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit to Discharge Pollutants Pursuant to the Provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to the: United States Fish and Wildlife Service Leavenworth National Fish Hatchery. NPDES Permit WA0001902. Welch, A. W., A. N. Knapp, S. El Tourky, Z. Daughtery, G. Hitchcock, and D. Benetti. 2019. The Nutrient Footprint of a Submerged-Cage Offshore Aquaculture Facility Located in the Tropical Caribbean. Journal of the World Aquaculture Society 2019:1–18.
Section 4.10, “Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy” Ahmed, N., S. W. Bunting, M. Glaser, M. S. Flaherty, and J. S. Diana. 2017. Can Greening of Aquaculture Sequester Blue Carbon? Ambio 46(4):468–477. Available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5385666/#CR56. Accessed March 1, 2019. California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. 2016. California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), Version 2016.3.2. Available: http://www.caleemod.com/. Accessed March 1, 2019. California Air Resources Board. 2016 (October). 2016 ZEV Action Plan. Available: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp- content/uploads/2017/09/2016_ZEV_Action_Plan.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2017 (November). California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Strategy for Achieving California’s 2030 Greenhouse Gas Target. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2018a. (July 11). California Greenhouse Gas Emissions for 2000 to 2016: Trends of Emissions and Other Indicators. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2016/ghg_inventory_trends_00- 16.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2018b California Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. 2018 Edition. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery. Accessed March 1, 2019. California Energy Commission. 2018 (March). 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards: Frequently Asked Questions. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24/2019standards/documents/2018_Title_24_2019_Building_Standards_FAQ.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. California Natural Resources Agency. 2018a (January). Safeguarding California Plan: 2018 Update. Available: http://resources.ca.gov/docs/climate/safeguarding/update2018/safeguarding-california-plan-2018- update.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2018b (January). California Fish and Game Commission Mitigated Negative Declaration for Santa Barbara Mariculture Company Continued Shellfish Operations on State Water Bottom Lease Offshore Santa Barbara, California. Available: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153209. Accessed February 15, 2019. ———. 2019 (January). Draft California 2030 Natural and Working Lands Climate Change Implementation Plan. Available: https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/natandworkinglands/draft-nwl-ip-1.7.19.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. CAPCOA. See California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. CARB. See California Air Resources Board. CEC. See California Energy Commission. CNRA. See California Natural Resources Agency.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-15 References Ascent Environmental
Cooley, S.R., and S.C. Doney. 2009. Anticipating Ocean Acidification’s Economic Consequences for Commercial Fisheries. Environmental Research Letters 4(2):024007. Duarte, C., J. Wu, X. Xiao, A. Bruhn, and D. Krause-Jensen. 2017. Can Seaweed Farming Play a Role in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation? Frontiers in Marine Science 4. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmars.2017.00100/full. Accessed February 29, 2019. EIA. See U.S. Energy Information Administration. Filgueira, R., C.J. Byron, L.A. Comeau, B. Costa-Pierce, P.J. Cranford, J.G. Ferreira, J. Grant, T. Guyondet, H.M. Jansen, T. Landry, C.W. McKindsey, J.K. Petersen, G.K. Reid, S.M.C. Robinson, A. Smaal, R. Sonier, Ø. Strand, T. Strohmeier. 2015. An integrated ecosystem approach for assessing the potential role of cultivated bivalve shells as part of the carbon trading system. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 518, 281-287. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. 2019. Final adopted text for revisions to the CEQA Guidelines. Available: http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/docs/2018_CEQA_FINAL_TEXT_122818.pdf. Accessed February 29, 2019. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency. 2018a. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: Statewide Summary Report. Available: http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/docs/20190116-StatewideSummary.pdf. Accessed February 29, 2019. ———. 2018b. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment: California’s Coast and Ocean Summary Report. Available: http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/docs/20180827-OceanCoastSummary.PDF. Accessed February 29, 2019. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2013. Chapter 6, Carbon and Other Biogeochemical Cycles. Pages 465– 570 in Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Available: http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. ———. 2014. Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report: Summary for Policymakers. Available: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/06/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf f. Accessed March 17, 2019. IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Kroeker, K.J., R.L. Kordas, R. Crim, I.E. Hendriks, L. Ramajo, G.S. Singh, C.M. Duarte, and J.P. Gattuso. 2013. Impacts of Ocean Acidification on Marine Organisms: Quantifying Sensitivities and Interaction with Warming. Global Change Biology 19(6):1884–1896. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.12179. Kroeker, K.J., R.L. Kordas, R.N. Crim, and G.G. Singh. 2010. Meta-Analysis Reveals Negative yet Variable Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Organisms. Ecology Letters 13(11):1419–1434. Available: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2010.01518.x. Lovell, Randy. State aquaculture coordinator. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Sacramento, CA. February 8, 2019—e-mail to Heather Blair at Ascent Environmental regarding characteristics of new aquaculture operations. Marshall, K.N., I.C. Kaplan, E.E. Hodgson, A. Hermann, D. Shallin Busch, P. McElhany, T.E. Essington, C.J. Harvey, and E.A. Fulton. 2017. Risks of Ocean Acidification in the California Current Food Web and Fisheries: Ecosystem Model Projections. Global Change Biology 23(4):1525–1539. Accessed March 1, 2019. OPR et al. See Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, California Energy Commission, and California Natural Resources Agency. SACOG. See Sacramento Area Council of Governments. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2018 (May). Chapter 6, Greenhouse Gases. Pages 6-1 through 6-15 in Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Available:
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-16 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR Ascent Environmental References
http://www.airquality.org/LandUseTransportation/Documents/Ch6GHGFinal5-2018.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. SCAQMD. See South Coast Air Quality Management District. South Coast Air Quality Management District. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/sitingcases/ivanpah/documents/others/2009-08-12_Attachemt_AQ1- 1_CEQA_Air_Quality_Handbook_TN-47534.PDF. Accessed March 17, 2019. U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2014. California Energy Highlight. 2014 EIA reports and publications. Available: https://www.eia.gov/state/state_one_pager/California.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2019. Wade, Samuel. Branch chief. Transportation Fuels Branch, Industrial Strategies Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA. June 30, 2017―e-mail to Austin Kerr of Ascent Environmental regarding whether the Low Carbon Fuel Standard applies to fuels used by off-road construction equipment.
Section 4.11, “Cumulative Impacts” BLM. See U.S. Bureau of Land Management. BOEM. See Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. 2019a (February 1). Combined Leasing Report as of February 1, 2019. Available: https://www.boem.gov/Combined-Lease-Statistics-2-2019/. Accessed February 28, 2019. ———. 2019b. California Activities. Available: https://www.boem.gov/California/. Accessed February 28, 2019. California Department of Conservation. 2019. Department of Conservation Fact Sheet. Available: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dog/Documents/DOGGR-FactSheet-06_26_2018.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2019. California Department of Finance. 2019. Projections. Available: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Projections/. Accessed March 28, 2019. California Energy Commission. 2017 (January). Renewable Energy Resource, Technology, and Economic Assessments, Appendix J - Task 10: California Offshore Wind Power Forum Summary Report. Available: https://www.energy.ca.gov/2017publications/CEC-500-2017-007/CEC-500-2017-007-APJ.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2019. DOF. See California Department of Finance. Jensen, O., T. Dempster, E. B. Thorstad, I. Uglem, and A. Fredheim. 2010. Escapes of Fishes from Norwegian Sea-Cage Aquaculture: Causes, Consequences and Prevention. Aquaculture Environment Interactions. 1:71-83. McKenna, M.F., J. Calambokidis, E.M. Oleson, D.W. Laist, and J. A. Goldbogen. 2015. Simultaneous Tracking of Blue Whales and Large Ships Demonstrates Limited Behavioral Responses for Avoiding Collision. Endangered Species Research 27:219–232. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2018 (May). 2017 West Coast Entanglement Summary. Available: https://www.westcoast.fisheries.noaa.gov/publications/protected_species/marine_mammals/5.2.2018_wcr_201 8_entanglement_report_508.pdf. Accessed February 28, 2019. NOAA. See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. RCEA. See Redwood Coast Energy Authority. Redwood Coast Energy Authority. 2018 (August). Redwood Coast Offshore Wind Project. Available: https://redwoodenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/RCOW-1-pg_fact-sheet.pdf. Accessed March 21, 2019.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 8-17 References Ascent Environmental
U.S. Bureau of Land Management. 2019. California Coastal National Monument. Available: https://www.blm.gov/programs/national-conservation-lands/california/california-coastal. Accessed February 28, 2019. U.S. Department of Commerce. 2017 (May). Fisheries Economics of the United States 2015. Silver Spring, MD.
Chapter 5, “Other Statutory Requirements” CDFW. See California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2009a. Regional Profile of the South Coast Study Region. Map 5.6-1: Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Landings. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/regionalprofile_sc.asp. Accessed: May 2019. ———. 2009a. Regional Profile of the South Coast Study Region. Map 5.4-1: Commercial Logbook Data. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/marine/mpa/regionalprofile_sc.asp. Accessed: May 2019.
Chapter 6, “Alternatives” No references were used in this chapter.
Chapter 7, “Public and Agency Involvement” No references were used in this chapter.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8-18 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR
9 REPORT PREPARERS
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Randy Lovell ...... State Aquaculture Coordinator Mary Olswang ...... Environmental Scientist
Ascent Environmental (CEQA Compliance) Chris Mundhenk ...... Principal Heather Blair ...... Project Manager Marianne Lowenthal ...... Introduction, Scope of the Environmental Analysis Claudia Garcia ...... Aesthetics; Land Use; Recreation; Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Alta Cunningham ...... Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Kirsten Burrowes ...... Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources Kai Lord-Farmer ...... Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Dimitri Antoniou ...... Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Energy Allison Fuller ...... Biological Resources Lara Rachowicz ...... Biological Resources Zachary Miller ...... Transportation, Traffic, and Marine Navigation Rachel Kozloski ...... Water Quality and Oceanography Jim Merk ...... Editor Gayiety Lane ...... Publishing Specialist Michelle Mattei ...... Publishing Specialist Brian Perry ...... Graphic Specialist
Aquaculture Development Committee Anthonie M. Schuur ...... Aquaculture Specialist Paul Olin ...... Aquaculture Specialist
California Department of Fish and Wildlife Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR 9-1 Report Preparers Ascent Environmental
This page intentionally left blank.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 9-2 Coastal Marine Aquaculture Program Draft PEIR