2003 Post-Construction Monitoring Report for Intertidal

Home , Aggregating anemone

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...... 1

PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 3

MARINE RESOURCES MONITORING...... 4

LIST OF REPORTS

3DJH

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

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

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

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

Page i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

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

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

Since implementation of the RBSP, intertidal surveys conducted during Year 2 (2002/2003) revealed exceptionally high sand levels at Cardiff Reef, but similarly high sand levels also occurred at the control area (Scripps Reef). Peak sand levels at Cardiff Reef affected a narrow zone of intertidal life that was buried or perhaps scoured (including low-lying mussels, barnacles, anemones, turf algae, and surfgrass). Sand levels were low at Cardiff the following spring.

Several monitoring locations in the shallow subtidal area have experienced changes in sand cover. Most of these changes were similar to levels observed prior to construction suggesting no impact from the beach replenishment program (i.e., natural sand transport). However, sand levels increased above levels observed prior to construction at one monitoring location at Solana Beach (SB-SS-2) and Batiquitos (BL-SS-3). Small portions of reef were buried along with several kelp species. Further surveys will document the change in sand cover and attempt to determine if the increase is due to nourishment operations. The largest changes in sand cover were observed at control locations further suggesting there is a great deal of seasonal sand transport in the region, and observations suggest that the majority of the sand has migrated downcoast along the shoreline from the receiver site.

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

Page 2 PROJECT OVERVIEW

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

Table 1. Regional Beach Sand Project Construction Schedule

Receiver Site Construction Dates Borrow Site Quantity (cy)

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

Total 2,104,000

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

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

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

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

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

MARINE RESOURCES MONITORING

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

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

This report presents results from post-construction monitoring surveys for marine biological resources conducted since implementation of the RBSP. Marine biological monitoring locations were established prior to the implementation of the RBSP to document the condition and state of marine resources. Several of these monitoring locations were established in 1997 for the Navy's beach replenishment efforts, and provide a long-term data set as to the natural variability in the nearshore region. The location of monitoring test and control sites was driven by the model-predicted sedimentation patterns and locations where partial sedimentation could occur to hard substrate with indicator species (Figures 1 to 5). The monitoring locations and methodology have also been established based on coordination with the commercial lobster fishermen as represented by Mr. John Guth of the CLTFA.

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

Page 5 OCEAN

SO TO S T

S PACIFIC ST MORSE ST

ST KELLY ST

S HORNE ST

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

S HORNE ST

S NEVADA ST

COAST HWY S DITMAR ST CASSIDY ST

S T F VISTA S R

E R E N R

D D

A O O S O

N R

C C I

S FE I P T F P

O O

S PACIFIC ST

LAS FLORES DR Oceanside Buena Vista Receiver Site Lagoon

BUENA VISTA WY

ST N TO EA

ST. MALO BEACH

KNOWLES AV

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

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

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

AV PINE AV

VE CARLSBAD VILLAGEA DR K A O UT TN ES CH

PINE AVE

R E

D F

E F

G G E

R A A

L L S

L O I I

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

0 350

METERS

F I GURE North Carlsbad Beach Replenishment Monitoring Sites 1

/net/tonga/rota/beach/plots/figures/monitor2001.aml 1 08/23/01 gy x h

i v r e y f i y h v h e i y h vyyfvih iv x y i

v f i

q i

e e

s h e

i x g s x

we evy evywe es y yeh

e u sx q

y e g i e i x e si

g e v f resxi e h

f v h f ii i h

g outh grlsd e w

s ix x gsxe giiu y eeiver ite h i

eix gEEI she ixg sxe

e f y

i y e

s sx g i e i h

h e y s i x s s h

e e f g i x y rgevfeheifiegrgewqy xh i x v e g e s s x v e i i f sx e y h

x hes e se v i ex fy ysx y v f y e f s

v s v

e y h e y

h e

e ex v s e x i

i e

e x

ixgsxe ixshe f i e e

ex v s y

h viqixh exh vy ivsip geiih iip rsqr ivsip iip ristoril wximum uelp fed gnopies fes sy IWUV to IWWT veqyyx

ei eu wesxixexgi uelp fed gnopy e h IWWU rrd ustrte eeiver ite wodeled heposition ere wonitoring votion

ftquitos ve gye ei eeiver ite

exhi e

H RHH

vgexx e s v

v wii g r

fvEEI i s h e

p s q i outh grlsdGftquitos feh eplenishment wonitoring ites P

GrotGehGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIFml P HVGPQGHI ixshe f i e e

y x x ex v s v y r g h x s p

fe s s y h

xfes sy

fes sy veqyyx

ei eu wesxixexgi e h

ftquitos ve gye ei

h eeiver ite yp v u

q exhie e e g v y v x y e h s v g r e vgexx e h s i v

v y h f q xh h

g v y r

e fvEEI i s h e

fvEuEI e

yri e

rsvvgi h

xi xi e

y y

expyh e

fvEEP h

y sei y

x x fvEuEP rqise e

vgexx e

iyv e

iteyx

exse e

e h x e w riwi e y

x h

rwi e e rqise e sp exse e vy e e

rsqre IHI fvEEQ se fvEuEQ geh vi fvh

veudi rqise e

eeiver ite rwi e x ixEuEI i shyx

x i e

ifve

v g e x e

wvEEI xsyx

x vgex e

ixEuEP v e e veiee w

ygiexsie i i

eyx e r e y

xi xi e

x viqixh i x

h w v i v e v g e y i x e exh e i e e vy ivsip e

geiih iip yy h s h esv rsqr ivsip h esv iip ixEuEQ ixgsxse fvh gyffviGexh

wyyxvsqr ristoril wximum ei e uelp fed gnopies fiegr

IWUV to IWWT f

uelp fed gnopy g IWWU woonlight ehix h i ie h i

y rrd ustrte h gyxsr

eeiver ite vgex

h eeiver ite

Pxh

Qh ehix h wodeled heposition ere ehix h

pyh h

wonitoring votion

i i

q q

e e

v v

h h

EuEI e

ehix h

pyh h

gyxsrgyxsr h h

EEI exe pie

hiyxrsi h

H SHH EEP fixisx e

e EuEP x wii i v s t EEQ y

e wws

v v

s s

q q

r r

p s q i ftiquitos 8 veudi feh eplenishment wonitoring ites Q

GrotGehGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIFml Q HVGPQGHI x e i e i h e e esv qe

h e yy h x

s h h esv esv

ixgsxse fv h ixEuEQ h fv e s sx g wyyxvsqr i x ei e fiegr

woonlight ehix h i ie h i

yx h gyxsr

x xehy eeiver ite vgex xehy

x Pxh

ehixehix h h

epyh h

wivfe

i i

q q

e e

v v

h h

EuEI v

ehix h

gyxsrgyxsr h h

qehixe h

EEI exe piepyh h h

hiyxrsi h

wegusxxyx wegusxxyx

EEP fixisx e

e EuEP x i v s t EEQ y

e wws e

v v

s s

q q

r r

h h

EuEQ

yie ywii

e e e

ihsxf q e ypyh e g e gewfshqi e y w v y x q y w w e i x g r e i i e viqixh

h exh h siv p i i vy ivsip gr geiih iip rsqr ivsip iip ristoril wximum

uelp fed gnopies h fvsx h IWUV to IWWT gpEuEI uelp fed gnopy IWWU usvuixx h rrd ustrte eeiver ite gpEEI wodeled heposition ere gpEuEP wonitoring votion gehspp ei fiegr

grdiff eeiver ite

H QSH

wii

p s q i woonlightGgrdiff feh eplenishment wonitoring ites R

GnetGtongGrotGehGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIFml U HVGPQGHI w w e e i x g r e i h h i

e r

e v

h h

i i

veui h

p p

h h siv p i i gr

i q e ie sv v

v e u i h h fvsx h gpEuEI

usvuixx h

w e xgri gpEEI i

gpEuEP ei

gehspp ei fiegr

grdiff eeiver ite

r sq gpEuEQ r e I H

ggEEI e

e h

x e

e y

x e

e ge

f f

e e

f f s q r v x

ggEEP

vxyhqvixwyx

yvexe xsye se

h h

e pp i

g v g g g ggEEQ s

i x x s

i i

v v

q q

gvspp

g i h

gveu

y e

e i h e

e e p

e e

f f

qexehyqexehy e e x x x

egegse e e e e f e w y v viqixh

xehye fEuEI pvigri vee exh gyi i fiegr eu i

sie e x vy ivsip

sye qexehy e geiih iip oln feh rsqr ivsip eeiver ite iip

gihye ristoril wximum uelp fed gnopies IWUV to IWWT fEuEP hervse h uelpegspsg fed gnopy IWWUygiex sie e

eh e rrd ustrte y

v e eeiver ite x e

s wodeled heposition ere wonitoring votion fEEP

fEuEQ

se hi ve evvi

H QSH

wii

p s q i grdiffGoln feh feh eplenishment wonitoring ites S

GrotGehGplotsGfiguresGmonitorPHHIFml S HVGPQGHI

ROCKY INTERTIDAL MONITORING REPORT FINAL

ROCKY INTERTIDAL RESOURCE DYNAMICS

IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY:

CARDIFF, LA JOLLA, AND POINT LOMA,

SEVENTH YEAR REPORT (2003/2004)

AMEC EARTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE

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

U.S. NAVY REPRESENTATIVE

Mitch Perdue Southwest Division Naval Facilities Engineering Command South Bay Area Focus Team. Code 5SPR.MP 2585 Callagan Hwy, Bldg 99 San Diego, California 92136-5198 FINAL

ROCKY INTERTIDAL RESOURCE DYNAMICS

IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY:

CARDIFF, LA JOLLA, AND POINT LOMA,

SEVENTH YEAR REPORT (2003/2004)

Authored by:

John M. Engle

Submitted by:

Marine Science Institute University of California Santa Barbara, CA 93106

For:

AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. U.S. Navy, Southwest Division 5510 Morehouse Drive Naval Facilities Engineering Command San Diego, CA 92121 South Bay Area Focus Team Code 5SPR.MP 2585 Callagan Hwy, Bldg 99 San Diego, California 92136-5198

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

August 2004 Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES...... 2

LIST OF FIGURES ...... 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 4

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 5

2. METHODS...... 7

2.1 RESOURCE MONITORING SITES ...... 7 2.2 TARGET SPECIES ASSEMBLAGES...... 9 2.3 SURVEY PROCEDURES...... 10 3. RESULTS ...... 13

3.1 FIELD ACTIVITIES AND OBSERVATIONS...... 13 3.2 KEY SPECIES SURVEY DATA...... 15 4. DISCUSSION...... 21

5. CONCLUSIONS ...... 28

6. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... 30

7. REFERENCES...... 31 List of Tables Table 1. Summary of Key Species Monitored at the Four San Diego County Sites.....……...... 34 Table 2. Rocky Intertidal Survey Plots and Plot Identification Codes...... ……...... ……...... 35 Table 3. Field Activities for the San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Project...... ……...... 36 Table 4. Personnel Participating in San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Surveys...... ……...... 36 Table 5. Fall 2003 Species Abundances in Photoplots....……………………….…....……...... 37 Table 6. Spring 2004 Species Abundances in Photoplots………………………….....……...... 38 Table 7. Photoplot Species Summary Data by Site: Cardiff and Scripps……………..……….. 39 Table 8. Photoplot Species Summary Data by Site: Navy North and Navy South.…..……….. 40 Table 9. Photoplot Key Species Summary Data by Quadrat: Cardiff and Scripps...... …...... 41 Table 10. Photoplot Key Species Summary Data by Quadrat: Navy North and Navy South...... 42 Table 11. Fall 2003 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Cardiff and Scripps…….. 43 Table 12. Fall 2003 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Navy North and South…. 44 Table 13. Spring 2004 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Cardiff and Scripps….. 45 Table 14. Spring 2004 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Navy North & South… 46 Table 15. Owl Limpet Density and Size Summary Data by Site: Cardiff and Scripps...... ….... 47 Table 16. Owl Limpet Density and Size Summary Data by Site: Navy North and Navy South... 48 Table 17. Owl Limpet Density and Size Data by Plot: Cardiff and Scripps ………………….... 49 Table 18. Owl Limpet Density and Size Data by Plot: Navy North and Navy South..…..……... 50 Table 19. Fall 2003 Species Abundances along Point-Intercept Transects……………………… 51 Table 20. Spring 2004 Species Abundances along Point-Intercept Transects…………….……... 52 Table 21. Point Transect Species Summary Data by Site: Cardiff and Scripps……..……………. 53 Table 22. Point Transect Species Summary Data by Site: Navy North and Navy South…………. 54 Table 23. Point Transect Key Species Summary Data by Transect: Cardiff and Scripps…….…… 55 Table 24. Point Transect Key Species Summary Data by Transect: Navy North and South…….. 56 Table 25. Black Abalone and Ochre Seastar Summary Data…………………………………….. 57 Table 26. Major Temporal Trends in Key Species Abundances …………………………………. 58

2 List of Figures Figure 1. San Diego County Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Sites..…...... …...... 59 Figure 2. Point Loma Rocky Intertidal Monitoring Sites……………….…………………..….. 60 Figure 3. Cardiff Reef Map……………………………………………………….……………. 61 Figure 4. Scripps Reef Map………….…………………………………………………………. 62 Figure 5. Point Loma Navy North Map: Overview, Area R1, Area R2....…………...... 63 Figure 6. Point Loma Navy North Map: Area R3...... …...... …………...... …...... 64 Figure 7. Point Loma Navy South Map: Overview, Area R1, Area R2.…...……...... …...... 65 Figure 8. Point Loma Navy South Map: Area R3, Area R4...... …………...... …...... 66 Figure 9. Species Abundances in Rockweed Plots at 3 San Diego County Sites………………. 67 Figure 10. Species Abundances in Barnacle Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites…….….….……. 68 Figure 11. Species Abundances in Goose Barnacle Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites……..….. 69 Figure 12. Species Abundances in Mussel Plots at 4 San Diego County Sites…………..….…... 70 Figure 13. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Cardiff Reef………………………...... 71 Figure 14. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Scripps Reef…………………………...... 72 Figure 15. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy North…..…………….………..………….. 73 Figure 16. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy South……………………………………… 74 Figure 17. Owl Limpet Abundances at 4 San Diego County Sites……………..……………….. 75 Figure 18. Owl Limpet Sizes from 5 Plots (combined) at 4 San Diego County Sites…………… 76 Figure 19. Species Abundances in Turf Transects at 4 San Diego County Sites………………... 77 Figure 20. Species Abundances in Surfgrass Transects at 4 San Diego County Sites……..……. 78 Figure 21. NOAA Sea Surface Temperature Anomalies: 1993-2003…..…………...... 79

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This annual report provides the results of monitoring surveys conducted during Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 at 4 rocky intertidal sites in San Diego County and compares key species abundance patterns for the 7-year project period. The primary objective is to increase understanding of species dynamics to help assess and reduce human impacts, especially possible effects of the SANDAG Beach Replenishment Project. Cardiff Reef (possible impact site) and Scripps Reef (control site) were established in Fall 1997. Navy North and Navy South on Point Loma (established in 1995) provide regional perspective. Abundances of 14 index species were monitored biannually in fixed plots. Survey data were supplemented by habitat observations, photographs, and videotapes. Cardiff State Beach upcoast of Cardiff Reef received 101,000 cubic yards of offshore sand during August 2001. There was no evidence of natural or beach replenishment sand burial or scour effects on intertidal life at Cardiff in F01 or S02, except for a few buried mussels in S02. In F02, 15-19 months after sand deposition, high sand levels occurred at Cardiff (burying a narrow zone of low-lying mussels, barnacles, anemones, turf algae, and surfgrass), but similar high sand levels also were documented at Scripps, which was not near beach enhancement activities. In S03 sand levels were low at Cardiff and low-moderate at Scripps. In F03 moderately high sand levels were found at Cardiff and Scripps, followed by low sand levels by S04, all within typical seasonal range of variation. A differing distribution of sand at Cardiff in F03 demonstrated variability in sand movement and deposition dynamics at this location. Of 14 key species monitored at the San Diego County sites since Fall 1997, 1 species (black abalone) was never found and 4 species (boa kelp, sargassum weed, aggregating anemone, and sand castle worm) were relatively uncommon. Other key species abundances varied little or considerably by plot, site, season, and year. Of the 4 sites, Cardiff, isolated by extensive sand and gravel beaches, experienced the greatest disturbance from storm swells and sand/gravel scour over the 7-year monitoring period. Major trends in key species abundances at Cardiff from Year 6 to Year 7 were decreases in red algal turf (due to sand burial in F03) and increases in acorn barnacles and seastars. The 3- and 7-year species abundance comparisons were similar to the 1-year comparison for 5 of the 7 species. The other 3 sites also showed considerable smaller-scale variability, but few major trends over Years 6-7 (primarily, seastars increased and owl limpets decreased at Scripps). Year 1 to Year 7 comparisons revealed increased rockweed at the 3 sites, decreased mussels at NN and NS, increased owl limpets, red turf, and seastars at Scripps, decreased sand castle worms at Scripps, decreased red turf at NN, and decreased owl limpets at NS. Seasonal cycles of abundance were apparent over the 7-year period for rockweed, red turf, and surfgrass, with lower cover and poor condition in Spring apparently associated with “weathering” from winter storms. Other storm affects on key species included sand/gravel scour (e.g., in barnacle plots at Cardiff), mussel dislodgement (e.g., at Cardiff and Scripps), and bedrock breakouts (at all sites). Storm effects were patchy and recovery rates variable. Seasonal and annual variability in species abundances at the 4 sites occurred within a larger-scale oceanographic context over the 7-year monitoring period as sea conditions shifted from a long-term warming trend (culminating in the severe 1997/98 El Niño) to a cooler trend characterized by a prolonged La Niña and continued cool or near normal conditions through S04. The 5-year cooler trend, coupled with fewer severe storms, apparently benefited some key species, including rockweed, mussels, and seastars.

4 1. Introduction

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

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

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

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

This annual report is a joint report for the mutual benefit of AMEC Earth and Environmental. Inc. (for SANDAG) and the U.S. Navy that continues the series of annual reports for the 4 rocky intertidal sites in San Diego County. The Year 7 report provides the results of surveys conducted during Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 and compares species abundance dynamics for the 7-year period of the project. The sites at Cardiff and Scripps reefs were established in Fall 1997 to provide baselines for the Navy Beach Replenishment Project (see First through Sixth Year Reports: Engle et al. 1998b; Engle & Farrar 1999; Engle 2000, 2001, 2002; Engle & Adams 2003). The sites on Point Loma (Navy North and Navy South) had been setup for the Navy in Spring 1995 (Engle & Davis 1996c), with monitoring continued by this study. Three additional sites at the southern tip of Point Loma have been monitored separately for the Cabrillo National Monument and Minerals Management Service since Spring 1990. Data from the Cabrillo National Monument sites are reported elsewhere (Davis & Engle 1991; Engle & Davis 1996b; Engle et al. 1999).

In 2000, the Navy Beach Replenishment Project was converted to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Sand Beach Project. Two million cubic yards of sand were pumped from offshore sites to twelve San Diego County beaches during April to September 2001. The Cardiff State Beach site, located approximately 3,400-4,200 feet upcoast of Cardiff Reef, received 101,000 cubic yards of sand during August 2-10, 2001. This Year 7 (Fall 2003-Spring 2004) Report of rocky intertidal monitoring surveys at Cardiff Reef characterizes biological conditions 27-31 months after the nearby sand beach replenishment.

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

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

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

7 Scripps Reef Scripps Reef (32.872 N Lat, 117.253 W Lon), in the vicinity of “Dike Rock”, is located approximately midway between the Scripps Pier and Black’s Canyon in La Jolla. The reef is part of the Scripps Coastal Reserve. Like Cardiff Reef, Scripps Reef is isolated by extensive sand beaches upcoast and downcoast, and backed by highly erodable bluffs. However, Scripps Reef is larger and more structurally diverse, with medium to high relief boulders and ridges separated by wet channels and pools. The site also is exposed to swells, but inshore portions are partially protected by outer reef. Scripps Reef receives moderate visitation; people have to hike from Scripps Institution or from Blacks Canyon. Visitor impacts may be less here than at Cardiff because of its proximity to Scripps Institution and designation as a reserve.

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

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

The extensive reef system at NN, with a range of wave exposures and a variety of microhabitats, supports diverse assemblages of intertidal plants and animals. Turf and surfgrass

8 habitats are extensive here, but goose barnacles and mussels are rare. Pink barnacles are more prominent than white barnacles. A full description of this site can be found in Engle and Davis (1996c). Access to this site requires hiking about 1 km upcoast from the shore trail at Navy South.

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

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

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

9 • Species especially vulnerable to human impacts • Species practical for long-term monitoring

The index taxa surveyed at the Cardiff, Scripps, NN, and NS intertidal sites are listed in Table 1. In addition to the key species, broad categories (other plants, other animals, other biota) are scored, as well as the amount of tar and bare substrate (rock or sand). The natural history and ecology for each of the key species are summarized in Engle and Davis (1996b).

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

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

10 transects that continue to be monitored at Navy North and Navy South originally were setup in Spring 1995 (Tables 1-2; Figs. 5-8).

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

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

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

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

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

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

12 3. Results 3.1 Field Activities and Observations for Year Five Field activities and observations for Years 1-6 can be found in prior annual reports (Engle et al. 1998b; Engle & Farrar 1999; Engle 2000, 2001, 2002; Engle & Adams 2003). Table 3 lists the schedule of field activities for rocky intertidal baseline surveys at the 4 San Diego County sites during the seventh year of this study. The surveys were conducted during periods in Fall 2003 (October 24-27) and Spring 2004 (March 4-7) when good low tides occurred during midday hours. Biologists and assistants worked about 6 hr each day (low tide ±3 hr) in the field (Table 4). An additional 4 hr each day was spent preparing for field work in the morning and organizing data and notes in the evening. Results from Spring and Fall reconnaissance and key species surveys at the 4 sites are reported below. For ease of presentation, the sampling seasons are abbreviated as, for example, F03 for Fall 2003 and S04 for Spring 2004. Sites are abbreviated as Cardiff (Cardiff Reef), Scripps (Scripps Reef), NN (Navy North, Point Loma), and NS (Navy South, Point Loma).

During each visit to the San Diego County sites, qualitative physical and biological observations were recorded on Field Log data sheets and with photographs. The F97 and S98 monitoring described in the First Year Report (Engle et al. 1998b) occurred during a major El Niño event that included above normal water temperatures, heavy rainfall, and large storm swells. El Niño conditions lessened during the period S98 to F98, though water temperatures remained above the long-term mean. Since F98, temperatures have dropped to lower levels as a result of a switch to La Niña ocean climate that persisted through all of 1999, slowly degraded through 2000-2001, then gradually shifted into and out of a weak El Niño that had relatively little influence on southern California waters. As a result, the past 5 years have been characterized by cooler or relatively normal seawater temperatures. Storms generally have been few and mild, and rainfall mostly below normal (mean San Diego rainfall for past 5 years was 6.6 inches compared to long-term mean of 10.2 inches). The 2003/2004 rainfall was less than half normal, with typical rains occurring only in February 2004.

F03 surveys took place coincidently with a major firestorm inland that brought smoky haze and drifting ashes onto the coast. Though air quality was poor, no adverse effects were observed on intertidal life. Sampling was accomplished despite the inland emergency, with fair to good sea conditions for the surveys. Red tide was present at NN and NS, but not at Cardiff or Scripps, and no adverse effects were observed. There was little evidence of prior storm disturbance (i.e., cleared or overturned rocks, rock break-outs, scour disturbances, patches of opportunistic algae, patches of mussel byssal threads or torn goose barnacle stalks, broken mussel shells, and algal wrack on upper beaches) at the survey sites. At Cardiff, no evidence of storm effects was observed. At Scripps occasional small patches of torn-out mussel were noted,

13 along with a few spots with leafless surfgrass rhyzomes. At NN and NS, a few minor break-outs of sedimentary rock layers were noted here and there. Moderate amounts of fresh drift kelp were present immediately upcoast of the mussel reef at NN, but there was little kelp wrack on the reefs or beaches at NS.

Sand levels at Cardiff in F03 were high around the reefs, but not as high as the record levels found in F02, except that for the first time since monitoring began the majority of Turf Transect 3 was buried. Table Top projection (with goose barnacle plots 2 and 3) was 0.8 m above the substrate, compared to 1.5 m in S03, 0.5 m in F02, There was a moderate amount of sand at the base of the seawall, but the concrete ledge was mostly exposed. Gravel and cobble were minimally present at the reef. Some anemones along the north edge of the inshore reef were partially buried, but not any mussels. Sand covered the south portion of inshore reef, but did not affect the owl limpet plots or mussel slope. There was relatively little slippery green algal cover on the inshore barnacle reef and no evidence of scour. Sand levels were not unusually high around the offshore mussel reef; however, sand was particularly high in the area between the inner and outer mussel reefs, including the transect locations. In addition to the first ever burial of Turf Transect 3, about half of the other turf transects were covered, with lesser sand cover on the surfgrass transects. There was no evidence of mortality of buried anemones or turf.

Sand levels also were high at Scripps Reef in F03, along the north and south reef margins and in low areas within the reef, but not as high as Fall 02. Generally the sand was 0.2-0.3 m below the lower edge of the mussel zone. Some anemones and turf were buried, but not mussels. There was a light coating of sand on some lower rocks within the boulder reef, but none on the photoplots. Sand occurred in low areas on turf transects, but not on surfgrass transects. No scour effects were evident. At NN, sand levels were moderate on nearby beaches, but there was little sand influence on the rocky reef. At NS sand levels were relatively low on cove beaches and there was little sand evident on the intertidal reefs.

The S04 surveys occurred after a winter with scattered storms and low rainfall, except February rainfall was above average. A major rainstorm with high surf occurred the week before the S04 sampling. Evidence of storm damage since F03 was present at all sites, but mostly minimal and typical for this time of year. At Cardiff Reef, a few empty mussel shells and a few small patches of mussel byssal threads were noted. No rock break-outs or scoured surfaces were observed; however, the surfgrass was obviously shortened, thinned, and abraded. Scattered, small amounts of drift kelp were present mostly downcoast from the site. At Scripps Reef signs of storm disturbance since Fall 2003 included occasional small torn-out mussel patches (with byssal thread remnants), scattered mussel shells, a few overturned rocks, and tattered surfgrass. Low turf cover was missing on some inshore rocks, exposing typically hidden rock oysters. At NN and NS, some overturned rocks and thinned, tattered, and shortened surfgrass were observed. No

14 break-outs of sedimentary rock layers were noted. Moderate amounts of fresh drift kelp were present on beaches.

As is typical after winter surf conditions, sand levels were relatively low at all sites particularly at Cardiff and Scripps where low-lying rocks coated with ephemeral green algae were noted in areas covered by sand last fall. Sand levels at Cardiff were relatively low around the reefs, though low zone flats were sand-influenced. Table Top projection was 1.5 m above the substrate, compared to 0.8 m in Fall 2003, 1.5 m in Spring 2003, 0.5 m in Fall 2002, 1.1 m in Spring 2002, 1.4 m in Fall 2001, 1.6 m in Spring 2001 and 1.2 m in Fall 2000. The road cut was about 2 m deep, with sand at base. Sand levels (and a small patch of cobble) along the seawall were low, with the ledge mostly well-exposed. Gravel and cobble were minimally present at the reef. Turf and surfgrass transects, though lightly sand-influenced, had little sand cover. The turf transects showed little or no obvious effects from considerable sand burial last fall. There was high cover of ephemeral green algae on the inshore barnacle reef. At Scripps, sand levels were relatively low downcoast of the reef, along the reef margins, and in low areas within the reef. Generally the sand was about 1 m below the lower edge of the mussel zone. Many rocks were exposed on the downcoast beach; these were coated with low ephemeral green algae. Sand was mostly gone from reef pools. At NN and NS, sand levels were low to moderate on nearby beaches and coves, and there was little sand influence on the reef.

Visitors were common at Cardiff and Scripps during both seasonal surveys, but only 3 people and a dog were seen at NN (F03), and none were seen at NS. Often 10-40 people (plus dogs at Cardiff) were present on the reefs at any one time during the low tide surveys at Cardiff and Scripps. Most visitor activities involved walking over the reef, turning over rocks, and picking up shells or animals, but at Cardiff some people collect mussels for bait when they fish from the reef. Also, Cardiff is popular with surfers, with some surfing directly over the reef at high tide. Lifeguards occasionally drive jeeps over the upper shore portion of Cardiff Reef. Heavy construction equipment has been known to cross upper Cardiff Reef, en route to downcoast sites where cliffs were shored up to reduce bluff loss. A few spots of weathered tar were seen at the San Diego sites, but no major concentrations or fresh material.

3.2 Key Species Survey Data The results of monitoring rocky intertidal species assemblages in fixed plots/transects at the 4 San Diego County sites in Fall 2003 and Spring 2004 are presented below, with summary data compared to previous years for each key species (see Engle et al. 1998b; Engle & Farrar 1999; Engle 2000, 2001, 2002; Engle & Adams 2003 for raw data tables for prior years). Changes in percent cover are presented as differences between seasonal samplings, not as percent of change from a particular season’s values.

15 Rockweed (Silvetia compressa) Plots emphasizing rockweed were monitored at all sites except Cardiff Reef where Silvetia is absent (Tables 5-10; Fig. 9). At Scripps, rockweed cover this year and last year remained at the highest cover since monitoring began. In the 7 years from F97/S98 to F03/S04, rockweed abundance increased from 27% to 64% overall. 3 of the 5 plots showed obvious increases, with the other 2 plots only minimally changed since monitoring began. Rockweed cover at NN and NS was high and similar to previous year levels. Last year, Plot 5 at NN recovered from losses that occurred after S97; however, its cover is only half of what it was when monitoring began. Over the past 7 years, Silvetia cover increased from 42% to 85% cover at NN and from 39% to 60% cover at NS. At all three sites, rockweed cover during the five recent cooler-water years (F99-S04) was notably higher than that of the two earlier warmer-water years (F97-S99). Rockweed did not occur in barnacle or mussel key species plots, except for notably increasing amounts (now averaging 18% cover) in three thatched barnacle plots at NN. Rockweed exhibited a slight pattern of lower abundance in spring compared to fall over the monitoring period. This seasonal pattern is not consistent for all years and is less apparent at NS.

Acorn Barnacle (Chthamalus spp.) Plots targeting the small acorn barnacles were monitored only at Cardiff and Scripps; these barnacles also occurred in low abundance within thatched barnacle plots at NN and NS, and in goose barnacle, mussel, and rockweed plots at all 4 sites (Tables 5-10; Fig. 10). Chthamalus cover at Cardiff recovered from 40% cover last year to 65% abundance in F03 and a monitoring peak of 77% cover in S04. Trends were consistent in all 5 plots. At Scripps, where sand scour/burial is unlikely on the high barnacle ridge, acorn barnacles remained at high levels of cover in F03/S04, except Plot B2 dropped to an all-time low of 42% cover in S04 associated with a bloom of overgrowing ephemeral green algae. Declines in the first year of monitoring that were associated with El Niño storms were less severe, with rapid recovery (<1 year) at Scripps compared to Cardiff (3 years to recovery). Acorn barnacle cover in rockweed, goose barnacle and mussel plots at all four sites was generally low and similar to the previous year, except for increases in S04 in NN and NS thatched barnacle plots and in NS mussel plots.

Pink Thatched Barnacle (Tetraclita rubescens) Plots targeting the relatively large thatched barnacles were surveyed at NN and NS (Tables 5-10; Fig. 10). A few Tetraclita occurred on rock or on mussels in several mussel and goose barnacle plots at all 4 sites. None were found in the acorn barnacle plots at Cardiff and Scripps. At NN Tetraclita cover dropped slightly from 31% last year to 26% currently. This year the pattern of fall decline followed by spring increase in thatched barnacle cover was evident at NN, but not at NS. As in some previous years, this seasonal change was associated with variations in turf algae cover, which covered some barnacles when lush in the fall season. Over the past 3 years, thatched barnacle cover at NN declined by half, but abundances 7 years ago

16 were similar to present values. At NS, the already low Tetraclita cover remained at similar levels in F03/S04. Most of the cover in these plots was turf algae, which over the years has tended to fluctuate seasonally (higher in fall, lower in spring) with bare rock.

Goose Barnacle (Pollicipes polymerus) Goose barnacles were monitored at all 4 sites (Tables 5-10; Figs. 11-12). At NN and NS, 6 replicate plots were surveyed instead of 5 in order to maintain consistency at Point Loma with 3 sites in the Cabrillo National Monument. Pollicipes also were present in the mussel plots at NN and NS, but were uncommon in these plots at Scripps and Cardiff. Goose barnacle cover was similar at all sites in F03/S04 compared to F02/S03. At Cardiff, only a few goose barnacles (1% cover) recovered in Plot 2 (where a rock breakout removed the entire plot prior to S02). Plot 1 that had lost all cover from El Niño storm scour after S98, improved from 5% goose barnacle cover last year to 10% cover this year, having now recovered about one-third of its original cover over 5 years. The other 3 plots were little changed. The losses in Plots 1 and 2 account for the overall small declines that occurred over the 7-year monitoring period (from 28% to 16% cover). Pollicipes abundance at Scripps (where storm disturbance was not observed in any plots) changed little since last year and over the past 7 years. Like last year, goose barnacles are nearly absent from the plots at NN (1% cover) following previous losses associated with rock breakouts and clump disappearance that have not been replaced via recruitment. NS Pollicipes cover this year was similar to last year (13% vs 12%), but 7 years ago the cover was 26%. Goose barnacle abundances in the mussel plots (16% at NN and 2% at NS in F03/S04) were similar over the last several years.

Mussel (Mytilus californianus) Mussel assemblages were surveyed at all 4 sites (Tables 5-10; Figs. 11-12). A second set of mussel plots was monitored on an offshore reef at Cardiff. Mussel recruitment and growth at Cardiff and Scripps over time has caused overgrowth of many plot markers, such that a metal detector has been needed to located plot corner bolts. Mussels also occurred in the goose barnacle plots at Cardiff, Scripps, and NS. At Cardiff, inshore mussels had declined by 30% and offshore mussels by 20% after El Niño storms between F97 and S98. Since then, the mussels have steadily improved to essentially full recovery by S01, except for inshore Plot 1 (which lost all mussels when a ledge broke out between F97 and S98). Inshore Plot 1 had returned to 62% cover by F02 (compared to 83% in F97), but dropped to 34% cover by S03 and improved to 57% cover in F03/S04. Overall current inshore mussel cover is similar to last year and similar to F97 cover 7 years ago when monitoring began. Mussels in the goose barnacle plots (inshore) at Cardiff have shown similar trends of 1997/1998 El Niño losses followed by gradual recovery (by F00 despite slow recovery in Plot 1) and relatively little change since (except for declines in Plot 2 after its S02 break-out). Offshore mussel plots at Cardiff showed similar patterns of decline

17 after F97 El Niño storms, followed by gradual recovery (by S00). Offshore Plot 1 lost 2/3 of its cover after S00 and offshore Plot 3 lost half of its cover after F01, both losses apparently due to storm damage. These plots have only partially recovered by S04, yet current overall offshore mussel cover is only 9% below the F97 level. Mytilus plots at Scripps have been very dynamic. They declined from 81% cover in F97 to 67% cover in S98 after El Niño storms, recovered to 85% and 93% cover by F99 and S00, declined to 47% cover by S02, then gradually improved to 70% cover by S04. Declines were due to patchy losses (presumably resulting from storms) in individual plots. Plot 1 lost essentially all mussels after S00 and has regained ¾ of its cover after 4 years. Plot 5 dropped from 90% to 59% cover at the same time as Plot 1, then continued to decline over the next 3 years to 14% cover in S03, but recovered by S04 to 56% cover. Plots 3 and 4 recovered from El Niño losses by F99, improved to 100% cover in F01, then dropped to 35% cover (Plot3) and 73% cover (Plot 4) by S02. Since then, Plot 3 has increased to 52% cover and Plot 4 remained fairly unchanged. Only Plot 2 remained relatively stable over the 5-year period, ranging only between 86% and 100% cover. Mussels in the goose barnacle plots (located inshore) showed less variability that those in mussel plots along the offshore edge of the reef at Scripps. Cover declined gradually from 33% in F97 to 19% in F99, followed by a gradual increase to 29-38% cover since S00. Mussels were rare at NN and NS, with the plots representing some of the few spots with mussel cover. The relatively low mussel cover at NN and NS remained relatively stable from F97-S01 (ranging from 25% to 36% cover at NN and 17% to 23% at NS), then gradually declined to 6% cover (NN) and 2% cover (NS) by F03/S04, apparently due to storm disturbance without recovery. The remaining mussel cover at NN occurs in 3 plots (M0, M1, M2); that at NS in 2 plots (M1, M5). Mytilus have been absent in goose barnacle plots at NN since S01. At NS, mussels in Pollicipes plots declined from a peak of 18% cover in F98 to 5-8% cover since F01.

Owl Limpet (Lottia gigantea) Owl limpets ≥15 mm length were counted and measured in 5 plots each at Cardiff and Scripps and 6 plots each at NN and NS (Tables 11-18; Figs. 13-18). At Cardiff, limpet counts increased from F97 (19 limpets/plot) to peak highs in F99/S00 (45 limpets/plot), followed by gradual declines to 13 limpets/plot by F03/S04. Declines were associated with encroachment of mussels into limpet plots. Although the proportion of large (PP YHUVXVVPDOO PP limpets at Cardiff varied considerably over the past 6 years (from 30-77%), both size categories generally contributed to the increases and decreases during this period. At Scripps, limpet numbers over the 7-year monitoring period showed a bimodal pattern, with peak counts during F98-F99 and S03-S03. Abundances this year (89 limpets/plot) declined from last year’s level (104 limpets/plot). Both small and large limpets have contributed to the fluctuating abundance patterns; however, larger limpets have increased in proportion during the 7 years of monitoring (from 24-38% during F97-S00 to 46-56% during F00-S04). Limpet counts at NN, like Cardiff, peaked in F99-S00, but subsequent declines were less severe such that F03/S04 abundances (48

18 limpets/plot) are higher than initial F97/S98 levels (33 limpets/plot). Declines over the past 3 years apparently were due to storm damage at various times to several of the plots. Both large and small limpets contributed to the varying abundances. At NS, owl limpet numbers increased gradually from F97 to S01, then declined more rapidly, resulting in lower F03/S04 counts (46 limpets/plot) than when monitoring began in F97/S98 (60 limpets/plot). Declines over the past 3 years occurred in all 6 plots and were associated with apparent patchy wave weathering (scour) of the soft sedimentary substrate. Both small and large limpets contributed to the abundance patterns. Mean sizes varied within fairly narrow ranges, likely reflecting a combination of recruitment patterns and size-dependant mortality. Over the past 7 years, mean sizes varied from 29 to 36 mm at Cardiff (mean = 32 mm), 25 to 32 mm at Scripps (mean = 29 mm), 30 to 39 mm at NN (mean = 35 mm), and 34 to 41 mm at NS (mean = 37 mm). All sites had limpets as small as 15 mm, with the largest limpets found at NN and NS (61-75 mm), followed by Scripps (43-60 mm), and Cardiff (44-54 mm).

Red Algal Turf (Corallina spp, et al.) Red turf is a mixed species assemblage of low-growing algae that carpets the middle intertidal zones of low-relief reefs. In San Diego County this turf can contain as many as 67 types of plants, but often 2 species of erect coralline algae (Corallina vancouveriensis and C. pinnatifolia) dominate (Stewart & Myers 1980; Stewart 1982; Stewart 1989a,b). Turf cover was measured in line-intercept (F97-S00) or point-intercept (F00-S04) transects at all 4 sites (3 replicates each at Cardiff and Scripps; 2 replicates each at NN and NS) (Tables 19-24; Figs. 19- 20). In S02, a third transect was established at both NN and NS to conform to the 3-replicate standard set for point-transects by the Multi-Agency Rocky Intertidal Network. Red algal turf also was common in the surfgrass transects at Cardiff and Scripps, but was overlain with grass to such an extent at NN and NS that it received low primary cover scores there. From F97 to S03, red turf cover at Cardiff varied relatively little (65-83%); however, in F03 turf abundance was only 31% because for the first time, sand covered 58% of the transects. By S04, sand dropped to 4% cover and turf returned to 60% cover. Red turf at Scripps was more variable (27-76%) over the 7 years of monitoring. Turf transects here are in a more heterogeneous habitat consisting of mixed boulders and pools. The Scripps transects originally were set up to also monitor sand tube worm mounds (Phragmatopoma californica), but these disappeared after F97/S98, and have been absent or rare since. This year turf at Scripps showed a reverse trend compared to Cardiff. Sand cover was 18% in F03 (not unusual due to pools where sand can settle) and turf abundance (54%) was nearly identical to the previous year. Turf cover dropped to 37% in S04, coincident with higher cover of rock oysters, barnacles, and crustose algae. It appeared that areas of turf had been scoured away by winter surf, exposing the understory rock oysters and other life. At NN and NS red turf occurs on relatively uniform, flat benches. Here turf cover has been high and varied little over the monitoring period from F97 to F03 (93-100% cover at NN: 89-99% cover at NS).

19 This was also true for NS in S04 (90% turf cover). At NN red turf cover dropped to 66% in S04; however, this was not due to loss of turf, but rather to a bloom of ephemeral green and brown algae that attached to and covered some turf.

Surfgrass (Phyllospadix spp.) Surfgrass was targeted at all 4 sites, with 3 line-intercept transects each at Cardiff and Scripps, and 2 inshore and 2 offshore transects each at NN and NS (Tables 19-24; Fig. 20). It also occurred to a minor extent in the turf transects at all sites. During the past 7 years, Phyllospadix cover varied relatively little at NN (79-100%) and NS (82-100%), but was more variable at Cardiff (38-96%) and Scripps (14-52%). The transects at NN and NS are located on flat benches with dense surfgrass cover. Those at the other sites are on flat (Cardiff) or irregular (Scripps) reef edge habitats where surfgrass is patchy. Surfgrass cover at Cardiff increased substantially from its lowest ever level of 38% in S03 to 64% in F03, despite sand covering of a third of Transect 2. By S04, surfgrass cover dropped again (to 46%), with remaining grass thinned, partially bleached, and covered with tiny Smithora algae. At Scripps, NN, and NS, surfgrass levels this year were similar to last year, typically with slightly higher cover in fall compared to spring. This seasonal variation in surfgrass abundance over the 7 years of monitoring was most evident at Scripps and often evident at Cardiff, but was less obvious at NN and NS (where grass beds often appeared thinner in spring, yet still covered nearly all the substrate). Typically in spring surveys, portions of the surfgrass habitat appeared thinned out, tattered, bleached, or covered with epiphytes. Some seasonal losses apparently resulted from storm damage; others may have been associated with aerial exposure to midday low tides during winter months. Phyllospadix decreases were generally matched by increases in understory red algal turf cover.

Other Transect Species Boa Kelp (Egregia menziezii), once common in low intertidal transects at the Cabrillo National Monument, has not been encountered over the 7-year monitoring period in turf or surfgrass transects at NN, or NS (Tables 19-22). It has been only rarely occurred as 1-2% cover in turf transects at Scripps (in F01 and F03) and surfgrass transects at Cardiff (in F01, S03, and F03). Sargassum weed (Sargassum muticum) occurred in minor amounts (1-3%, except 5-7% at Scripps during F00-F01) in turf transects at Scripps (all years) and NS (in F00, S01, and F01) (Tables 19-22). Aggregating anemones (Anthopleura elegantissima/sola) were sampled mainly at Cardiff, where they covered 2-11% of the turf transects since F97 (Tables 19-22). Sand castle worms (Phragmatopoma californica) occupied 46% of the turf transects at Scripps in F97, but dropped to 0% after S98, except for 1-2% cover during F00/F01 (Tables 19-22; Fig. 19).

20 Black Abalone (Haliotis cracherodii) and Ochre Seastar (Pisaster ochraceus) Black abalone and ochre seastars once were common in San Diego County, but in recent decades have been absent or uncommon, to the extent that it was not possible to survey for them in fixed plots. Instead, haphazard timed searches at each site were carried out to document their absence/rarity or possible recovery. No black abalone were found at any of the 4 monitoring sites since S95 at NN and NS and since F97 at Cardiff and Scripps (Table 25). No ochre seastars were found at NN or NS since S95, except for a single ochre seastar at NN in F02. Ochre seastars were absent at Cardiff from F97 to S99. From F99 to S04, ochre stars counts ranged from 7-32 (except for F00 and S03 when 0 and 1 stars were found because poor sea conditions made searching low intertidal crevices difficult), with peak values (32, 29) occurring in F03 and S04. From S99 to S04 at Scripps, ochre stars counts varied from 4 to 39 individuals (except for S01 when no stars were found because strong surf made searching crevices along the outer reef difficult), with peak numbers (39, 35) occurring in F03 and S04. Although seastar counts are imprecise due to the large area searched, difficulty in searching crevices, and varying accessibility to the low intertidal zone, ochre seastar populations have clearly been increasing since S99/F99 at Cardiff and Scripps, the 2 sites with good mussel beds upon which the seastars prey. This increase has occurred despite the likelihood that some seastars have been collected as souvenirs by people visiting these two highly accessible sites.

4. Discussion

This section synthesizes information acquired during the San Diego County rocky intertidal monitoring surveys with respect to the temporal variability of index species populations and effects of human activities. The natural history and ecology of the index species are summarized in Engle and Davis (1996b). It is important to note that determination of the cause for any abundance change is a difficult process. Much can be inferred from the data and observations during the monitoring, combined with knowledge gained from previous intertidal ecology and impact studies; nevertheless, carefully designed experiments would be necessary to attribute specific causality with confidence. There now are 7 samples from each season during the period F97-S03 at Cardiff and Scripps Reefs. At Navy North and Navy South, there are 9 samples from each season from S95 to S03 (no sample was taken in S96). Navy data from 1995 are discussed in Engle and Davis (1996c). Data from 1996-2002 are discussed in Engle et al. (1999), the First Year Report (Engle et al. 1998b), Second Year Report (Engle & Farrar 1999), Third Year Report (Engle 2000), Fourth Year Report (Engle 2001), Fifth Year Report (Engle 2002), and Sixth Year Report (Engle & Adams 2003).

During the initial four years of surveys, there was no activity from the Navy/San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Beach Replenishment Project. Therefore any key

21 species changes during that period were due to natural environmental variations or to impacts from other human activities. In 2000, the Navy Beach Replenishment Project was converted to the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Regional Sand Beach Project. Two million cubic yards of sand were pumped from offshore sites to 12 San Diego County beaches from Oceanside to the north to Imperial Beach to the south during April to September 2001. The Cardiff State Beach receiver site, located approximately 3,400-4,200 feet upcoast of Cardiff Reef (south of the San Elijo Lagoon mouth and also south of Restaurant Row along Coast Highway 101), received 101,000 cubic yards of sand during August 2-10, 2001. Therefore, the Year 7 (Fall 2003-Spring 2004) rocky intertidal monitoring surveys at Cardiff Reef characterize biological conditions 27-31 months after the nearby sand beach replenishment was accomplished. None of the other 3 sites were near beach replenishment areas (see SANDAG 2000).

The composition and abundance of plants and animals on rocky intertidal reefs can be affected by sand dynamics. Where sand beaches occur near rocky reefs, a typical seasonal cycle of sand movement consists of offshore movement during the winter (due to storm waves) followed by onshore deposition during the summer (when storms are less frequent). Alongshore sand movement dynamics are complex, depending on shoreline features and ocean swells and currents (see SANDAG 2000). Sand influence on intertidal reefs includes turbidity, scouring, and burial effects (Daly & Mathieson 1977; Seapy & Littler 1982; Taylor & Littler 1982; Littler et al. 1983, 1991; Murray & Bray 1993). Three types of organisms often dominate intertidal reefs heavily influenced by sand: 1) opportunistic species that are able to quickly establish populations on disturbed rocks, 2) resistant species that can tolerate sand scour and burial, and 3) “sand- loving” species that for various reasons thrive on sanded reefs (Murray & Bray 1993). Opportunistic species include green sea lettuce types (Ulva spp. and Enteromorpha spp.), ephemeral filamentous brown algae, white acorn barnacles (Chthamalus spp.), and sand castle worms (Phragmatopoma californica). Resistant species include tough crusts, turfs of erect coralline algae, and aggregating anemones (Anthopleura elegantissima/sola). Sand-loving species include a variety of brown and red algae, as well as surfgrass (Littler et al. 1983). Lower- relief reefs are most affected by sand disturbance, while higher-relief reefs are more likely to remain above the sand and be dominated by longer-lived species such as mussels, owl limpets, and goose barnacles (Littler et al. 1983).

Changes in key species abundances at Cardiff Reef could indicate effects from beach replenishment if the added sand reached the reef, if other possible causes for the changes were unlikely, and if these changes were substantially different in direction or magnitude than any at Scripps or the 2 Point Loma sites. Separate studies by AMEC Earth and Environmental, Inc. for SANDAG will determine the likelihood of replenished sand having reached Cardiff Reef. Sand levels found during F01 and S02, approximately 3 and 7 months after the upcoast sand deposition, did not exceed maximum levels observed during previous biannual surveys. The F01

22 sand levels were only moderately high, well within the range of typical levels for that time of year (e.g., F00 sand levels were higher than F01). Also, in July 2001, 1 month before upcoast beach replenishment, already high sand levels were photographed by Bonnie Becker (Scripps Institution of Oceanography). However, the sand levels at Cardiff in S02 were higher than expected. Typically, sand levels are low in spring (due to beach loss resulting from winter storms), but S02 levels were slightly higher than F01 and comparable to F00 levels despite the evidence that at least one storm had occurred (a couple of large rock slabs had broken off and moved, yet still contained live mussels and other organisms). None of the fixed plots or transects were buried in S02 and there was relatively little sand by the seawall. Sand levels along the offshore edge of the offshore mussel reef extended up to the lower edge of the mussel zone, with occasional mussels buried. Except for the few buried mussels, there was no obvious evidence of sand burial or scour on the marine life at Cardiff Reef. In fact, acorn barnacle cover doubled from Year 4 to Year 5, having now recovered from El Niño storm scour losses in late 1997/early 1998. The surfgrass at Cardiff in S02 appeared thinned out and tattered, with lower cover. This condition was typically observed, to varying degrees, in spring surveys, presumably caused by winter storms and/or sun exposure during particularly low midday tides.

Sand levels at Cardiff reef in F02 were the highest observed since monitoring began. The source of this sand is not known; however, exceptionally high sand levels also were discovered at Scripps Reef in F02. Since Scripps Reef is not near any previous sand deposition sites, the most likely cause for the high sand levels at these 2 sites was unusually calm sea conditions that allowed sand to accumulate on shore. By S03, sand levels returned to expected seasonal low levels at Cardiff, but were only moderately low at Scripps. There is little sand in the vicinity of the extensive rocky reefs at NN and NS on Point Loma, so it is not surprising that sand influence is less of a factor at these sites.

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

23 cover levels. Surfgrass transects at Scripps Reef had declined prior to F02, and actually increased in cover with the higher sand levels. It is possible, but not known that surfgrass losses at Cardiff in F02 were caused by higher sand levels or scour. In any case, it is not unusual for surfgrass growing at the upper fringe of its zone to fluctuate in cover as physical conditions vary.

Sand levels at Cardiff in F03 were high around the reefs, but not as high as the record levels found in F02, except that for the first time since monitoring began over 70% of Turf Transect 3 was buried. Sand levels were not unusually high around the offshore mussel reef; however, sand was particularly high in the area between the inner and outer mussel reefs, including the transect locations. In addition to the first ever burial of Turf Transect 3, about half of the other turf transects were covered, with lesser sand cover on the surfgrass transects. There was no evidence of mortality of buried anemones or turf. Some anemones along the north edge of the inshore reef were partially buried, but not any mussels. Sand covered the south portion of inshore reef, but did not affect the owl limpet plots or mussel slope. The differing distribution of sand at Cardiff Reef in F03 demonstrates the variability in sand movement and deposition dynamics at this location.

Sand levels also were high at the “control” site at Scripps Reef in F03, along the north and south reef margins and in low areas within the reef, but not as high as Fall 02. Generally the sand was 0.2-0.3 m below the lower edge of the mussel zone. Some anemones and turf were buried, but not mussels. There was little sand influence on the reefs at NN and NS. By S04, sand levels were relatively low at all 4 sites, as is typical for this time of year. The turf transects at Cardiff that had 58% sand cover in F03, now has only 4% sand. Red turf buried in F03 had largely rebounded to typical levels either though re-exposure or regrowth. Thus sand levels at the monitoring locations this year followed typical patterns and were within typical limits, with no unusual effects on intertidal life documented.

Table 26 summarizes broad-scale temporal trends in key species abundances at the 4 San Diego County rocky intertidal sites with respect to Year 7 survey results. Data for Fall and Spring surveys were combined for a given year to remove seasonal fluctuations (this also averaged out some of the effect of the El Niño storms in Year 1). Major trends (increasing, decreasing, or no change) (“no change” was defined as changes in % cover or changes in counts of LQGLYLGXDOVSORW are listed separately for Years 6-7 (F02/S03 to F03/S04), Years 4- 7 (F00/S01 to F03/S04, and Years 1-7 (F97/S98 to F03/S04) to reflect patterns at annual and multi-year intervals. Of 14 key species monitored at the San Diego County sites since F97, 1 species (black abalone) was never found and 4 species (boa kelp, sargassum weed, aggregating anemone, and sand castle worms) were relatively uncommon. For 7 target species monitored at Cardiff Reef (rockweed and thatched barnacles were not targeted at Cardiff), major trends over the past year were as follows: 1) goose barnacles, mussels, owl limpets, and surfgrass did not

24 show major changes in abundance from F02/S03 to F03/S04; 2) red turf decreased in abundance; and 3) acorn barnacles and ochre seastars increased substantially. The 3 and 7 year species abundance comparisons were similar to the 1 year comparison for 5 of the 7 species. The exceptions were owl limpets and surfgrass, both of which were unchanged over 1 and 7 years, but declined over the past 3 years.

Scripps Reef, the next closest monitoring site to Cardiff, also bordered by sand beaches, and also open to public visitation, showed both similarities and differences in major species trends to Cardiff over the past 1, 3 and 7 years (Table 26). Differences among sites are not unexpected due to the complex of physical and biological interactions that occur at each rocky intertidal location and the patchiness of some disturbance effects (e.g., storm damage). At Scripps broad-scale abundances changed relatively little over the past year for all common key species except for owl limpets which declined from previous peak densities, and seastars which rose to new highs. In the past 3 years, the principle changes were increased owl limpets and seastars. Over the 7-year monitoring period, 4 of the target species (rockweed, owl limpet, red turf, and ochre seastars) increased in abundances, while sand castle worms declined and acorn barnacles, goose barnacles, mussels, and surfgrass levels were unchanged. Notable differences in trends between Cardiff and Scripps include acorn barnacles, owl limpets, red algal turf, and surfgrass, all of which have differences in microhabitats between the 2 sites. The acorn barnacles on low relief reef at Cardiff are more susceptible to sand/gravel scour than those on the more stable, high relief ridge at Scripps. The low relief mussel zone habitat at Cardiff is marginal for owl limpets compared to the high relief, crevice-rich ridge at Scripps. The turf zone at Cardiff is flatter and more prone to sanding than the pool and boulder turf areas at Scripps. The surfgrass zone is marginal at both sites, but the low relief surfgrass habitat at Cardiff is more susceptible to sand influence than the medium relief boulder habitat at Scripps. Sand castle worms, targeted only at Scripps, were decimated following the F97/S98 El Niño storms, and have shown essentially no recovery 6 years later. Sand castle worms are capable of rapid recolonization if conditions permit. Sand castle worm mounds also are vulnerable to crushing via trampling by reef visitors (Zedler 1976, 1978). Scripps Reef is protected from collecting, but is a popular destination for beach explorers.

Navy North and Navy South sites, located on Point Loma where sandy beaches are fewer and less extensive, and where public visitation is rare, exhibited fewer major trends in key species abundances than Cardiff or Scripps (Table 26). At both sites, all of the broad-scale species levels remained relatively unchanged over the past year. Both sites showed increases in rockweed over 7 years, decreases in mussels over 3 and 7 years, and absence of seastars. A few differences in abundance dynamics at NN and NS over 3 or 7 year periods include: 1) Thatched barnacles declined over 3 years at NN, 2) owl limpets declined over 7 years at NS, and 3) red turf declined over 7 years at NS. Overall owl limpets are the most variable species monitored In

25 addition to changes associated with rock breakouts that occasionally devastate particular plots, sampling variability is inherently greater for this species due to difficulties in locating and recognizing smaller individuals often hidden in crevices.

Along with the broad-scale trends exhibited by key species over the 7-year project period, considerable smaller-scale variability occurred among plots, sites, and sampling dates. Many differences were related to varying cycles of patchy disturbance and recovery from storm surf damage (with recovery typically more prolonged for bedrock break-out losses compared to losses only of biotic cover). El Niño storms likely caused many of the changes in key species populations during the 1997/98 period (see Engle et al. 1998b). Storms can thin out rockweed and surfgrass patches, scour barnacle zones, and tear out mussel clumps (Gunnill 1983; Stewart 1989a; Ambrose et al. 1995; Engle and Davis 1996b; Engle et al. 1998b). These effects occurred at all 4 monitoring sites, but were most evident at the north county locations, especially at Cardiff Reef. For example, most inshore mussel plots at Cardiff took about 3 years to recover from losses associated with El Niño storm disturbances that occurred after the initial F97 sampling, though 1 plot is not fully recovered after 6 years. Offshore mussels at Cardiff, less damaged by the El Niño storms, recovered in 2 years, but then experienced patchy losses in certain plots after S00 and F01. Mussels at Scripps were less affected by the El Niño storms and recovered in about 1 year; however, patchy losses in particular plots in F00 and F01have resulted in the lowest cover during the 5-year period by F02/S03. Other cycles of patchy losses presumably due to storms were documented for acorn barnacles at Cardiff and Scripps, for goose barnacles at Cardiff and NN, and for owl limpets and mussels at NN and NS.

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

26 The seasonal and annual variability in species abundances at the 4 San Diego County sites took place within a larger-scale oceanographic context over the 7-year period of this project as sea conditions shifted from a long-term warming trend (culminating in the severe 1997/98 El Niño) to a cooler trend initiated by a prolonged La Niña and continued relatively cool or near normal conditions through S04. Figure 21 shows these seawater temperature patterns based on satellite sea surface thermal imagery (NOAA CoastWatch West Coast Regional Node website: http//coastwatch.pfel.noaa.gov/time_series.html). Long-term warming has been associated with northward shifts in the ranges of southern species (Barry et al. 1995) and with dramatic declines in the abundance of zooplankton (Roemmich & McGowan 1995) and kelp beds (Dayton et al. 1999) in southern California. The species assemblages monitored at the San Diego County sites through 1998 reflected the cumulative effects of this 22-year warming pattern.

This past 5 years, generally cooler or near normal temperatures, fewer severe storms, and often reduced rainfall apparently benefited some key species populations, such as rockweed, mussels, and seastars. Though patchy storm damage reduced abundances at some sites, there is a tendency of modestly higher abundances of these species during the cooler-water years. For example, rockweed cover was higher at all monitored sites in Year 7 versus Year 1. Mussels have not done well at the Point Loma sites (where recruitment appears to be minimal), but have maintained or increased (from El Niño losses) dense populations at Cardiff and Scripps, as indicated by continued overgrowth of bolts and expansion into the owl limpet plots at Cardiff. Comparison of Year 7 and Year 1 results do not reflect the site-wide improvement of mussels during the cooler-water years because mussel plots were initially established in areas of high mussel cover and because chance storm (or collecting) disturbances impacted survey plots to a greater degree than was observed elsewhere at the sites. Prior to the past 5 years, ochre seastars were not found on the 4 San Diego reefs, except for 4 stars observed at Scripps in S99. Increased numbers of adult stars at Cardiff and Scripps in Years 4 and 5 may reflect migration inshore from the shallow subtidal to feed on increased abundances of mussels. Year 6 probably would have shown similarly increased counts if swell conditions had been more favorable for sampling. Year 7, with good sampling conditions, showed the highest abundances recorded. Cooler, nutrient-rich conditions promote the growth of marine plants. Invertebrate recruitment likely was enhanced by productive, cool-water conditions. Thriving plankton populations can provide additional food for intertidal filter-feeders, such as barnacles and mussels. Expansion of mussel beds can, in turn, promote mussel predators such as seastars. Also, cooler water may stress organisms adapted to warm conditions, and expanding species may usurp the space previously occupied by less competitive taxa (e.g., mussels encroaching on owl limpet territories).

The rocky intertidal sites in San Diego County have experienced especially interesting environmental changes during the 7 years of this study. The monitoring has documented changes associated with warm and stormy periods followed by cooler and milder oceanographic periods.

27 The occasional and extremely patchy effects of storm swells, with variable recovery cycles were a major source of within- and between-site heterogeneity. Seasonal abundance patterns, related to winter storms, rainfall, aerial exposure, and other short-term environmental changes, were evident for particular key species. The long-term monitoring program has enabled enhanced understanding of these overlapping patterns of change through time, such that possible impacts from human activities including the sand beach enhancement project are easier to detect and evaluate. In this context, possible effects from nearshore sand deposition would have been most likely during Year 5. However, sand levels at Cardiff Reef were not unusually high in F01 and though higher than expected in S02, not beyond the typical annual range. Overall, except for a few buried mussels on the offshore reef in S02, there were no changes in key species abundances between Years 4 and 5 that indicated obvious impacts from sand added upcoast of Cardiff Reef, if in fact the additional sand reached the reef. Year 6 sampling, 15-19 months after the sand deposition, revealed exceptionally high sand levels in F02 at Cardiff Reef, but similarly high sand levels also occurred at Scripps Reef, which had not been near any sand beach enhancement activities. These peak sand levels did affect the limited amount of intertidal life that was buried or perhaps scoured for an extended period, thus providing insight into potential impacts should beach enhancement increase sand levels along rocky reefs. Year 7 sampling documented moderately high sand levels at Cardiff and Scripps in F03, followed by relatively low sand levels by S04, all within the typical range of seasonal variation previously experienced. The differing distribution of sand at Cardiff Reef in F03 demonstrated the variability in sand movement and deposition dynamics at this location.

5. Conclusions

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

1) Four rocky intertidal sites were monitored biannually from Fall 1997 through Spring 2004 for changes in abundances of 14 key species to evaluate possible effects from the Navy (later SANDAG) Beach Replenishment Project. Cardiff Reef (potential impact site) and Scripps Reef (control site) were established in 1997. Navy North and Navy South sites on Point Loma (established in 1995) provide additional regional baseline data.

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

28 sand burial or scour effects on the marine life at Cardiff Reef in F01 or S02, except for a few buried mussels on the offshore reef in S02.

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

4) Year 7 sampling documented moderately high sand levels at Cardiff and Scripps in F03, followed by relatively low sand levels by S04, all within the typical range of seasonal variation previously experienced. The differing distribution of sand at Cardiff Reef in F03 demonstrated the variability in sand movement and deposition dynamics at this location.

5) Of 14 key species monitored at the San Diego County sites since F97, 1 species (black abalone) was never found and 4 species (boa kelp, sargassum weed, aggregating anemone, and sand castle worms) were relatively uncommon. Other key species abundances varied little or considerably by plot, site, season, and year. Of the 4 sites, Cardiff Reef experienced the most disturbances from storm swells and sand/gravel scour over the 7-year monitoring period. The ecosystem of this sedimentary rocky reef, isolated by extensive sand and gravel beaches, represents a mosaic of species assemblages created by patchy disturbance phenomena.

6) For 7 target species monitored at Cardiff Reef, major trends from Year 6 to Year 7 were as follows: 1) goose barnacles, mussels, owl limpets, and surfgrass did not show major changes in abundance from F02/S03 to F03/S04; 2) red turf decreased in abundance; and 3) acorn barnacles and ochre seastars increased substantially. The 3 and 7 year species abundance comparisons were similar to the 1 year comparison for 5 of the 7 species.

7) The other 3 sites also showed considerable smaller-scale variability, but few major trends over Years 6-7 (seastars increased and owl limpets decreased at Scripps). Year 1 to Year 7 comparisons revealed increased rockweed at the 3 sites, decreased mussels at NN and NS, increased owl limpets, red turf, and seastars at Scripps, decreased sand castle worms at Scripps, decreased red turf at NN, and decreased owl limpets at NS.

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

29 (particularly at Cardiff and Scripps), and bedrock breakouts (at all sites). Storm effects were patchy and recovery rates variable.

9) Seasonal and annual variability in species abundances at the 4 sites occurred within a larger-scale oceanographic context over the 7-year monitoring period as sea conditions shifted from a long-term warming trend (culminating in the severe 1997/98 El Niño) to a cooler trend characterized by a prolonged La Niña and continued relatively cool or near normal conditions through S04. This past 5 years, cooler/normal temperatures, fewer severe storms, and often reduced rainfall apparently benefited some key species, including rockweed, mussels, and seastars.

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

6. Acknowledgments

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

30 7. References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Engle, J.M. 2002. Rocky intertidal resource dynamics in San Diego County: Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma. Interim Five-Year Report (1997-2002). U.S. Navy, San Diego. 71p.

Engle, J.M. and S.L. Adams. 2003. Rocky intertidal resource dynamics in San Diego County: Cardiff, La Jolla, and Point Loma. Sixth Year Report (2002/2003). U.S. Navy, San Diego. 72p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Season Date Site Activity Fall 2003 October 27 Cardiff Reef Rocky intertidal fall sampling October 26 Scripps Reef Rocky intertidal fall sampling October 25 Navy North, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal fall sampling October 24 Navy South, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal fall sampling Spring 2004 March 7 Cardiff Reef Rocky intertidal spring sampling March 6 Scripps Reef Rocky intertidal spring sampling March 5 Navy North, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal spring sampling March 4 Navy South, Pt. Loma Rocky intertidal spring sampling

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

Participants Affiliation Status Fall 03 Spring 04 Jack Engle University of California, Santa Barbara Employee X X Stevie Adams University of California, Santa Barbara Employee X X Jennifer Klaib University of California, Santa Barbara Employee X X Jessie Altstatt Santa Barbara Channel Keeper Volunteer X Annmarie May University of California, Santa Barbara Volunteer X Bob Gladden Private Volunteer X X Richard Herman Private Volunteer X Dave Young Private Volunteer X Jessica Jarett Scripps Institution of Oceanography Volunteer X Brendan Reed San Diego State University Volunteer X Coral Gilbert San Diego State University Volunteer X X Angela Tsai San Diego State University Volunteer X Michelle Gregory San Diego State University Volunteer X Jason Price CA Department of Fish and Game Volunteer X X Robin Lewis CA Department of Fish and Game Volunteer X

36 Table 5. Fall 2003 Species Abundances in Photoplots.

CARDIFF REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) INSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) OFFSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE OM1 OM2 OM3 OM4 OM5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE686269695865200000000000000451060109 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000000000001000001000 ROCKWEED 0000000000000000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 000000058821009310087834865693817011504647452911 GOOSE BARNACLE00000007140405300000007035931167 OTHER PLANTS 01402111640004362839532312251010872 OTHER ANIMALS 00000008000022225115531300311 BARE SUBSTRATE32372731403321100303224010114091927133615

SCRIPPS REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE961009994100981002031121010254104281682 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000010000000000000000 ROCKWEED 000000086244910078671400000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 00000000000000429753743260121836453125315 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000010000003033242532292 OTHER PLANTS 200101096737010251213340222320683811981 OTHER ANIMALS 0000000010000000107211221010 BARE SUBSTRATE20150215812087223054361473322192418233

NAVY NORTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 100 100 100 95 ACORN BARNACLE00000000000000000000010000000 THATCHED BARNACLE36191814122040000000000000000000000 ROCKWEED 1036303520896969710054899000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 000000000000007610105200000000 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000018292301016530000011 OTHER PLANTS 57764249495564230441185635247247478504840586068544 OTHER ANIMALS 01001000000000227123110011110 BARE SUBSTRATE644735102002101728362641304455160413926445

NAVY SOUTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M0 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE300001100000000011012211021110 THATCHED BARNACLE16312171040000000000200000300011 ROCKWEED 00000006337727570637000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 000000000000000000200313800852 GOOSE BARNACLE00000000000000100051116131413613131 OTHER PLANTS 75 72 73 73 92 77 4 37 63 28 21 29 36 7 83 69 68 64 72 71 3 47 51 53 64 70 50 56 4 OTHER ANIMALS 112001000000002151014340010421 BARE SUBSTRATE524246112500041111416302419213292222202324231

37 Table 6. Spring 2004 Species Abundances in Photoplots.

CARDIFF REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) INSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) OFFSHORE MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE OM1 OM2 OM3 OM4 OM5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE798287756477400000000000000397202107 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000000000120100000000 ROCKWEED 0000000000000000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 0000000569195931008785795578380748703984493615 GOOSE BARNACLE00000000957042000010013131830176 OTHER PLANTS 220615532200004430021001061623712104 OTHER ANIMALS 00001008000022717919931140111 BARE SUBSTRATE191613192017114000033641460622468177162611

SCRIPPS REEF BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 AVG SE Po1 Po2 Po3 Po4 Po5 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE76429777927710001821884101000081051352 THATCHED BARNACLE0000000000000020000000000000 ROCKWEED 00000007428399176621200000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 0000000000000073925278567072441453530354 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000010002103031352330302 OTHER PLANTS 174602013922562252211015371291364035021 OTHER ANIMALS 0000000285003201212101020210 BARE SUBSTRATE71232181032816246322289311453327153225263

NAVY NORTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M0 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M5 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE1012312171120200000001000000811121 THATCHED BARNACLE46282733293340000000000000000000000 ROCKWEED 0226212916683939195428110000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 0110110000000011189008300000000 GOOSE BARNACLE0000000000000017232601216530000110 OTHER PLANTS 3 18 19 10 7 11 3 16 1 6 5 53 16 10 41 25 21 62 40 38 7 37 34 29 51 27 35 36 3 OTHER ANIMALS 46011211100110656445012122120 BARE SUBSTRATE373324231627403304212529373444343596462467062613

NAVY SOUTH BARNACLES (% COVER) ROCKWEED (% COVER) MUSSELS (% COVER) GOOSE BARNACLES (% COVER) PHOTOPLOT # B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 AVG SE Pe1 Pe2 Pe3 Pe4 Pe5 AVG SE M5 M1 M2 M3 M4 AVG SE M0 M6 M7 M8 M9 M10 AVG SE # POINTS SCORED 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 ACORN BARNACLE6320227300000004062859573113531 THATCHED BARNACLE751127620000000200301100310010 ROCKWEED 00000006339607251576000000000000000 CALIFORNIA MUSSEL 000000000000006700032712912972 GOOSE BARNACLE00000000000000200072111141313410111 OTHER PLANTS 40 57 21 67 74 52 10 36 61 32 26 48 41 6 42 74 31 47 31 45 8 19 26 21 20 36 8 22 4 OTHER ANIMALS 00543210010000080163211621021 BARE SUBSTRATE4735531514338107212144116321513810554447625468554

38 39

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

LENGTH CARDIFF REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) SCRIPPS REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM)1 2345ALL%12345ALL% 150 0000001030151 160 0000000021031 171 1000230030031 182 1000351101141 190 0000000241182 200 00101224511133 211 00102322323123 220 01102305283184 230 10001214560164 240 00101230270123 250 10001280543204 260 10203526345204 270 100012271457358 280 20002366541225 290 1010232314104337 300 00101256963296 310 00202324446204 320 00224642668266 330 10203522515153 340 00202310441102 350 01001263446235 361 10204624514164 370 01113542333153 380 02103561902184 391 23006914234143 400 0011231201372 410 00000031051102 422 0210584001382 430 0010120011020 441 0010230002241 450 0100120011020 460 0000002010141 471 0000121002031 482 0000230000000 491 0000120001010 501 0000120000000 510 0000000000000 520 0000000000000 530 0000001000010 540 0000000000000 550 0000000000000 560 0000000000000 570 0000000000000 580 0000000000000 590 0000000000000 600 0000000000000 610 0000000000000 620 0000000000000 630 0000000000000 640 0000000000000 650 0000000000000 660 0000000000000 670 0000000000000 680 0000000000000 690 0000000000000 700 0000000000000 710 0000000000000 720 0000000000000 730 0000000000000 740 0000000000000 750 0000000000000 TOTAL # 14 13 11 24 4 66 100 75 71 124 100 82 452 100 MIN SIZE 17 17 22 20 32 17 15 18 15 16 15 15 MAX SIZE 50 39 45 44 40 50 53 41 46 49 46 53 AVG SIZE 37 28 38 32 35 34 32 29 29 30 32 30 ST DEV1376747 867777 ST ERROR633323 333333

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

LENGTH NAVY NORTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) NAVY SOUTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM)123456ALL%123456ALL% 152101116200100010 160002002100110021 170000101000100010 180001102101100241 191100103100120362 200020215201210041 212001216200011131 221100237310110031 230000000011100031 240100001020110041 250001102110050062 261021015210020031 272111106200011131 281012127310100131 291111015201130162 301112005200011352 311021004120221183 321103016200133183 33222420124213211104 340002406200010010 353211119310031273 3624042416601210152 370012205200214183 38231112104020436155 391014309300023383 40422223155310313114 412102207301130162 4230021062100334114 4301430193011224104 4422031311410024183 4510121052210162124 4601151193310133114 4732221111430001593 4812011162011333114 490111216201012152 503023008301001131 512001014110001352 5213122110401101141 532000204102100141 540020215222100162 550010012100001231 561101003111001031 570110103120112062 580020013102010141 590100012100101021 600111003102100141 610011002110000231 620001001010000010 630000000010100021 640000000001001021 650100001000000221 660000000010000010 670000000010000010 681000001000000110 690100001000000110 700100001000000000 710000000000000000 720000000000000000 730000000000000000 740000000000000000 750010001000000000 TOTAL #504139684735280100362732595372279100 MIN SIZE15152015151515 22181516211815 MAX SIZE68707562575975 67646358646969 AVG SIZE39424239373839 43453535434241 ST DEV11131310121212 1313149 8 1212 ST ERROR5554555 5564355

Table 13. Spring 2004 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Cardiff and Scripps.

LENGTH CARDIFF REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) SCRIPPS REEF PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM) 1 2 3 4 5 ALL % 1 2 3 4 5 ALL % 150 0000000112151 160 1000120002020 170 0000000410161 180 0100120131161 192 10003502462143 200 00000001513102 210 00000004452153 220 00101213361143 231 10103536143174 241 00102333274194 250 00101219655266 260 10113537642225 270 00011233674235 280 00000042687276 291 10204623653194 302 00103541662194 311 10002312356174 320 10001262148215 330 20305822604143 340 10102321503113 352 11105832371164 360 00112358523235 371 02205832411113 381 01103532318174 390 0110231204182 400 01001243111102 412 0100353122192 420 0120351212392 430 0010121100241 441 0100231003041 450 0000001010131 460 0010122022061 471 0000122001031 480 0000000001010 491 0000120001010 501 0000120010010 511 0000120000000 520 0000000000000 530 0000000000000 541 0000120000000 550 0000000000110 560 0000000001010 570 0000000000000 580 0000000000000 590 0000000000000 600 0000000001010 610 0000000000000 620 0000000000000 630 0000000000000 640 0000000000000 650 0000000000000 660 0000000000000 670 0000000000000 680 0000000000000 690 0000000000000 700 0000000000000 710 0000000000000 720 0000000000000 730 0000000000000 740 0000000000000 750 0000000000000 TOTAL # 20 11 10 22 3 66 100 65 80 98 108 85 436 100 MIN SIZE 19 16 18 22 26 16 22 15 15 15 15 15 MAX SIZE 54 35 44 46 36 54 47 43 50 60 55 60 AVG SIZE 36 28 37 34 30 33 34 29 29 30 31 30 ST DEV1167767 777977 ST ERROR533323 333433 45

Table 14. Spring 2004 Owl Limpet Size Distribution in Circular Plots at Navy North and South.

LENGTH NAVY NORTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) NAVY SOUTH PLOTS (# OF LIMPETS) (MM)123456ALL%123456ALL% 150000000001102152 160001001000000110 171001002111010252 180110002100100231 190000011000010010 202001014101120041 210000011000131052 222000046200130262 230101035212410083 2420014411400200021 250001102110000121 2602016110301000121 271002205210040052 280011114130001262 2911032411400010010 301021149310110031 31212322124412612166 322100227200110352 330121015201102152 341012116200122052 351105119310102152 363004209301113173 3723054216501011362 3832103312441010283 3914143013401011362 4030063416510141183 410112206200022152 42021253134002325124 431112106200031373 4431000041310312104 4501111152100333104 46242110103001153104 4710011141002134104 481110306200112041 494103109301014283 501231119301001462 512111409320010031 5241101072220124114 530121105201002031 541101014100100010 552021016212010152 560111014121013183 570000011030010041 580000000000101131 590010001002000021 600110002111000021 610020013111000021 621000001011000021 630000000000000000 641101003101200252 650000000000000000 660000000010000010 670100001010000010 680000000000000110 690100001000000000 700000000000000110 710000000000000000 720000000000000000 730000000000000000 740000000000000000 750000000000000000 TOTAL # 52 41 32 63 60 51 299 100 37 27 30 57 49 67 267 100 MIN SIZE 17 18 18 16 24 19 16 17 15 15 17 15 15 15 MAX SIZE 64 69 61 64 53 61 69 67 64 64 57 58 70 70 AVG SIZE 40 43 44 38 37 34 39 43 43 35 36 42 41 40 ST DEV 11 11 11 10 9 11 11 13 15 14 11 10 13 13 ST ERROR5554444 5664455

Table 15. Owl Limpet Density and Size Summary Data by Site: Cardiff and Scripps Total number of limpets and shell length statistics at Cardiff and Scripps.

CARDIFF REEF (5 plots at 3 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE F979424701553358 3 S98 114 26 88 15 53 36 9 4 F98 162 76 86 15 52 31 10 4 S99 168 118 50 15 51 27 8 4 F99 225 98 127 16 54 30 7 3 S00 221 104 117 15 47 30 7 3 F00 158 66 92 15 44 29 7 3 S01 136 39 97 16 46 34 8 3 F01 123 61 62 15 45 29 7 3 S02 138 60 78 15 47 30 7 3 F027120512145325 2 S037926531649328 3 F036621451750347 3 S046620461654337 3

SCRIPPS REEF (5 plots at 2 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE F97 311 229 82 15 55 26 7 3 S98 398 302 96 15 43 25 6 3 F98 503 350 153 15 55 26 7 3 S99 458 310 148 15 46 26 7 3 F99 496 321 175 15 56 28 7 3 S00 433 267 166 15 50 28 7 3 F00 412 213 199 15 59 30 8 4 S01 369 165 204 15 57 31 7 3 F01 416 182 234 15 55 32 8 3 S02 505 258 247 15 59 31 8 4 F02 521 272 249 15 58 30 9 4 S03 524 281 243 15 55 29 8 4 F03 452 224 228 15 53 30 7 3 S04 436 225 211 15 60 30 7 3 #S = # LIMPETS < 30 mm #L = # LIMPETS >= 30 mm

Table 16. Owl Limpet Density and Size Summary Data by Site: Navy North and Navy South Total number of limpets and shell length statistics at Navy North and Navy South.

NAVY NORTH (6 plots at 2 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE S95 187 41 146 15 54 36 8 3 F95 181 32 149 16 55 39 9 4 S96 F96 187 77 110 15 58 33 11 4 S97 213 101 112 15 64 33 11 5 F97 261 122 139 15 65 32 11 5 S98 259 127 132 15 69 31 10 4 F98 405 187 218 15 63 31 10 4 S99 403 219 184 15 64 30 10 4 F99 443 191 252 15 71 32 10 4 S00 424 115 309 15 69 35 9 4 F00 359 67 292 15 73 39 11 5 S01 402 96 306 15 71 38 12 5 F01 334 103 231 15 70 36 11 5 S02 352 93 259 15 71 37 11 4 F02 276 95 181 15 71 35 11 5 S03 331 94 237 17 72 37 11 4 F03 280 58 222 15 75 39 12 5 S04 299 65 234 16 69 39 11 4

NAVY SOUTH (6 plots at 2 m dia) DATE NUM #S #L MIN MAX AVG SD SE S95 270 70 200 16 63 36 9 4 F95 290 48 242 15 66 39 11 4 S96 F96 350 125 225 15 64 35 12 5 S97 330 94 236 15 65 38 12 5 F97 361 111 250 15 68 36 12 5 S98 364 107 257 15 69 37 11 5 F98 390 123 267 15 68 37 12 5 S99 413 173 240 15 65 34 12 5 F99 399 152 247 15 63 34 11 4 S00 423 114 309 15 63 37 11 4 F00 456 112 344 15 66 38 12 5 S01 476 135 341 15 65 38 12 5 F01 376 111 265 15 62 37 11 5 S02 349 70 279 15 62 38 10 4 F02 282 85 197 15 61 36 11 4 S03 293 71 222 15 62 37 11 4 F03 279 52 227 15 69 41 12 5 S04 267 56 211 15 70 41 13 5 #S = # LIMPETS < 30 mm #L = # LIMPETS >= 30 mm

48 Table 17. Owl Limpet Density and Size Summary Data by Plot: Cardiff and Scripps. Number of limpets and shell length (mm) statistics for circular plots at Cardiff and Scripps.

CARDIFF 1 CARDIFF 2 CARDIFF 3 CARDIFF 4 CARDIFF 5 DATE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE F97341653357 3 222450396 3 172148349 4 121538265 2 9 2441346 3 S98341551399 4 192053387 3 272251369 4 241642316 3 101546359 4 F98251743288 4 30155232115 43165034104 521548289 4 122449389 4 S99381751277 3 231548227 3 471549278 4 421642287 3 18154730115 F99311648308 4 291654329 4 451747327 3 931842285 2 271646319 4 S00341545308 4 371847338 3 491539296 3 761845316 3 251536276 3 F00251644268 4 411544298 3 261843327 3 551542307 3 112137325 2 S01311646319 4 311844339 4 241944356 3 402044346 3 102941354 2 F01281843297 3 312245316 3 301544299 4 251842277 3 9 1940307 3 S02211545319 4 331943326 3 381547307 3 371738286 3 9 2638334 2 F02122442345 2 122244346 3 122140315 2 312145326 2 4 2137317 3 S03161744329 4 181649329 4 131645337 3 281939306 3 4 2639336 3 F0314175037136 131739287 3 112245386 3 242044324 2 4 3240354 2 S0420195436115 111635286 3 101844377 3 222246347 3 3 2636306 2

SCRIPPS 1 SCRIPPS 2 SCRIPPS 3 SCRIPPS 4 SCRIPPS 5 DATE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE NUM MIN MAX AVG SD SE F97321755319 4 601541256 3 421546247 31221537255 2 551741277 3 S98331843297 3 761539236 3 691538226 31371540265 2 831543287 3 F9861155530104 991540256 3 891545246 31501541256 31041549307 3 S99541546308 41051539256 3 911645266 31241545256 3 841642297 3 F99 58 15 55 30 8 4 108 15 42 28 6 3 101 16 56 28 7 3 130 15 48 24 7 3 99 15 44 28 7 3 S00561848328 41021648296 3 941550297 31001549257 3 811546306 3 F0063185933105 901643297 3 881649287 3 961649307 3 751542298 4 S01561857369 4 891647316 3 821747306 3 801553317 3 621541307 3 F01 53 18 54 37 9 4 94 17 48 31 6 3 105 15 48 30 7 3 89 16 55 33 9 4 75 17 41 30 7 3 S02 64 16 57 37 9 4 116 15 48 30 7 3 122 15 45 28 7 3 112 15 59 33 9 4 91 15 42 29 7 3 F0264155537105 851548307 31301550287 31401558309 41021545298 3 S0371165234105 951548287 31341547277 31251555298 3 991653308 3 F03751553328 3 711841296 31241546297 31001649307 3 821546327 3 S04652247347 3 801543297 3 981550297 31081560309 4 851555317 3

Table 19. Fall 2003 Species Abundances Along Point-Intercept Transects.

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS CARDIFF REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 1 2 3 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP0000005022 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 00000000 RED ALGAL TURF 32 34 26 31 2 0 2 59 20 19 SURF GRASS 10 9 0 6 3 99 62 30 64 20 AGGREGATING ANEMONE9425200622 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0000000000 OTHER BIOTA 1000000000 BARE SUBSTRATE 48 53 72 58 7 1 31 5 12 9

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS SCRIPPS REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 4 5 6 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP4001100000 SARGASSUM WEED 1 5 23100000 RED ALGAL TURF 46 62 53 54 5 52 63 28 48 10 SURF GRASS 9 0 0 3 3 19 23 44 29 8 AGGREGATING ANEMONE1011000100 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0000030732 OTHER BIOTA 151012121 247 15155 BARE SUBSTRATE 24233226327551

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY NORTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 3 6 AVG SE 4 5 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP0000000000000 SARGASSUM WEED 0 0 00000000000 RED ALGAL TURF 96969696001107981 SURF GRASS 4 0 0 1 110098991 9389912 AGGREGATING ANEMONE0000000000000 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0000000000000 OTHER BIOTA 0121101100110 BARE SUBSTRATE 0322100000110

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY SOUTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 5 6 AVG SE 3 4 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP0000000000000 SARGASSUM WEED 0 1 00000000000 RED ALGAL TURF 90899090011100000 SURF GRASS 7 8 8 8 0 99 95 97 2 100 100 100 0 AGGREGATING ANEMONE0000000000000 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0000000000000 OTHER BIOTA 0000000000000 BARE SUBSTRATE 3222004220000

51 Table 20. Spring 2004 Species Abundances Along Point-Intercept Transects.

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS CARDIFF REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 1 2 3 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP0000000000 SARGASSUM WEED0000000000 RED ALGAL TURF 54 51 76 60 8 9 2 61 24 19 SURF GRASS 790537744184617 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 42105200522 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0000000000 OTHER BIOTA 32350 22111250142512 BARE SUBSTRATE33147404221

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS SCRIPPS REEF TURF ZONE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 3 AVG SE 4 5 6 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP1000000000 SARGASSUM WEED2502100000 RED ALGAL TURF 35 37 40 37 1 53 56 37 49 6 SURF GRASS 140055192333254 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 1101000100 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000 MUSSEL 0000030632 OTHER BIOTA 21 42 34 32 6 20 16 19 18 1 BARE SUBSTRATE26152622455450

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY NORTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 3 6 AVG SE 4 5 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP0000000000000 SARGASSUM WEED0000000000000 RED ALGAL TURF6768626602431818134 SURF GRASS 3001198939629282874 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 0000000000000 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0000000000000 OTHER BIOTA 26262927001100000 BARE SUBSTRATE4696102110000

POINT-INTERCEPT TRANSECTS NAVY SOUTH TURF ZONE INSHORE GRASS ZONE OFFSHORE GRASS ZONE TAXA 1 2 7 AVG SE 5 6 AVG SE 3 4 AVG SE FEATHER BOA KELP0000000000000 SARGASSUM WEED0000000000000 RED ALGAL TURF 88 92 89 90 2 13 9 11 2 13 6 10 3 SURF GRASS 6645087908918093875 AGGREGATING ANEMONE 0000000000000 SAND TUBE WORM0000000000000 MUSSEL 0000000000000 OTHER BIOTA 5133201106032 BARE SUBSTRATE1142000001110

52 53 54

Table 23. Point-Intercept Key Species Summary Data by Transect: Cardiff and Scripps. Percent cover data for 2 index taxa (red algal turf and surf grass) at Cardiff and Scripps.

CARDIFF REEF TURF GRASS DATE123123 F97799375588051 S98789161356851 F98698587759389 S99808584528888 F99726793909899 S00746685889997 F00676796959994 S01796794818671 F01755687977281 S02808384796153 F02507075813330 S03796987802510 F03323426996230 S04545176774418

SCRIPPS REEF TURF GRASS DATE123456 F97391521344044 S98481522272631 F98686070453939 S99665176412234 F99727580565050 S00666684363239 F00606857372925 S01605855291912 F01676441202624 S0274796115207 F02585444253230 S03517050192223 F03466253192344 S04353740192333

Table 24. Point-Intercept Key Species Summary Data by Transect: Navy North and South. Percent cover data for 2 index taxa (red algal turf and surf grass) at Navy North and Navy South.

NAVY NORTH TURF INSHORE GRASS OFFSHORE GRASS DATE1273645 S95 96 97 100 91 94 87 F95 95 99 100 99 96 95 S96 F96 100 100 100 100 95 94 S97 100 99 100 99 93 92 F97 97 100 100 99 94 89 S989898 99938870 F989598 99989296 S99 96 98 100 98 93 90 F99 94 99 100 99 97 96 S009398 98999383 F00 95 97 100 97 94 89 S019599 99898977 F01 96 96 100 98 92 72 S0296999799889371 F02 96 98 98 100 99 93 87 S0395899699969383 F03 96 96 96 100 98 93 89 S0467686298939282

NAVY SOUTH TURF INSHORE GRASS OFFSHORE GRASS DATE1275634 S959397 96958599 F95 95 100 97 98 100 100 S96 F96 97 100 99 99 96 100 S97 91 100 97 98 99 100 F97 90 99 100 99 99 100 S989090 96966797 F989998 99998999 S998998 999185100 F99 89 96 100 95 96 100 S008995 98929899 F008893 9698100100 S018893 95909399 F018494 999391100 S02859485959292100 F02949691959889100 S0398959397959799 F039089909995100100 S0488928987908093

Table 25. Black Abalone and Ochre Seastar Summary Data. Counts from 30 min. timed-searches at each of 4 sites.

CARDIFF REEF SCRIPPS REEF NAVY NORTH NAVY SOUTH BLACK OCHRE BLACK OCHRE BLACK OCHRE BLACK OCHRE DATE ABALONE SEASTAR ABALONE SEASTAR ABALONE SEASTAR ABALONE SEASTAR S95 0000 F95 0000 S96 F96 0000 S97 0000 F9700000000 S9800000000 F9800000000 S9900040000 F990100140000 S00011050000 F00000260000 S0109000000 F010310190000 S020170100000 F02 0 7 0 12 0 1 S0301080000 F030320390000 S040290350000

57 Table 26. Major Temporal Trends in Key Species Abundances. 1-year (annual),3-year (after sand deposition up-coast of Cardiff Reef), 7-year (since monitoring began at Cardiff and Scripps), and 9.5 year (since monitoring began at Navy North and South) comparison of major trends at the 4 Sand Diego County sites. Data for Fall and Spring surveys were combined to remove seasonal fluctuations.

Cardiff Scripps Navy North Navy South

Species 1 Year 3 Year 7 Year 1 Year 3 Year 7 Year 1 Year 3 Year 7 Year 9.5 Year 1 Year 3 Year 7 Year 9.5 Year RockweedAbsent NC NC K NC NC K NC NC NC K NC Acorn Barnacle KKKNC NC NC Uncommon Uncommon Pink Thatched Barnacle Uncommon Uncommon NC L NC NC NC NC NC NC Goose Barnacle NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC L NC NC NC NC Mussel NC NC NC NC NC NC NC LLNC NC LLL Owl Limpet NC L NC LKKNC L NC K NC LLNC Red Algal Turf LLLNC NC K NC NC LLNC NC NC NC Surf Grass NC L NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC NC

Boa Kelp Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon

Sargassum Weed Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon

Aggregating Anemone Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Uncommon Sand Castle Worm Uncommon NC NC L Uncommon Uncommon

Abalone Absent Absent Absent Absent

Seastar KKKKKK Absent Absent

K = Positive % cover change > 15 or counts > 10 individuals. 1 Year = comparison between F02/S03(Year 6) and F03/S04(Year 7). NC = No Change, % cover change < 15 or counts < 10 individuals. 3 Year = comparison between F00/S01(Year 4) and F03/S04(Year 7). L = negative % cover change > 15 or counts > 10 individuals. 7 Year = comparison between F97/S98(Year 1) and F03/S04(Year 7). 9.5 Year = comparison between S95/F95 and F03/S04(Year 7).

63 64

66 Rockweed

100 Cardiff 80

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

100 Scripps 80

100 Navy North 80 Percent Cover 60

100 Navy South 80

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

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

67 Barnacles 100 Cardiff 80

Acorn Barnacle 60 Bare Rock Thatched Barnacle 40 Other Plants

100 Scripps 80

100 Navy North 80 Percent Cover Percent 60

100 Navy South 80

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

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

68 Goose Barnacles

100 Cardiff (n=5) 80

Goose Barnacle 60 Bare Rock Mussel 40 Other Plants

100 Scripps (n=5) 80

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

100 Navy South (n=6) 80

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

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

69 Mussels 100

80 Cardiff (inshore)

60 Mussel Bare Rock 40 Goose Barnacle Other Plants 20

100

80 Cardiff (offshore)

100

80 Scripps

Percent Cover 100

80 Navy North

100

80 Navy South

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

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

70 10 10 Fall 95 8 Spring 95 8 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 % Total Limpets Total % 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 008 Fall 00 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 01 8 Fall 01 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 02 8 Fall 02 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 03 10 Fall 03 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 8 Spring 04 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Length (mm)

Figure 13. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Cardiff Reef.

71 10 10 8 Spring 95 8 Fall 95 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 (not monitored) 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 % Total Limpets Total % 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 00 10 Fall 00 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 01 8 Fall 01 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 02 8 Fall 02 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 03 8 Fall 03 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 8 Spring 04 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Length (mm)

Figure 14. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Scripps Reef.

72 10 10 8 Spring 95 8 Fall 95 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 00 10 Fall 00 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 % Total Limpets Total % 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 01 10 Fall 01 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 02 10 Fall 02 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 03 10 8 8 Fall 03 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 10 8 Spring 04 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Length (mm)

Figure 15. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy North.

73 10 10 8 Spring 95 8 Fall 95 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 96 8 Fall 96 6 6 4 (not monitored) 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 97 8 Fall 97 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 98 8 Fall 98 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 99 8 Fall 99 6 6 % Total Limpets 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 00 10 Fall 00 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 Spring 01 10 Fall 01 8 8 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 02 8 Fall 02 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 10 8 Spring 03 8 Fall 03 6 6 4 4 2 2 0 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 10 8 Spring 04 6 4 2 0 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Length (mm)

Figure 16. Owl Limpet Length Frequencies at Navy South.

74 Owl Limpets 120

100 Cardiff (5 plots @ 3 m dia)

120

100 Scripps (5 plots @ 2 m dia) 80

120

100 Navy North (6 plots @ 2 m dia)

Mean Number per Plot Mean 60

120

100 Navy South (6 plots @ 2 m dia)

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

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

75 Owl Limpets 50 Cardiff 40

50 Scripps 40

50 Navy North 40

Mean Size Mean per Site (mm) 20

50 Navy South 40

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

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

76 Turf

100 Cardiff 80

60 Red Turf Bare Substrate 40 Sand Tube Worm

100 Scripps 80

100 Navy North

Percent Cover Percent 80

100 Navy South

0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

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

77 Surfgrass

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

100 80 Scripps (n=3) 60 40 20

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

100 Navy North - offshore (n=2) 80

Percent Cover Percent 60 40 20

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

100 Navy South - offshore (n=2) 80 60 40 20 0 S95 F95 S96 F96 S97 F97 S98 F98 S99 F99 S00 F00 S01 F01 S02 F02 S03 F03 S04 Sampling Period

Fig. 20. Species Abundances in Surfgrass Transects at 4 San Diego County Sites.

SHALLOW SUBTIDAL MONITORING REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION...... SS-1

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

RESULTS...... SS-4 NORTH CARLSBAD ...... SS-4 SOUTH CARLSBAD ...... SS-6 BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA ...... SS-7 MOONLIGHT BEACH...... SS-9 SWAMIS (CONTROL)...... SS-10 CARDIFF...... SS-11 CARDIFF (CONTROL)...... SS-12 SOLANA BEACH ...... SS-14

DISCUSSION ...... SS-15

LITERATURE CITED...... SS-17

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-i 16 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at BL-SS-3 Since 1997...... SS-28 17 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-28 18 Percent Cover of Surfgrass and Feather Boa Kelp at BL-SS-3 Since 1997...... SS-29 19 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-29 20 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Batiquitos/Leucadia ...... SS-30 21 Number of Sea Palms at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-30 22 Number of Sea Palms at BL-SS-3 Since 1997...... SS-31 23 Number of Sea Fans at Batiquitos/Leucadia...... SS-31 24 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Moonlight...... SS-32 25 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Moonlight...... SS-32 26 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Moonlight ...... SS-33 27 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Moonlight...... SS-33 28 Number of Sea Palms at Moonlight ...... SS-34 29 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Swamis ...... SS-35 30 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Swamis ...... SS-36 31 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Swamis ...... SS-36 32 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Swamis...... SS-37 33 Number of Sea Palms at Swamis ...... SS-37 34 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Cardiff ...... SS-38 35 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Cardiff ...... SS-38 36 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Cardiff...... SS-39 37 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Cardiff ...... SS-39 38 Number of Sea Palms at Cardiff ...... SS-40 39 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Cardiff (Control) ...... SS-41 40 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at CC-SS-2 Since 1997...... SS-42 41 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Cardiff (Control) ...... SS-42 42 Percent Cover of Surfgrass and Feather Boa Kelp at CC-SS-2 Since 1997 ...... SS-43 43 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Cardiff (Control)...... SS-43 44 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Cardiff (Control) ...... SS-44 45 Number of Sea Palms at Cardiff (Control)...... SS-44 46 Number of Sea Palms at CC-SS-2 Since 1997...... SS-45 47 Percent Cover of Three Substrate Types at Solana Beach ...... SS-46 48 Percent Cover of Surfgrass at Solana Beach...... SS-47 49 Mean Shoot Density of Surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Solana Beach ...... SS-47 50 Percent Cover of Feather Boa Kelp at Solana Beach...... SS-48 51 Number of Sea Palms at Solana Beach ...... SS-48 52 Picture of Low-Relief Reef Adjacent to Sand Channel ...... SS-49 53 Picture of Surfgrass, Coralline Algae, and Small Kelps Partially Covered With Sand...... SS-49

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-ii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

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

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX PAGE

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-iii INTRODUCTION

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

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

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

METHODS

STUDY SITES

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-1 monitoring locations are shown in the Project Overview (PO) Section Figures 1 through 5, and the positions (latitude/longitude – NAD83) are shown in Table 1. The data are separated into shallow subtidal (SS) and kelp (K) monitoring locations. Unlike the Navy program which established single monitoring locations at key points, multiple sampling locations were established at most receiver sites (up to three monitoring locations per receiver site). Similarly, the monitoring locations were non-randomly selected and were established in areas of concern and/or in areas most likely to be impacted from sand deposition. This was based initially on the base map of existing conditions produced for the EIR/EA, and ground-truthed by reconnaissance surveys and communication with the CLTFA. The change in methodology was due to concern from lobster fisherman regarding the long-term movement of sand.

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

METHODS FOR BIOTA STUDIES

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

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

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-2

TABLE 1. RBSP POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING LOCATIONS (NAD83).

SHALLOW SUBTIDAL STATIONS KELP STATIONS Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude North Carlsbad Batiquitos/Leucadia NC-SS-1 33 9.556 117 21.521 BL-K-1 33 4.661 117 18.986 NC-SS-2* 33 8.908 117 21.030 BL-K-2* 33 4.368 117 18.852 NC-SS-3 33 8.779 117 20.933 BL-K-3 33 3.904 117 18.623 South Carlsbad Encinitas SC-SS-1 33 6.619 117 19.577 EN-K-1 33 3.774 117 18.587 Batiquitos/Leucadia EN-K-2 33 3.442 117 18.440 BL-SS-1 33 4.744 117 18.868 EN-K-3 33 2.932 117 18.260 BL-SS-2 33 4.363 117 18.722 Swamis (Control) BL-SS-3* 33 3.944 117 18.541 SW-K-1 33 2.24 117 18.069 Moonlight SW-K-2* 33 1.983 117 17.933 ML-SS-1 33 3.487 117 18.344 SW-K-3 33 1.825 117 17.730 Swamis (Control) Cardiff SW-SS-1 33 2.186 117 17.960 CF-K-1 33 0.969 117 17.247 SW-SS-2 33 2.039 117 17.857 CF-K-2 33 0.744 117 17.140 SW-SS-3 33 1.935 117 17.718 CF-K-3 33 0.181 117 17.045 Cardiff Solana Beach CF-SS-1 33 0.822 117 17.113 SB-K-1* 32 59.499 117 16.951 Cardiff (Control) SB-K-2 32 59.222 117 16.902 CC-SS-1 33 0.0920 117 16.936 SB-K-3 32 58.870 117 16.752 CC-SS-2* 32 59.932 117 16.880 Point Loma (Control) CC-SS-3 32 59.827 117 16.821 PL-K-1* 32 42.025 117 15.856 Solana Beach PL-K-2 32 41.965 117 15.843 SB-SS-1 32 59.544 117 16.730 PL-K-3 32 41.892 117 15.838 SB-SS-2 32 58.940 117 16.623 SB-SS-3 32 58.750 117 16.581

* Navy Site

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-3 In addition to percent cover data, surfgrass densities were determined by counting the number of shoots in 0.25 m x 0.25 m quadrats (area = 0.0625m2) every five meters along the transect (i.e., 10 quadrats per transect), and the number of lobsters recorded in each 100m2 band transect.

DATA ANALYSIS

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

FIELD MONITORING PERIODS

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

RESULTS

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

NORTH CARLSBAD

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-4 Substrate

Of the three monitoring locations at North Carlsbad, NC-SS-1 appears different, as sand is more common than at the other two monitoring locations (Figure 1). The mean percent cover of sand at NC-SS-1 was 44.8% for all surveys, with values ranging from a high of 52% in Spring 2001 to a low of 30% in Spring 2002. Since Spring 2002, sand cover has increased to levels observed prior to implementation of the RBSP. Low-relief substrate accounted for 41% of the substrate at NC-SS-1. From Spring 2001 to Fall 2002, the percent cover of low-relief substrate remained relatively stable ranging from a low of 40.0% in Fall 2001 to a high of 55.7% in Spring 2002. In Spring 2003, the percent cover of low-relief substrate decreased to 24.5%, but by Spring 2004, increased to levels observed prior to implementation of the RBSP (49.5%). High-relief substrate accounted for 14.1% of the substrate present at NC-SS-1, and data indicates a slight increase during the course of the monitoring. A low of 2.0% was found in Spring 2001, with a high of 25.5% present in Spring 2003.

From Spring 2001 through Spring 2002, the other two sites at North Carlsbad showed similar patterns and values in percent cover (considering the variation around the mean). However, since Spring 2002 surveys indicated that substrate composition has remained relatively constant at NC-SS-2 through Spring 2004, while at NC-SS-3 the percent cover of sand has declined from 47.1% in Spring 2002 to 6.3% in Spring 2004. This corresponded to an increase in the percent cover of low-relief substrate, from 25.8% in Spring 2002 to 49.3% in Spring 2003. The sites are relatively close together and although it would be expected that they would act similarly, it appears that small-scale variation in sand movement is occurring. In addition, this area may be the where sand from both the Oceanside and North Carlsbad receiver sites will eventually migrate, as sand transport is typically downcoast in the Oceanside littoral cell and the jetties downcoast of the monitoring locations may act as a barrier to further downcoast transport.

NC-SS-2 has been monitored since 1997 for the Navy’s beach replenishment effort. There appears to be a decreasing trend in low-relief substrate, and an increasing trend in high-relief reef. Sand cover has varied but has remained between 1% and 25% since 1997 (Figure 2).

Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass at NC-SS-2 and NC-SS-3 was similar with the exception of low percent cover in Spring 2001 at NC-SS-2 (Figure 3), and with the exception of this value are significantly higher than the percent cover observed at NC-SS-1. The mean percent cover of surfgrass at NC-SS-1 was 19.4%, with values ranging from 8.0 to 29.4%. The mean percent cover at NC-SS-2 was 33.4%, with values ranging from 8.1 to 52.0%. The mean percent cover at NC-SS-3 was 43.9%, with values ranging from 36.5% to 48.8%. There was a similar trend at all locations, with generally highest values observed at NC-SS-3 and the lowest values observed at NC-SS-1.

Surfgrass cover at NC-SS-2 has fluctuated; however trends observed since implementation of the RBSP are within a range observed at the site since 1997 (Figure 4).

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-5 Surfgrass shoot density also exhibited a similar trend with two sites having similar values and patterns (NC-SS-1 and NC-SS-2), while NC-SS-3 exhibited an opposite trend during the first year of the monitoring program (Figure 5). Since Spring 2002, shoot densities at each site has remained relatively constant. Shoot densities at NC-SS-1 ranged from 1.4 to 8.4 shoots per 0.0625m2 (mean = 3.1 per 0.0625m2), while shoot densities at NC-SS-2 ranged from 3.9 to 11.6 shoots per 0.0625m2 (mean = 6.2 per 0.0625m2). The mean shoot density at NC-SS-3 was similar to NC-SS-2 (6.4 per 0.0625m2), although as stated earlier, there was an opposite trend from Spring 2001 to Fall 2001compared to the other sites.

Percent cover of feather boa kelp remained relatively constant at all sites, although there were slight differences in coverage (Figure 6). The highest values were observed at NC-SS-2 with values ranging from 5.8% to 12.6% (mean = 8.5%). Relatively lower coverage of feather boa kelp was observed at NC-SS-1 with values generally less than 0.9% cover (mean = 1.8%), although cover was increased significantly in Fall 2003 and Spring 2004. Coverage at NC-SS-3 was between the other sites with values ranging from 4.8% to 6.9% cover (mean = 5.5%). Since 1997, coverage of feather boa kelp at NC-SS-2 has exhibited a very stable pattern with few fluctuations (Figure 4).

Abundance of sea palms exhibited a similar pattern as feather boa kelp, with the highest densities observed at NC-SS-2 (mean = 2.9 per 10m2), lowest densities at NC-SS-1 (mean = 0.02 per 10m2), and similar densities and trends at all sites since Spring 2001 (Figure 7). From 1997 to Spring 2000, sea palm densities at NC-SS-2 have remained relatively low (less than 1 per 10m2), but increased to approximately 2 per 10m 2 in Fall 2000 and have remained similar through Fall 2003, with an increasing trend through Spring 2004 (Figure 8).

Sea fans have been observed during several surveys at NC-SS-1 with a mean density of 0.24 per 10m2, while only two surveys documented sea fans at NC-SS-2, in Spring 2003 and Spring 2004 (Figure 9). At NC-SS-3, no sea fans were recorded until Fall 2003, with a mean density of 0.36 per 10m2. Sea fan abundance at NC-SS-2 has remained relatively low (less than 0.07 per 10m2) since 1997 (Figure 8).

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

SOUTH CARLSBAD

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

Substrate

The monitoring location can be characterized as primarily sand (survey mean = 51.1%) with a moderate occurrence of low-relief reef (Figure 10). The percent cover of sand has shown relatively large fluctuations, with values ranging from a low of 39.3% in Fall 2001 to a high of 94% in Spring 2002. Sand levels decreased in Fall 2002 (52.9%) and then increased to a level

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-6 similar to that observed during the baseline survey (62.9%). From Spring 2003, sand cover has decreased to a low of 17.6% observed in Spring 2004. Fluctuations in sand cover affects the cover of the other substrata as cover of both low and high-relief reef has remained relatively constant during the survey period if the large increase in sand cover in Spring 2002 is excluded, and with slight increases in through Spring 2004. The percent cover of low-relief reef ranged from 6.0% (Spring 2002) to 52.9% (Fall 2002), while cover of high-relief reef ranged from 0% (Spring 2002) to 30% (Spring 2004).

Biota

The density of surfgrass in Spring 2001 was 16.8%, and exhibited a slight decrease in Fall 2001 (14.3%). Despite the high sand cover in Spring 2002, surfgrass density was highest in Spring 2002 (27.6%), with densities remaining relatively constant through Spring 2004 (Figure 11). The density of surfgrass shoots also exhibited a similar trend with percent cover with a slight decrease in Fall 2001 (1.5 per 0.0625m2) and an increase in Spring 2002 (4.3 per 0.0625m2) (Figure 12). The majority of the surfgrass shoots were buried in sand although they appeared healthy. Since Spring 2002, shoot density has remained relatively constant ranging from 0.9 per 0.0625m2 (Fall 2003) to 2.4 per 0.0625m2 (Spring 2004).

The percent cover of feather boa kelp was relatively low (mean = 0.6%), with little fluctuation between surveys until Fall 2003, when cover increased to a high of 1.6% in Spring 2004 (Figure 13). Sea palms were found in relatively low densities (mean = 0.05 per 10m2), but were present during all surveys except for Fall 2002 (Figure 14)

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

BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA

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

Substrate

Similar to North Carlsbad, one of the three monitoring locations at Batiquitos/Leucadia, BL-SS-1 appears different, as sand is more common than at the other two monitoring locations, accounting for 56.3% of the substrate at BL-SS-1 (Figure 15). However, since Fall 2001, the percent cover of sand has shown a slight decreasing trend from 68.7% in Fall 2001 to 49.5% in Spring 2002. Values since Spring 2002 have remained similar, ranging from 46.7% to 55.9%. The decrease in sand corresponded to an increase in high-relief reef, from 7.5% in Fall 2001 to 37.7% in Spring 2002, and similar to the percent cover of sand, high-relief reef has remained relatively constant through Spring 2004 values ranging from 25.7% to 35.5%. The percent cover

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-7 of low-relief reef has also remained relatively constant, with values ranging from 27.7% in Spring 2004 to 7.7% in Fall 2003.

BL-SS-2 exhibited a large fluctuation in the percent cover of sand from Spring 2001 to Fall 2002. The percent cover of sand was 65.2% in Spring 2001, decreased to near zero in Fall 2001, increased to 48.7% in Spring 2002, and declined to 12.8% in Fall 2002. Since Fall 2002, sand cover has remained constant through Spring 2004 (Figure 15). The decrease in sand in Fall 2001 corresponded to an increase in cover of low and high-relief substrate. Interestingly enough, values observed in Spring 2002 were similar to values observed in Spring 2001 suggesting that seasonal sand transport is evident at BL-SS-2 (i.e., offshore during the winter period and onshore during the summer period). This pattern has not been observed since Spring 2003, as the percent cover of both low- and high-relief substrate remained constant through Spring 2004.

BL-SS-3 is a site that has been monitored since 1997 for the Navy’s beach replenishment effort. During the surveys for the RBSP, the percent cover of the three substrate types has remained relatively constant, with the exception of the Spring 2003 survey which indicated that sand cover had increased to 42.2%, while cover of low-relief reef declined from 69.8% in Fall 2002 to 38% in Spring 2003 (Figure 15). However, since 1997 data suggests that the current pattern has existed since Spring 1999. Prior to Spring 1999 the percent cover of high-relief substrate decreased significantly to values currently observed (Figure 16). The decrease in high-relief substrate corresponded to an increase in low-relief substrate. The percent cover of sand since 1997 has remained relatively constant with some seasonal variation, although values in Spring 2003 were the highest observed. Since Spring 2003, the cover of all three substrate types has remained relatively constant.

Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass at BL-SS-2 and BL-SS-3 was similar with the exception of low percent cover in Spring 2001 at BL-SS-2 (Figure 17), and with the exception of this value are significantly higher than the percent cover observed at BL-SS-1. The mean percent cover of surfgrass at BL-SS-1 was 0.6%, with values ranging from zero to 1.1%. The mean percent cover at BL-SS-2 was 49.6%, with values ranging from 11.2 to 69.5%. The mean percent cover at BL- SS-3 was 36.4%, with values ranging from 29.6 to 40.5%. With the exception of low percent cover at BL-SS-2 in Spring 2001, values at all monitoring locations have remained relatively constant.

Since 1997, the percent cover of surfgrass has fluctuated, with low coverage present in Fall 1998, an increasing trend up through Spring 2001, and relatively constant coverage thereafter (Figure 18). Values observed in the last several years are similar to those observed during the initial survey in Fall 1997.

Surfgrass shoot density also exhibited a similar trend with two sites having similar values and trends (BL-SS-2 and BLSS-3), while little to no surfgrass was observed at BL-SS-1 (Figure 19). Shoot densities at BL-SS-2 ranged from 1.1 to 13.4 shoots per 0.0625m2 (mean = 7.7 per 0.0625m2), while shoot densities at BL-SS-3 ranged from 2.3 to 6.5 shoots per 0.0625m2 (mean = 4.6 per 0.0625m2).

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-8

Percent cover of feather boa kelp remained relatively stable at all sites, with very slight differences in coverage through Spring 2002 (Figure 20). Since Spring 2002, there was a peak in coverage in Fall 2002 at BL-SS-1, and an increasing trend at BL-SS-3. The highest values were observed at BL-SS-3 with values ranging from 2.0% to 11.9% (mean = 6.4%). Coverage at BL- SS-2 was similar to BL-SS-1 with values ranging from 1.4% to 3.6% cover (mean = 2.5%). Very low coverage of feather boa kelp was observed at BL-SS-1 with values generally less than 4.0%, although there was a peak observed in Fall 2002 (16.6%). Since 1997, coverage of feather boa kelp at BL-SS-3 has exhibited a very stable pattern with low cover and few fluctuations (Figure 18).

Abundance of sea palms remained stable at BL-SS-3 with values ranging from 0.5 to 1.1 per 10m2 (mean = 0.8 per 10m2) (Figure 21). Abundance at BL-SS-2 exhibited an increasing trend with low abundance in Spring 2001 (0.06 per 10m2) to higher abundance in Fall 2002 (2.5 per 10m2). Since Fall 2002, sea palm abundance at BL-SS-2 has declined to 0.8 per 10m2 in Spring 2004. The lowest densities were observed at BL-SS-1 with values ranging from 0.0 to 0.05 per 10m2 (mean = 0.02 per 10m2). Since 1997, sea palm densities at BL-SS-3 have remained relatively stable and low (generally less than 1 per 10m2) (Figure 22).

Sea fans have only been observed in Fall 2001 at BL-SS-1 at a density of 0.08 per 10m2 (Figure 23).

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

MOONLIGHT BEACH

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

Substrate

The monitoring location can be characterized as primarily low-relief substrate (mean = 52.7%) with moderate amounts of high-relief reef (mean = 22.9%) and sand (mean =24.1%). There appears to be seasonal changes in sand cover corresponding to higher sand levels in the spring, and lower cover in the fall (Figure 24). The percent cover of all substrata has remained relatively constant through Spring 2003. The coverage of low-relief reef ranged from a low of 41.3% in Spring 2002 to a high of 69% in Fall 2002. Sand cover was highest in Fall 2003 (35.6%) and lowest in Fall 2001 (9.4%); however, appears to fluctuate within a range observed during construction. There was some fluctuation in high-relief substrate as the highest coverage was present in Fall 2001 (35.8%) and the lowest coverage was present in Spring 2001 (4.9%).

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-9 Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass has remained stable throughout the surveys (Figure 25). The lowest value was observed in Fall 2003 (32.1%) and the highest value observed in Fall 2001 (40.8%). The number of surfgrass shoots indicated a slight increasing trend, with the lowest value in Spring 2001 (2.1 per 0.0625m2) and the highest value in Spring 2002 (7.8 per 0.0625m2) (Figure 25). Since Spring 2002, surfgrass shoot density has remained relatively constant given the variation of the values.

Percent cover of feather boa kelp has consistently increased through the surveys, and values have ranged from a low of 2.5% in Spring 2002 to a high of 12.3% in Spring 2004 (Figure 27). The number of sea palms has remained relatively constant, with values ranging from 0.9 per 10m2 in Spring 2001 to a high of 2.9 per 10m2 in Fall 2001 (Figure 28).

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

SWAMIS (CONTROL)

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

Substrate

Both SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 displayed similar patterns as BL-SS-2 and ML-SS-1, with a significant decrease in the percent cover of sand in Fall 2001 and Fall 2002 (Figure 29). At SW- SS-1, the percent cover of sand was 76.3% in Spring 2001, 0.0% in Fall 2001, 95% in Spring 2002, and 19.9% in Fall 2002. There was an increase in sand cover in Spring 2003 (53%), but cover was not as high as previous spring surveys. At SW-SS-2, the percent cover of sand was 64.4% in Spring 2001, 8.8% in Fall 2001, 55% in Spring 2002, and 8.3% in Fall 2002. Similar to SW-SS-1, sand cover increased in Spring 2003, but not to levels similar to other spring surveys. The decreases in sand cover corresponded to increases in low-relief reef and to a lesser degree, high-relief reef. At SW-SS-1, low-relief reef increased from 23.3% in Spring 2001 to 80.0% in Fall 2001, while at SW-SS-2, low-relief reef increased from 35.6% in Spring 2001 to 87.2% in Fall 2001. This supports the concept of seasonal sand transport as this occurred prior to any beach replenishment activities. Unlike previous surveys, this pattern was not observed at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 in Spring 2004, as sand cover either decreased or remained constant. At SW-SS-3, there was high sand coverage in Spring 2001 (64.4%), a less dramatic decrease in Fall 2001 (48.6%), with similar levels being present in subsequent surveys. There was relatively little high-relief reef present at SW-SS-3, with values less than 8.7% cover.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-10 Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass at SW-SS-1 suggests an increasing trend with low cover present in Spring 2001 (6.4%) and higher cover present in subsequent surveys, reaching 22% in Spring 2004 (Figure 30). There was an initial decreasing trend in surfgrass cover at SW-SS-2 with the highest cover present in Spring 2001 (6.4%) and the lowest in Spring 2002 (5.3%); however, since Spring 2002, percent cover has steadily increased reaching levels similar to those observed during the first several surveys. Surfgrass cover at SW-SS-3 has remained relatively low (mean = 3.6%) and constant ranging from 0.5% to 7.7% through the monitoring program. The number of surfgrass shoots indicated a stable trend throughout the surveys, with SW-SS-2 having the highest shoot density (mean = 3.8 per 0.0625m2), while SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-3 had much lower shoot densities (1.5 and 0.4 shoots per 0.0625m2, respectively) (Figure 31).

Feather boa kelp was more common at SW-SS-2 (mean = 17.5%), followed by SW-SS-1 (mean = 7.7%), and SW-SS-3 (mean = 4.7%) (Figure 32). The percent cover was similar at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 in Spring 2001 (approximately 16%); however, there was a decreasing trend at SW-SS-1 (14.3%) and an increasing trend at SW-SS-2 (21.7%) through Spring 2002. In Spring 2002, percent cover decreased at both sites (2.1% at SW-SS-1 and 9.3% at SW-SS-2). Cover increased at both sites through Spring 2004, although cover was still higher at SW-SS-2. At SW- SS-3, the percent cover of feather boa kelp remained relatively low and stable with values ranging from 2.1% in Spring 2002 to 6.7% in Fall 2002. An apparent trend at all sites was an increase in cover during the fall and decreasing cover in the spring. This is most likely due to winter storms removing parts of the plant or individuals, followed by growth during the summer and fall.

Sea palms displayed a stable and similar pattern at all sites with relatively low densities (generally less than 1 plant per 10m2) (Figure 33).

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

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

CARDIFF

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

Substrate

From Spring 2001 to Fall 2002, CF-SS-1 revealed an opposite trend to BL-SS-2, SW-SS-1, SW- SS-2, and ML-SS-1 as the percent cover of sand increased during the fall surveys and not the

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-11 spring surveys (Figure 34). Percent cover of sand was 30% in Spring 2001, increased to 75.9% in Fall 2001, decreased to 29.3% in Spring 2002, and increased to 44.1% in Fall 2002. Unlike previous surveys, sand cover remained high and increased to 49.6% in Spring 2003, decreased to 29.7% in Fall 2003, and increased to its highest observed level in Spring 2004 (77%). The changes in sand cover corresponded to changes in low-relief reef, while cover of high-relief reef remained relatively constant throughout all surveys (ranged between 6.3% and 15.3%).

Biota

Percent cover of surfgrass was relatively stable early in the monitoring program, with atypical seasonal variation (i.e., higher coverage in the spring and lower coverage in the fall) (Figure 35). This variation may have been due to the atypical sedimentation pattern observed at CF-SS-1 (Figure 34). Low percent cover was present in Fall 2001 (2.4%) and Spring 2004 (0.8%), which coincided with the presence of high sand cover. The number of shoots displayed a decreasing trend from Fall 2002 to Spring 2004. The number of shoots was 2.3 per 0.0625m2 in Spring 2001, decreased to 0.2 per 0.0625m2, increased to 1.8 per 0.0625m2, decreased to 0.2 per 0.0625m2 in Fall 2002, and remained below this level through Spring 2004 (Figure 36).

Feather boa kelp displayed a decreasing trend through Spring 2002, and then increased in subsequent surveys (Figure 37). The percent cover was 15.6% in Spring 2001 and declined to 6.5% in Spring 2002, increased significantly in Fall 2002 (33.4%), and has remained near this level through Spring 2004. Sea palms exhibited a stable pattern throughout the surveys with densities ranging between 0.6 per 10m2 in Spring 2003 to 1.9 in Fall 2003 (Figure 38).

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

CARDIFF (CONTROL)

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

Substrate

Both CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 were similar as both had relatively low sand cover (Figure 39); the mean percent cover of sand at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 was 9.7% and 3.4%, respectively. At CC- SS-2, there was a relatively large amount of sand (mean = 53.9%). At CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3, there appeared to be the greatest fluctuation from Spring 2001 to Fall 2001. At CC-SS-1, the percent cover of low-relief reef was 80.0% in Spring 2001, but decreased to 52.7% in Fall 2001, while high-relief reef increased from 17.0% in Spring 2001 to 45.7% in Fall 2001. High-relief reef at CC-SS-3 increased from Spring 2001 (18.1%) to Fall 2001 (58%), while low-relief reef declined from 82.0% in Spring 2001 to 41.8% in Fall 2001. Since Fall 2001, the percent cover for all substrata at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 has remained relatively constant, with only slight fluctuations. At CC-SS-2, the only significant change in substrate cover was in Spring 2002,

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-12 when the percent cover of sand increased from 39.7% in Fall 2001 to71.6% in Spring 2002. Since Spring 2002, the percent cover of all substrata has remained relatively constant.

Data from CC-SS-2 since 1997 suggests relatively large fluctuations in the percent cover of sand and reef habitat, with a general increasing trend in sand cover starting in Fall 2000 (Figure 40).

Biota

The percent cover of surfgrass at all the monitoring locations was similar throughout the surveys (Figure 41). There was a slight increasing trend at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 throughout the surveys, while surfgrass fluctuated seasonally at CC-SS-2, although the range only varied from 20.4% to 34.7%. The mean percent cover was 25.6% at CC-SS-1, 28.6% at CC-SS-2, and 28.9% at CC-SS-3. Data collected from 1997 at CC-SS-2 appears to indicate a similar trend with relatively small fluctuations in surfgrass cover (Figure 42).

Surfgrass shoot density was also similar between the sites from Spring 2001 to Spring 2004, with a slight decreasing trend through Fall 2001, and then relatively similar shoot densities (Figure 43). The highest and lowest densities were observed at CC-SS-1 in Spring 2001 (9.9 per 0.0625m2) and Spring 2004 (0.5 per 0.0625m2), respectively.

The percent cover of feather boa kelp was highest at CC-SS-1 (14.1%), followed by CC-SS-2 (9.7%), and CC-SS-3 (9.5%) (Figure 44). CC-SS-1 displayed an increasing pattern with relatively similar cover through Spring 2002, and then increasing during subsequent surveys. The percent cover of feather boa kelp at CC-SS-2 increased from 11.9% in Spring 2001 to 14.4% in Fall 2001, decreased to 2.7% in Spring 2002, increased to 10.0% in Spring 2003, and has remained relatively constant through Spring 2004. This pattern has been observed at this site since 1997 (Figure 42). At CC-SS-3, the percent cover decreased from 11.9% in Spring 2001 to 2.2% in Spring 2002, increased to 18.1% in Spring 2003, but decreased in subsequent surveys.

Sea palm abundance at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 was very similar from Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 (Figure 45). At CC-SS-1, the mean number of sea palms steadily increased from 2.2 per 10m2 in Spring 2001 to 4.1 per 10m2 in Fall 2003, while at CC-SS-3, the mean number of sea palms was 1.9 per 10m2 in Spring 2001 and increased to 4.5 per 10m2 by Spring 2003. The abundance of sea palms at CC-SS-2 was lower than the other sites, with densities generally less than 0.8 per 10m2. There appears to be a fair amount of variability in sea palm abundance at CC- SS-2 since 1997 with values ranging from 2.4 per 10m2 in Fall 2001 to near zero during several surveys (Figure 46).

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

Adult giant kelp was observed during most surveys. These plants were present in low densities (less than 0.1 per 10m2) at CC-SS-1 and CC-SS-3 in Spring 2001 and Spring 2002. No adult giant kelp was present in Fall 2001. However, adult giant kelp were observed at all monitoring locations from Fall 2002 to Spring 2004 although densities were relatively low (less than 0.14 plants per 10m2).

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-13 SOLANA BEACH

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

Substrate

Both SB-SS-1 and SB-SS-3 exhibited the same trend as CF-SS-1 with increased sand cover in Fall 2001, although coverage returned to levels observed the prior spring (Figure 47). At SB-SS- 1, low-relief reef was the most common substrate type (mean = 41.8%), followed by sand (37.1%), and high-relief reef (21.1%). At SB-SS-3, sand was the most common substrate type (mean = 52.7%) reaching a peak in Fall 2001 with a mean percent cover of 69.1%. Low-relief reef was present in moderate amounts (33.4%), while high-relief reef was least common (13.9%). Since Spring 2002, substrate cover remained relatively constant at both sites. At SB- SS-2, sand was the least common substrate type, with a mean percent cover of 19.7%, although there was an increasing trend since the inception of the monitoring program. This is one of two monitoring locations, the other being BL-SS-3, where there has been a significant increasing trend in sand cover, as other locations where significant increases have occurred appear to be within natural variability. However, sand cover decreased from 35.8% in Fall 2003 to 6.8% in Spring 2004 (similar to levels observed prior to construction) suggesting a potential change in sedimentation patterns.

Biota

The percent cover of surfgrass did not vary among monitoring locations as the highest percent cover was observed at SB-SS-2 (mean = 21.8%), followed by SB-SS-1 (mean = 11.4%), and SB- SS-3 (mean = 5.2%). There were slight fluctuations in surfgrass density over the course of the surveys, but levels remained relatively constant at each site (Figure 48). Surfgrass shoot densities exhibited a similar trend as percent cover with the highest shoot density present at SB- SS-2 (mean = 3.1 per 0.0625m2), followed by SB-SS-1 (mean = 1.8 per 0.0625m2), and SB-SS-3 (mean = 0.4 per 0.0625m2) (Figure 49).

The percent cover of feather boa kelp was relatively low at SB-SS-3 (mean = 0.2%) and SB-SS-1 (mean = 0.5%) through Spring 2002, but increased in subsequent surveys (Figure 50). At SB- SS-1, the percent cover increased to 15.5% in Spring 2003 and remained constant through Spring 2004. At SB-SS-3, the increase was not as large and fluctuated, but reached levels of 6.0% in Fall 2002 and 5.0% in Spring 2004. The highest percent cover of feather boa kelp was recorded at SB-SS-2 was 8.3%; however, it exhibited a decreasing trend from Spring 2001 (15.6%) to Spring 2002 (2.4%), increased in Fall 2002 (16.1%), again declined in Spring 2003 (2.3%), but increased through Spring 2004 (9.9%).

The abundance of sea palms was similar to that of feather boa kelp, with the highest abundance present at SB-SS-2 (mean = 3.8 per 10m2), followed by SB-SS-1 (mean = 0.7 per 10m2), and SB-

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-14 SS-3 (mean = 0.1 per 10m2) (Figure 51). Densities stayed relatively stable throughout the sampling period.

Adult giant kelp was observed at low densities at SB-SS-2 throughout the surveys with densities of 0.2 per 10m2 in Spring 2001, 0.04 per 10m2 in Fall 2001, 0.06 per 10m2 in Fall 2002, and 0.02 per 10m2 in Spring 2003. At SB-SS-3, a single observation of an adult giant kelp plant was made in Fall 2002. In Spring 2004, giant kelp was observed only at SB-SS-1 at densities of 0.12 per 10m2.

No sea fans were observed at Solana Beach.

DISCUSSION

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

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

In the shallow subtidal zone, sand movement influences substrate type and the presence of associated biota. Previous monitoring efforts for the Navy Homeporting beach replenishment project have documented the variability in natural sand transport at several areas. In areas where sand is constantly shifting, either moving on or offshore, or longshore, the presence of low- and high-relief substrate will vary. The loss of sand will expose previously covered rocky substrate creating habitat. Conversely, the influx of large amounts of sand can potentially cover these rocky areas. At all the study sites, the rocky areas are not continuous, but rather separated by sand channels that generally extend perpendicular from shore (Figure 52). These sand channels

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-15 are created by constant scouring, provide avenues for sand movement, and can decrease the likelihood of impacts from scour or burial on the reef tops.

Large fluctuations in sand cover observed at several sites (e.g., BL-SS-2, ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2, CF-SS-1) suggest that seasonal transport does occur. However, the increases in sand cover since completion of the RBSP are similar in magnitude to observations prior to implementation of the RBSP suggesting that this may be natural fluctuation. The only exceptions are at Batiquitos/Leucadia (BL-SS-3) and Solana Beach (SB-SS-2), where sand cover has increased to levels beyond what was observed prior to the RBSP. At BL-SS-3, sand cover has continued to increase through the Spring 2004 surveys, while at SB-SS-2, sand cover decreased in Spring 2004 to levels observed prior to construction. Another example of natural sand transport occurred at Cardiff (CC-SS-2). The percent cover of sand increased in spring 1999, while the percent cover of low-relief reef decreased. It appeared that sand movement occurred along several transects and covered some reef areas. This apparent influx of sand was also observed in the intertidal zone and documented during the rocky intertidal surveys (Engle 2000).

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

The presence of sensitive marine resources can be directly related to the amount of available substrate (i.e., reefs). Sea palms, sea fans, and giant kelp are generally found on high-and low- relief reefs where sand is not present, which suggests that these species are less tolerant of sand movement and disturbance. In areas that are predominantly sand, no sensitive marine resources are present that are of concern to the resource agencies or commercial fisherman. On both high- and low-relief reefs, surfgrass, feather boa kelp, and sea palms are present, although their distribution is patchy. Surfgrass and feather boa kelp are also present on low-relief reefs with interspersed sand patches, suggesting that these species can tolerate moderate amounts of sand burial (Figure 53). It also indicates that these reefs must undergo intermittent burial and removal of sand (i.e., ephemeral), as settlement and growth could not occur in the presence of sand (Foster and Schiel 1985).

An interesting note is the decrease in surfgrass abundance at BL-SS-3 in Fall 2000 (prior to the RBSP), which coincided with an increase in sand in several transects. The area along the transects where the increased sand was observed tended to be at the nearshore margin. A general transect profile usually consists of sand as the dominant substrate near the beach, followed by an area of rocky substrate that is heavily scoured and does not support sensitive marine organisms (“interface area”), followed by rocky substrate that is less scoured and can support a diverse

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-16 assemblage of marine organisms. It is the boundary or interface area that is probably most affected by seasonal sand movement and disturbance. For example, if there is little sand on the beach, this interface area will move shoreward and may allow marine organisms to settle and grow in an area that was once too heavily disturbed to support organisms. The converse would also be true, as large amounts of sand would push this interface area further offshore and thereby reduce the amount of habitat available for recruitment and settlement of marine organisms.

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

It is apparent that sand from the receiver sites has moved; however, observations and data from this monitoring program suggest that sand from the receiver sites does not appear to have migrated offshore onto the shallow subtidal reefs during the winter. The winter of 2001/2002 was a relatively mild season with few large storms, which resulted in much of the dredged sand to remain on the beach. The winters of 2002/2003 and 2003/2004 could be considered average with moderate storm and wave activity. The storms were definitely large enough to move sand from the beach into the nearshore environment, although the exact destination and movement cannot be determined from this study.

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

LITERATURE CITED

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-17 Black, R. 1974. Some biological interactions affecting intertidal populations of the kelp Egregia laevigata. Marine Biology 28: 189-198.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-18 NC-SS-1

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80 60 40

Percent Cover 20 0

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date NC-SS-2 High- Relief Low- Relief Sand 100 80 60

Percent Cover 20

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date NC-SS-3

High- Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80

60 40

Percent Cover 20 0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date

Figure 1. Percent cover of three substrate types at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-19

NC-SS-2

High Relief Low Relief Sand 100

40 Percent Cover 20

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

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

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

Percent Cover 20

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 3. Percent cover of surfgrass at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-20

NC-SS-2 Surfgrass Feather Boa Kelp 70

Percent Cover 20

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 4. Percent cover of surfgrass and feather boa kelp at NC-SS-2 since 1997.

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

20 2

5 # of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 5. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-21

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

10 Percent Cover 5

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 6. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at North Carlsbad.

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

2 5

2 Number per 10 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 7. Number of sea palms at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-22

NC-SS-2 Sea Palm Sea Fan 6

Percent Cover 2

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 8. Number of sea palms and sea fans at NC-SS-2 since 1997.

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

1.0

0.8 2

0.6

0.4 Number per 10 m 0.2

0.0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 9. Number of sea fans at North Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-23

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

40 Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 10. Percent cover of three substrate types at South Carlsbad.

Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 11. Percent cover of surfgrass at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-24

10 2

# of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 12. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at South Carlsbad.

Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 13. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-25

0.3 2 0.2

Number per 10 m 0.1

0.0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 14. Number of sea palms at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-26

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

Percent Cover 20 0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

BL-SS-2

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

80 60

Percent Cover 20

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date BL-SS-3 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80 60

Percent Cover 20 0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 15. Percent cover of three substrate types at Batiquitos/Leucadia. 323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-27

BL-SS-3 High Relief Low Relief Sand 100

40 Percent Cover 20

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 16. Percent cover of three substrate types at BL-SS-3 since 1997.

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

80 70 60 50 40 30 Percent Cover 20 10 0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 17. Percent cover of surfgrass at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-28

BL-SS-3 Surfgrass Feather Boa Kelp 70

Percent Cover 20

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 18. Percent cover of surfgrass and feather boa kelp at BL-SS-3 since 1997.

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

20 2 15

5 # of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 19. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-29

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

Percent Cover 10

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 20. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

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

2 3

Number per 10 m 1

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 21. Number of sea palms at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-30

BL-SS-3 Sea Palm Sea Fan 1.5

1.0

0.5 Percent Cover

0.0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 22. Number of sea palms at BL-SS-3 since 1997.

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

0.4 2

0.2 Number per 10 m

0.0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 23. Number of sea fans at Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-31

High-Relief Low- Relief Sand

100

40 Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 24. Percent cover of three substrate types at Moonlight.

30 Percent Cover 20

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 25. Percent cover of surfgrass at Moonlight.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-32

15 2

5 # of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 26. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Moonlight.

Percent Cover 5

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 27. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Moonlight.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-33

4 2

2 Number per 10 m 1

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 28. Number of sea palms at Moonlight.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-34

SW-SS-1

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

80 60

Percent Cover 20 0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date

SW-SS-2 High- Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80

Percent Cover 20

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date SW-SS-3

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

60 40

Percent Cover 20

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date

Figure 29. Percent cover of three substrate types at Swamis. 323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-35

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

Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 30. Percent cover of surfgrass at Swamis.

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

10 2

# of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-36

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

10 Percent Cover 5

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

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

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

2 2

Number per 10 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 33. Number of sea palms at Swamis.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-37

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

40 Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

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

Percent Cover 10

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 35. Percent cover of surfgrass at Cardiff.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-38

2 4

# of shoots per 0.0625 m 1

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

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

Percent Cover 20

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

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

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-39

3 2 2

1 Number per 10 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 38. Number of sea palms at Cardiff.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-40

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

Percent Cover 20

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date

CC-SS-2

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

60 40

Percent Cover 20

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date CC-SS-3

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

60 40

Percent Cover 20

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date

Figure 39. Percent cover of three substrate types at Cardiff (Control). 323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-41

CC-SS-2 High Relief Low Relief Sand 100

40 Percent Cover 20

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 40. Percent cover of three substrate types at CC-SS-2 since 1997.

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

20 Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 41. Percent cover of surfgrass at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-42

CC-SS-2 Surfgrass Feather Boa Kelp 50

20 Percent Cover 10

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 42. Percent cover of surfgrass and feather boa kelp at CC-SS-2 since 1997.

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

20 2 15

# of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 43. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-43

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

Percent Cover 10

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 44. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Cardiff (Control).

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

5 2 4

2 Number per 10 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 45. Number of sea palms at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-44

CC-SS-2 Sea Palm 3

1 Percent Cover

0 Oct-97 Oct-98 Oct-99 Oct-00 Oct-01 Oct-02 Oct-03 Apr-98 Apr-99 Apr-00 Apr-01 Apr-02 Apr-03 Apr-04 Date

Figure 46. Number of sea palms at CC-SS-2 since 1997.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-45

SB-SS-1 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80 60

Percent Cover 20 0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date

SB-SS-2 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100 80

Percent Cover 20

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date SB-SS-3 High-Relief Low- Relief Sand 100 80

Percent Cover 20

S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4

Date

Figure 47. Percent cover of three substrate types at Solana Beach. 323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-46

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

20 Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 48. Percent cover of surfgrass at Solana Beach.

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

15 2

5 # of shoots per 0.0625 m

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 49. Mean shoot density of surfgrass per 0.0625 m2 at Solana Beach.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-47

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

10 Percent Cover

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 50. Percent cover of feather boa kelp at Solana Beach.

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

5 2 4

2 Number per 10 m 1

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 51. Number of sea palms at Solana Beach.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-48

Figure 52. Picture of low-relief reef adjacent to sand channel.

Figure 53. Picture of surfgrass, coralline algae, and small kelps partially cover with sand.

323550000-0011/Year3_SS Page SS-49

APPENDIX A SUMMARY DATA

KELP FOREST MONITORING REPORT TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION...... 1

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

RESULTS...... 4 BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA ...... 4 Substrate...... 4 ENCINITAS ...... 4 Substrate...... 5 SWAMIS (CONTROL)...... 5 Substrate...... 5 CARDIFF...... 5 Substrate...... 5 SOLANA BEACH ...... 6 Substrate...... 6 POINT LOMA (CONTROL)...... 6 Substrate...... 6 DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TARGET TAXA ...... 6 GIANT KELP (MACROCYSTIS PYRIFERA)...... 7 UNDERSTORY KELP...... 7 BROWN TURF ALGAE ...... 7 RED TURF ALGAE ...... 8 LEAFY RED ALGAE ...... 8 CORALLINE ALGAE TURF...... 8 CRUSTOSE RED ALGAE ...... 8 PARAPHOLAS CALIFORNICA...... 9 CHACEIA OVOIDEA ...... 9 MURICEA CALIFORNICA ...... 9 DIOPATRA ORNATA ...... 9 KELLETIA KELLETII...... 9 LITHOPOMA UNDOSUM ...... 10 SEA URCHINS ...... 10 SEA STARS ...... 10 ENCRUSTING INVERTEBRATES...... 11

DISCUSSION ...... 11

LITERATURE CITED...... 15

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-i LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

1 Substrata at Batiquitos/Leucadia from 1997-2004...... KF-16 2 Substrata at Encinitas from 2001-2004 ...... KF-16 3 Substrata at Swamis from 1997-2004 ...... KF-17 4 Substrata at Cardiff from 2001-2004 ...... KF-17 5 Substrata at Solana Beach from 1997-2004...... KF-18 6 Substrata at Point Loma from 1997-2004 ...... KF-18 7 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-19 8 Macrocystis pyrifera Stipes Per Plant From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-19 9 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Recruits From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-20 10 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Juveniles From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-20 11 Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Sub-Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-21 12 Density of Cystoseira osmundacea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-21 13 Density of Eisenia arborea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-22 14 Density of Egregia menziesii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-22 15 Density of Laminaria spp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-23 16 Density of Pterygophora californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-23 17 Percent Cover of Red Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-24 18 Percent Cover of Leafy Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-24 19 Percent Cover of Coralline Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-25 20 Percent Cover of Crustose Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-25 21 Density of Parapholas californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-26 22 Density of Chaceia ovoidea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-26 23 Density of Muricea californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-27 24 Density of Diopatra ornata From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-27 25 Density of Kelletia kelletii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-28 26 Density of Lithopoma undosum From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-28 27 Density of Strongylocentrotus franciscanus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-29 28 Density of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-29 29 Density of Pisaster sp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-30 30 Percent Cover of Sponges From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-30 31 Percent Cover of Ectoprocts From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004...... KF-31 32 Percent Cover of Ascidians From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 ...... KF-31

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-ii LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

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

LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-iii INTRODUCTION

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

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

METHODS

STUDY SITES

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

METHODS FOR BIOTA STUDIES

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-1

TABLE 1. RBSP POST-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING LOCATIONS (NAD83).

* Navy Site

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-2 could be assessed. A permanent, 20-meter long transect parallel to the shoreline was established, and along this permanent transect, 10 perpendicular quadrats/band transects were surveyed. The size of the quadrat/transect was dependent upon the resource being quantified.

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

Biologists quantified substrate type to characterize the percentage of sand, rock, rock type, vertical relief, and depth of sand cover in 10, one-meter by one-meter quadrats (1m2). Also, within the 1m2 quadrat, biologists documented the abundance of key indicator plant and invertebrate species. The following list of indicator species is based upon results of reconnaissance dive surveys conducted by the Navy, and include the following species:

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

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

FIELD MONITORING PERIODS

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-3

DATA ANALYSIS

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

RESULTS

BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA

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

Substrate

Rocky reef was the most common substrate type at Batiquitos/Leucadia, although there have been several large influxes of sand (Figure 1). From 1997 to 2004, the percent cover of rocky substrate fluctuated between 52.9% in Fall 1999 to 85.4% in Fall 1998. Since implementation of the RBSP, the percent cover of rocky reef fluctuated from a high of 77.6% in Spring 2004 to a low of 55.3% in Spring 2002. The highest percentage of sand (this includes sand with shell hash) was documented in Spring 2002 (40.6%), which was just after completion of the Batiquitos and Leucadia receiver sites. This presumably was not due to the additional sand on the beach as the majority of the material remained on the beach during the winter of 2001-2002. Since Spring 2002, sand cover has steadily declined from 35.0% in Fall 2002 to 22.0% in Spring 2004, similar to pre-construction sand cover (taking into account standard error) present in Spring 2001 (22.7%) suggesting that episodes of sand movement are common in this area.

ENCINITAS

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-4 Substrate

Encinitas was not included in the Navy’s monitoring program, therefore substrate data are available from Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 (Figure 2). Rocky reef was the most common substrate during all surveys, and similar to Batiquitos, sand cover has fluctuated between surveys. The percent cover of sand (includes sand with shell hash) was lowest in Spring 2001 (7.2%) and highest in Spring 2002 (22.0%). This coincided with the first winter after completion of the RBSP, and may suggest the increase was due to beach construction; however, the winter of 2002 was relatively mild and the majority of the nourishment material remained on the beaches throughout the winter of 2002. The Spring 2003 survey indicated that sand cover was 14.1%, which is lower than levels observed prior to beach construction; however, in Spring 2004, sand cover increased to levels observed after completion of the RBSP (20.1%). The Encinitas site is in close proximity to the Batiquitos/Leucadia site further suggesting that sediment transport occurs along this area of the coast.

SWAMIS (CONTROL)

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

Substrate

Rocky reef was the most common substrate type at Swamis, typically exceeding 80% cover during most surveys, with the exception of Fall 2002 (70.2%), Spring 2003 (76.4%), and Spring 2004 (64.5%) (Figure 3). Since implementation of the RBSP, the percent cover of sand has fluctuated between 7.2% in Spring 2001 to 29.0% in Spring 2004. Surveys conducted during the Navy monitoring program (1997-2001) indicated periodic increases in sand cover, with the highest cover observed in Fall 1998 (18%).

CARDIFF

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

Substrate

Cardiff was not included in the Navy’s monitoring program, therefore substrate data are available from Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 (Figure 4). Rocky substrate has been the most common substrate, although there appeared to be an increase in sand cover since implementation of the RBSP. The highest percent cover of sand was observed in Fall 2002 (27.5.0%), a year

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-5 after completion of the Cardiff receiver site, although it appears unlikely that sand from the receiver site contributed to this increase. The replenishment material from SO-6 was very distinct in color and grain size (i.e., very coarse and yellow-brown in color) and the material present at the monitoring location was fine to medium grained. Observations suggested that the majority of the nourishment material moved downcoast instead of upcoast and offshore. Since Fall 2002, sand cover has fluctuated, but has generally remained above 22%.

SOLANA BEACH

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

Substrate

Rocky reef was the most common substrate type at Solana Beach, generally exceeding 75% cover during all surveys, except for the Fall 1999 survey (Figure 5). In Fall 1999, the percent cover of rocky substrate declined to 56.3% and corresponded to an increase in sand cover. Sand cover in Fall 1999 was 41.3%, but declined to levels observed for the majority of the surveys. Since implementation of the RBSP, there has been an increasing trend in sand cover, from 10.7% in Spring 2001 to 32.8% in Spring 2004.

POINT LOMA (CONTROL)

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

Substrate

The substrate at the Point Loma kelp bed is distinctly different from that observed at the other monitoring locations. The substrate is generally flat, pavement-like sandstone, with scattered areas of sand. Rocky substrate is the most common substrate at Point Loma, generally exceeding 89% during most surveys (Figure 6). Sand cover has fluctuated since 1997, from zero percent cover of sand in Fall 1999 and 2000 to a high of 16.0% in Fall 2002.

DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF TARGET TAXA

Target taxa distribution and abundance from Spring 2001 to Spring 2004 are graphically presented in Figures 7 through 32 to determine the relationship between treatment and reference sites, and relationships among all sampling sites. Note that the mean abundance and percent cover are relative to a 10-m2 sampling area. See Appendix A for summary data of target species.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-6 GIANT KELP (MACROCYSTIS PYRIFERA)

Giant kelp was present at each of the monitoring sites, although there were differences in the distribution of the life stages. Adult plants were observed at all sites and during all surveys (Figure 7). Point Loma consistently had the highest abundance, with densities exceeding 2 plants per 10m2 during all surveys. The kelp plants at Point Loma were also the largest plants as indicated by the highest mean number of stipes per plant (Figure 8). The other life stages were not present or were found at low densities in Spring 2001 through Fall 2001 (Figures 9 - 11). However, in Spring 2002, after implementation of the RBSP, densities of the various life stages increased at most of the sites. An increase in recruits and juveniles was also observed in Spring 2003 and Spring 2004. Recruitment of giant kelp occurs year around, however, is generally highest in the spring, although many of the recruits do not persist through the year. Observations in spring indicate relatively high mortality of adult plants due to winter storms, which increases light levels and space, and contributes to the higher recruitment in spring. In areas where there are persistent stands of adult plants, recruitment is generally lower as adult plants typically out compete the recruits for light and space.

UNDERSTORY KELP

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

Several species of large, understory kelp species were observed during the surveys including Cystoseira osmundacea, Egregia menziesii, Eisenia arborea, Laminaria farlowii, and Pterygophora californica. Cystoseira, Egregia, and Eisenia displayed the widest distributions, occurring at 5 of the 6 monitoring sites (Figures 12-14). Both Cystoseira and Eisenia have been observed at all the sites, while Egregia is generally absent from Point Loma. Laminaria has been observed at Cardiff, Swamis, and Point Loma, although densities at Point Loma are significantly higher than the other locations (Figure 15). Similarly, Pterygophora is most abundant at Point Loma, although a few individuals have been observed at Solana Beach and Cardiff (Figure 16). Desmarestia ligulata is more of an ephemeral species and is unusually observed during the spring survey in areas that have been recently disturbed and cleared of other kelps. It has been observed at most locations during previous surveys, and only at Batiquitos/Leucadia, Encinitas, Swamis, and Point Loma in Spring 2004.

BROWN TURF ALGAE

Commonly occurring brown algae were combined into a brown turf algae complex that included such species as Dictyopteris undulata, Dictyota binghamiae, Pachydictyon coriaceum, and Zonaria farlowii). This complex, similar to the red turf complex, comprises a secondary layer of

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-7 biological cover above encrusting algae and sessile invertebrates. Brown turf algae are more common in shallow areas and were not observed at any site.

RED TURF ALGAE

The red turf algae assemblage comprise filamentous, juvenile, and leafy turf growing associates, and forms a secondary canopy of benthic macrophytes that is susceptible to the movements of sediments. It can also act to protect kelp sporophytes from the grazing activities of fish and invertebrates grazers (Harris et al. 1984).

Red turf algae has been observed at all the monitoring locations, with the highest percent cover consistently observed at Swamis (Figure 17). Coverage appears to vary seasonally, with higher cover present during the spring surveys.

LEAFY RED ALGAE

Consisting of the more mature plants, leafy red algae >10 cm in height (e.g., Acrosorium venulosum, Gracilariopsis sp., Rhodymenia californica, and Microcladia coulteri) form a tertiary layer of algae above the encrusting and turf algae. Leafy red algae were observed at all sites, with the highest percent cover observed at Cardiff in Spring 2004 (11.8%) (Figure 18). There appears to be seasonal variation, with higher cover in the fall and lower cover in spring. However, the percent cover in Fall 2003 remained relatively high and possibly contributed to the some of the highest cover observed in Spring 2004.

CORALLINE ALGAL TURF

Coralline algal turf consists of species that have morphologically and physiologically adapted to the effects of abrasion and burial by possessing strong, calcified thalli (e.g., Corallina officinalis, C. vancouverensis, and Bossiella sp.). They were observed at all the monitoring locations, with the highest percent cover observed at Point Loma, Encinitas, Swamis, and Cardiff (Figure 19). Point Loma is the only location that indicates an increasing trend in coralline turf cover. There was some fluctuation between surveys at the other locations; however, given the variation during those surveys, the percent cover remained relatively stable.

CRUSTOSE RED ALGAE

This taxonomic complex (e.g., Lithophyllum /Lithothamnion) is common in subtidal zones (Foster and Schiel 1985) and may persist for long periods of time. However, the biology of these taxa is poorly known and may include the encrusting stages of articulated corallines. Like coralline turf, this complex is uniquely adapted to withstand sand burial and abrasion with its calcified thalli, and may exclude other forms of algae from settling. The percent cover of crustose red algae was relatively low at all monitoring locations, with the exception of Point Loma, where the percent cover generally exceeded 12% (Figure 20). At the other locations, percent cover rarely exceeded 2.0%.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-8 PARAPHOLAS CALIFORNICA

The rock-boring pelecypod, Parapholas californica, commonly inhabits soft-shale reefs (Foster and Schiel 1985). Its hole is rarely deeper than 28 to 30-cm deep and it can live normally with sand cover of up to 15 cm (Morris et al. 1980). Parapholas was observed at all sites except for Solana Beach (Figure 21). The highest densities were consistently observed at Point Loma and Batiquitos/Leucadia, although there appears to be a fair amount of variability at these sites. This may be due to their ability to retract their siphon into their hole when disturbed, making it difficult for the biologist to document their presence.

CHACEIA OVOIDEA

Chaceia ovoidea is one of the largest pholads and can bore at least up to 60 cm. Haderlie et al. (1974) found few specimens of Chaceia living with a cover of sand, and attributed this to a settling preference that keeps it out of areas where periodic sand movement occurs. Chaceia was most common at Cardiff, Encinitas, Batiquitos/Leucadia, and Swamis, while few individuals were observed at Solana Beach and Point Loma. At Cardiff, densities ranged from 1.2 per 1m2 in Spring 2001 to 3.4 per 1m2 in Spring 2003 (Figure 22).

MURICEA CALIFORNICA

Muricea californica is a frequently observed gorgonian on reefs in kelp forest habitats. It is susceptible to damage from storms, sediment burial, and abrasion, which are major causes of its mortality (Grigg 1975; Rosenthal et al. 1969). Muricea was observed at five of the six monitoring locations, with Point Loma being the only location where it was absent (Figure 23). The highest densities were observed at Encinitas, Cardiff, and Swamis, where densities were generally greater than 1.0 individual per 1m2. At Solana Beach, Batiquitos, and Point Loma, densities were generally less than 1.0 individual per 1m2.

DIOPATRA ORNATA

Ornate tube worms form dense aggregations on sand-inundated reefs and in coarse, detrital-rich sands surrounding hard bottom habitat. A particulate feeder, this polychaete worm attaches fragments of algae and debris to its tube. These tubes can also serve as "refuges" for crustaceans, polychaete worms, and other micro-invertebrates. Diopatra was observed at all sites, with the highest abundance recorded at Batiquitos in Fall 2003 (4.1 individuals per 1m2). In Spring 2004, abundance ranged from 0.3 to 2.1 individuals per 1m2 at all sites (Figure 24).

KELLETIA KELLETII

The Kellet's whelk is one of the largest gastropods found intertidally and subtidally in southern California. It is commonly found to depths of 70 meters on rocky reefs and gravel bottoms, scavenging on dead or injured animals it finds on the seafloor, including other gastropods and mussels. Its food sources overlap with the giant sea star, Pisaster giganteus, which also is an occasional predator of Kelletia. Kelletia was present at all monitoring locations, although

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-9 abundance varied, with the highest abundance observed at Cardiff in Fall 2001 (1.4 per 1m2) and Point Loma in Spring 2004 (1.6 per 1m2; Figure 25). At the other locations, Kelletia abundance varied, with abundance ranging from 0.2 to 1.1 individuals per 1m2. Kelletia is generally patchily distributed and during certain times of the year, primarily spring, can form dense mating aggregations, where densities can exceed 50 per 1m2.

LITHOPOMA UNDOSUM

The dietary habit of this species is not generally known, but it may be a grazer on lower stipes of kelp and sporophylls (Foster and Schiel 1985). This trochid snail has been observed at five of the six monitoring locations, although densities were relatively low. The highest densities have consistently been observed at Point Loma, where it was observed during all surveys, with the highest abundance of 1.3 individuals per 1m2 recorded in Spring 2004 (Figure 26). At the other monitoring locations, abundance rarely exceeded 0.1 individuals per 1m2.

SEA URCHINS

The red urchin, Strongylocentrotus franciscanus, is a significant grazer in the subtidal reef environment. Its grazing activity is known to influence the distribution and abundance of macrophytes and has been associated with the complete removal of kelp plants (Foster and Schiel 1985; Morris et al. 1980). The red sea urchin was present at four of the six monitoring location (no red sea urchins were observed at Batiquitos or Cardiff), although not during every survey (Figure 27). Swamis was the only monitoring location where red sea urchins were observed during every survey, and where abundance ranged from 0.3 to 0.9 individuals per 1m2. At the other monitoring locations where red sea urchins were observed, abundance was relatively low and rarely exceeded 0.1 individual per 1m2.

Purple sea urchins, Strongylocentrotus purpuratus, consume a variety of brown and red algae, although Macrocystis is a preferred food item. It is preyed upon by sea stars (e.g., Dermasterias imbricata and Pisaster ochraceous) and sheephead (Semicossyphus pulcher). The purple urchin was observed at three of the six monitoring locations (Figure 28). It was most common at Point Loma where it observed during all surveys, with densities between 0.3 and 2.3 individuals per 1m2. The only other location where it was observed consistently was Swamis, where abundance ranged from 0.1 to 0.9 individuals per 1m2.

SEA STARS

Predaceous sea stars (Pisaster giganteus, P. ochraceous, and P. brevispinus) feed on a range of mollusks, barnacles, and annelids, although its preferences vary with the available food resources (Morris et al. 1980). They are common predators in the low intertidal to depths of about 80 meters on rocky substrates, and occasionally are found in sandy habitats. They have been observed at all six sites, although at very low abundances at most of the sites (generally less than 0.1 individuals per 1m2) (Figure 29). Similar to purple urchins, sea stars were observed on every survey at Point Loma with densities as high as 0.4 individuals per 1m2.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-10 ENCRUSTING INVERTEBRATES

Sponges, ectoprocts (bryozoans), and colonial tunicates were assembled into a collective group of colonial and encrusting sessile suspension/filter feeding invertebrates. Sponges (e.g., Sigmadocia and Leucetta), tunicates (e.g., Didemnum spp.), and ectoprocts (e.g., Bugula californica) were present at all six sites (Figures 30-32). Although it appears there was some seasonal variation (considering the standard error), the relative coverage was similar within each monitoring location.

DISCUSSION

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

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

In kelp forests, sand movement influences substrate type and the presence of associated biota. In areas where sand is constantly shifting, either moving on or offshore or longshore, the biota would be indicative of sand tolerant organisms, whereas in areas that remain free of sand, the substrate would be available for colonization. The monitoring sites are generally composed of rocky reef habitat with some sand. The amount of sand has remained relatively constant at most sites with the exception of several areas that have seen an increase in sand cover: Cardiff Reef in 1999 (prior to the RBSP), and Swamis and Solana Beach in 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-11 The beginning of the Navy's monitoring program (1997) coincided with El Niño conditions, which were characterized by elevated water temperatures and intense storm activity. Giant kelp was present at all sites, although it was sparse at Point Loma and Cardiff Reef. The analysis of the size class information indicated that a large percentage of the kelp plants were recruits and juveniles, which corresponded to a general lack of canopy, and also indicated that kelp recruitment was occurring. Despite higher-than-average surface water temperatures during the survey (22.2 to 23.3o C), the bottom water temperatures were relatively cool (16.7 to 18.3o C) and were within the thermal tolerance ranges of kelp for the establishment and growth of young plants.

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

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

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

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-12 In 1999, substrate composition remained relatively stable with the exception of increases in sand at Cardiff Reef and North Carlsbad. This coincided with recovery of giant kelp at Imperial Beach, Point Loma, and Swami’s Reef, while there were declines at Cardiff Reef and North Carlsbad. The increases could not be attributed to the younger life stages as they were generally not observed, therefore the number of adult plants contributed to the overall increase. Although the number of plants was generally greater at the South County sites, stipe data suggests that the plants did not have as many stipes. Therefore, there were fewer, but larger, giant kelp plants in North County, and more, but smaller, plants in South County. There was also an increase in several understory kelps: Egregia, Pterygophora, and Eisenia at North County sites, and Laminaria at Point Loma. The low giant kelp recruitment may be a result of the increase in understory kelps as giant kelp reduces the available space and light.

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

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

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

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-13 In general, substrate composition has varied within a range that appears to reflect natural variation. Solana Beach, Batiquitos/Leucadia, and Swamis (a control site) are areas in which there appears to be an increase in sand cover since implementation of the RBSP; however, the levels are less than values observed in during the Navy study. However, the increase in sand cover does not appear to affect the distribution and abundance patterns of key indicator species. Based on giant kelp data, it appears that giant kelp recruitment and persistence has increased since implementation of the RBSP. This does not imply that beach replenishment activities contributed to this increase, but that perhaps there were no negative impacts associated with the construction. Apparently oceanographic conditions from 2001 to 2004 have been conducive to kelp recruitment and persistence.

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-14 LITERATURE CITED

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-15 100 F'97 F'98 80 F'99 F'00 60 S'01 F'01 40 S'02 Percent Cover F'02 20 S'03 F'03 0 S'04 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 1. Substrata at Batiquitos/Leucadia from 1997-2004.

100

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

Percent Cover F'03 S'04 20

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

Figure 2. Substrata at Encinitas from 2001-2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-16 100 F'97 F'98 80 F'99 F'00 60 S'01 F'01 40 S'02 Percent Cover 20 F'02 S'03 0 F'03 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with S'04 Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 3. Substrata at Swamis from 1997-2004.

100

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

Percent Cover F'03 S'04 20

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

Figure 4. Substrata at Cardiff from 2001-2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-17 100 F'97 F'98 80 F'99 F'00 60 S'01 F'01 40 S'02 Percent Cover F'02 20 S'03 F'03 0 S'04 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 5. Substrata at Solana Beach from 1997-2004.

100 F'97 F'98 80 F'99 F'00 60 S'01 F'01 40 S'02 Percent Cover F'02 20 S'03 0 F'03 Rock or Rock w/ Cobble Sand Sand with S'04 Reef Rubble Shell Hash Substrate

Figure 6. Substrata at Point Loma from 1997-2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-18 5

2 BL 3 EN CF SW 2 SB

Number per 10 m PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 7. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

BL 20 EN CF 15 SW SB

Stipes per plant 10 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 8. Macrocystis pyrifera Stipes Per Plant From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-19 25

2 BL 15 EN CF SW 10 SB

Number per 10 m per 10 Number PK 5

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 9. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Recruits From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

12 2 BL 10 EN CF 8 SW 6 SB

Number per 10 m PK 4

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 10. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Juveniles From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-20 8

6 2 BL 5 EN CF 4 SW 3 SB

Number per 10 m PK 2

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 11. Density of Macrocystis pyrifera Sub-Adults From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

2 6 BL EN CF 4 SW SB

Number per 10 m 2 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 12. Density of Cystoseira osmundacea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-21 10

2 BL EN 6 CF SW 4 SB

Number per 10 m PK 2

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 13. Density of Eisenia arborea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

5 BL 2 EN 4 CF 3 SW SB 2 PK Number per 10 m 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 14. Density of Egregia menziesii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-22 50

2 BL 30 EN CF SW 20 SB

Number per 10 m PK 10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 15. Density of Laminaria spp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

3 2 BL EN CF 2 SW SB

Number per 10 m PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 16. Density of Pterygophora californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-23 16

12 BL EN CF 8 SW SB Percent Cover PK 4

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 17. Percent Cover of Red Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

18 16 14 BL 12 EN 10 CF 8 SW SB Percent Cover 6 PK 4 2 0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 18. Percent Cover of Leafy Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-24 40

30 BL 25 EN CF 20 SW 15 SB Percent Cover PK 10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 19. Percent Cover of Coralline Turf Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

45 40 35 BL 30 EN 25 CF 20 SW SB Percent Cover 15 PK 10 5 0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 20. Percent Cover of Crustose Red Algae From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-25 14

2 10 BL EN 8 CF 6 SW SB

Number per 1 m 4 PK

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 21. Density of Parapholas californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

2 BL 4 EN CF 3 SW SB 2 Number per 1 m PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 22. Density of Chaceia ovoidea From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-26 5

2 BL 3 EN CF SW 2 SB

Number per 1 m PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 23. Density of Muricea californica From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

2 BL 4 EN CF 3 SW SB 2 Number per 1 m PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 24. Density of Diopatra ornata From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-27 3

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

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 25. Density of Kelletia kelletii From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

1.6

1.4

1.2

2 BL 1.0 EN CF 0.8 SW 0.6 SB

Number per 1 m PK 0.4

0.2

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 26. Density of Lithopoma undosum From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-28 1.6

1.2

2 BL EN CF 0.8 SW SB Number per 1 m 0.4 PK

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 27. Density of Strongylocentrotus franciscanus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

2 BL EN CF 2 SW SB

Number per 1 m PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 28. Density of Strongylocentrotus purpuratus From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-29 0.5

0.4

2 BL 0.3 EN CF SW 0.2 SB

Number per 1 m PK 0.1

0.0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 29. Density of Pisaster sp. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

8 BL 6 EN CF SW 4 SB Percent Cover PK 2

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 30. Percent Cover of Sponges From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-30 20

16 BL 12 EN CF SW 8 SB Percent Cover PK 4

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 31. Percent Cover of Ectoprocts From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

BL 4 EN CF 3 SW SB Percent Cover 2 PK 1

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 32. Percent Cover of Ascidians From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004.

323550000-0011/Year3_Kelp Page KF-31

APPENDIX A SUMMARY DATA

LOBSTER MONITORING REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

INTRODUCTION...... 1

METHODS ...... 1 STUDY SITES ...... 1 METHODS FOR LOBSTER STUDIES ...... 2 Lobster Abundance ...... 2 Lobster Recruitment...... 2 DATA ANALYSIS ...... 3 FIELD MONITORING PERIODS ...... 3

RESULTS...... 3 NORTH CARLSBAD ...... 3 Lobster Abundance ...... 3 SOUTH CARLSBAD...... 4 Lobster Abundance ...... 4 Lobster Recruitment...... 4 BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA ...... 5 Substrate...... 5 Lobster Abundance ...... 5 Lobster Recruitment...... 5 MOONLIGHT BEACH...... 6 Substrate...... 6 Lobster Abundance ...... 6 Lobster Recruitment...... 7 SWAMIS (CONTROL)...... 7 Substrate...... 7 Lobster Abundance ...... 7 CARDIFF...... 8 Substrate...... 8 Lobster Abundance ...... 8 CARDIFF (CONTROL)...... 8 Lobster Abundance ...... 8 SOLANA BEACH ...... 9 Lobster Abundance ...... 9

DISCUSSION ...... 9

LITERATURE CITED...... 10

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-i

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE 1 Number of lobster at North Carlsbad ...... LB-11 2 Number of lobster at South Carlsbad ...... LB-11 3 Percent cover of three substrate types at BL-SS-2 ...... LB-12 4 Number of lobster Batiquitos/Leucadia ...... LB-12 5 Percent cover of three substrate types at ML-SS-1 ...... LB-13 6 Number of lobster at Moonlight Beach...... LB-13 7 Percent cover of three substrate types at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 ...... LB-14 8 Number of lobster at Swamis...... LB-15 9 Percent cover of three substrate types at CF-SS-1 ...... LB-15 10 Number of lobster at Cardiff...... LB-16 11 Number of lobster at Cardiff (Control) ...... LB-16 12 Number of lobster at Solana Beach ...... LB-17

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE 1 Summary of lobster trapping data ...... LB-5

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-ii

INTRODUCTION

California spiny lobsters (Panulirus interruptus) are found from Monterey Bay, California to Manzanillo, Mexico, primarily between Point Conception, California to Magdalena Bay, Baja California. Recruits and juvenile lobsters usually spend their first one to two years in nearshore (shallow subtidal) reef habitats that include surfgrass and eelgrass beds. Adult lobsters are typically found in rocky areas from the intertidal zone to at least 240 feet, although they will move onto sand in search of food. Local fishermen note that there is marked movement of adults between inshore and offshore areas. Most of the fishing for this species occurs in rocky coastal areas up to 120 feet in depth, although lobsters have been caught on any type of substrate. It takes approximately seven to eleven years for lobsters to reach legal size (carapace length = 3.25 inches [8.3 cm]) and is the commercial species of greatest value to the local fishing industry.

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

During the EIR/EA process for the RBSP, commercial fishermen expressed concerns about the impact of project-related turbidity which may affect nursery areas and juvenile lobster. The EIR/EA concluded that juvenile lobster appear capable of tolerating high turbidity and suspended sediments, that the project would affect areas relatively less important to the countywide fishermen, and that given the lack of long-term, adverse effects to their habitat from indirect sedimentation, there would be no significant impact to the fishery. However, there is still concern regarding direct sedimentation of the nearshore surfgrass habitat. Therefore, the objective of the monitoring is to evaluate whether beach replenishment operations result in any significant, long-term adverse impacts to sensitive marine resources near the beach replenishment sites. Regarding spiny lobster, the objective is to evaluate whether sand encroachment on shallow subtidal reefs depletes habitat occupied by juvenile and adult lobster.

METHODS

STUDY SITES

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-1 conditions, but far enough away from the receiver beaches to avoid any direct impacts from the replenishment activities.

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

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

METHODS FOR LOBSTER STUDIES

Lobster Abundance

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

Lobster Recruitment

Since dive surveys generally target larger juvenile and adult lobster, semi-annual trap sampling was initiated in Fall 2003 to document the distribution and abundance of spiny lobster, focusing on

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-2 sampling smaller size classes (i.e., recruits and juveniles). Custom lobster traps with 1-inch mesh and no escape port were made. This differs from the standard gear used by commercial fisherman, which uses 2-inch mesh and an escape port. Baited traps were deployed at selected monitoring sites (SC-SS-1, BL-SS-1, BL-SS-2, BL-SS-3, and ML-SS-1) for approximately twenty-four hours. All lobster were counted, measured (carapace length in centimeters [cm]), and released.

DATA ANALYSIS

All data were entered into an Excel spreadsheet and arithmetic mean and standard error were calculated, and either tabulated or graphed.

FIELD MONITORING PERIODS

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

RESULTS

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

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

NORTH CARLSBAD

Lobster Abundance

At North Carlsbad, lobsters were not observed in Spring 2001; however lobsters were present in Fall 2001 at both NC-SS-1 (2.0 per 100m2) and NC-SS-3 (1.2 per 100m2) (Figure 1). Lobster abundance at NC-SS-1 increased steadily from Fall 2002 (1.6 per 100m2) to Spring 2004 (4.8 per 323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-3

100m2). At NC-SS-2, lobster abundance also increased in Spring 2002 (1.0 per 100m2), continuing until Spring 2004 (8.2 per 100m2), with only a slight decrease in Fall 2003 (5.0 per 100m2). Lobster abundance remained relatively constant at NC-SS-3 throughout the sampling period (0.8 per 100m2 to 2.8 per 100m2).

SOUTH CARLSBAD

Lobster Abundance

Lobster abundance at SC-SS-1 was relatively low (between 0.8 and 1.6 lobsters per 100m2) throughout the sampling period, except for an increase in Fall 2002 (5.6 per 100m2) and Spring 2003 (3.8 per 100m2) (Figure 2).

Lobster Recruitment

Lobsters trapped at SC-SS-1 ranged in size from 5.3 cm to 5.5 cm, below the legal commercial size limit of 8.3 cm (Table 1). Two trapping surveys were conducted in Fall 2003; two lobsters (mean size = 5.4 cm) were trapped on 9/12/03, while no lobsters were trapped on 9/18/03. One lobster measuring 5.3 cm was trapped in Spring 2004. The number of lobsters collected with traps at SC-SS-1 appeared to support observations of low lobster abundance recorded in the diving surveys (Figure 2).

BATIQUITOS/LEUCADIA

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

Substrate

BL-SS-2 exhibited a large fluctuation in the percent cover of sand from Spring 2001 to Fall 2002, and then remained low until Spring 2004 (Figure 3). The percent cover of sand was 65.2% in Spring 2001, decreased to near zero in Fall 2001, and increased to 48.7% in Spring 2002. The decrease in sand corresponded to an increase in cover of low and high-relief substrate. Interestingly enough, values observed in Spring 2002 were similar to values observed in Spring

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-4

Table 1. Summary of lobster trapping data.

Minimum Mean Size Number Number of Maximum Site Date Size (Std Err) of Traps Lobsters Size (cm) (cm) (cm) SC-SS-1 9/12/03 2 2 5.3/ 5.5 5.4 (0.1) 9/18/03 2 0 - - - 5/28/04 2 1 - 5.3 5.3 (0.0) BL-SS-1 9/12/03 2 2 5.3 6.1 5.7 (0.4) 9/18/03 2 15 6.6 8.2 7.3 (0.1) 5/28/04 2 6 5.8 7.4 6.6 (0.2) BL-SS-2 9/12/03 2 0 - - - 9/18/03 2 1 7.3 7.3 (0.0) 5/28/04 2 2 7.8 8.1 8.0 (0.2) BL-SS-3 9/12/03 2 9 6.7 8.4 7.3 (0.2) 9/18/03 2 9 6.6 7.2 7.0 (0.1) 5/28/04 2 10 4.8 7.9 7.3 (0.7) ML-SS-1 9/12/03 2 17 5.7 8.5 7.2 (0.2) 9/18/03 2 0 - - - 5/28/04 1 0 - - - Note: Minimum legal size limit for lobster = 8.3 cm

2001 suggesting that seasonal sand transport was evident at BL-SS-2 (i.e., offshore during the winter period and onshore during the summer period). However, since Fall 2002, sand cover has not fluctuated and has remained low at less than 20% through Spring 2004.

Lobster Abundance

Lobster abundance at BL-SS-1 exhibited an increasing trend with low abundance in Spring 2001 (1.2 per 100m2) to higher abundance in Spring 2004 (14.0 per 100m2) (Figure 4). In addition, the highest abundance to date among all monitoring locations was at BL-SS-1 during Spring 2003 with 44.6 lobsters per 100m2. Lobster abundance at BL-SS-2 remained relatively low with values ranging from 0.0 to 1.4 per 100m2, with a slight increase in Spring 2004 (3.2 per 100m2). Although sand cover decreased at BL-SS-2 in Fall 2001, which corresponded to an increase in rocky habitat, lobsters were not observed during the survey. Lobster abundance at BL-SS-3 was low throughout the survey period, with values ranging from 0.2 to 1.2 per 100m2 (mean = 0.6 per 100m2).

Lobster Recruitment

Lobster trapped at BL-SS-1 ranged in size from 5.3 cm to 8.2 cm during the three surveys (Table 1). Two lobsters were trapped on 9/12/03 (mean size = 5.7 cm), 15 lobsters on 9/18/03 (mean size = 7.3 cm), and six trapped on 5/28/04 (mean size = 6.6 cm). The increase in lobsters trapped in subsequent Fall 2003 surveys (2 trapped on 9/12/03 compared to 15 trapped on 9/18/03) 323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-5 suggests that lobster distribution is variable and may not be affected by short-term changes in substrate.

At BL-SS-2, lobsters trapped ranged in size from 7.3 cm to 8.1 cm (Table 1). Fall 2003 surveys recorded zero and one lobster (7.3 cm), while the Spring 2004 survey trapped two lobsters with a mean size of 8.0 cm.

BL-SS-3 exhibited the widest range of lobster size (between 4.8 cm and 8.4 cm) during the three surveys (Table 1). Unlike BL-SS-1, the abundance of lobsters trapped at BL-SS-3 was similar between the Fall 2003 surveys. Nine lobsters were trapped during each of the Fall 2003 surveys, with a mean size of 7.3 cm and 7.0 cm., respectively. In Spring 2004, 10 lobsters were trapped which ranged in size from 4.8 cm to 7.9 cm with a mean size of 7.2 cm.

MOONLIGHT BEACH

Substrate

The monitoring location can be characterized as primarily low-relief substrate (mean = 52.7%) with moderate amounts of high-relief reef (mean = 22.9%) and sand (mean =24.1%). There appears to be seasonal changes in sand cover corresponding to higher sand levels in the spring, and lower cover in the fall (Figure 24). The percent cover of all substrata has remained relatively constant through Spring 2004. The coverage of low-relief reef ranged from a low of 41.3% in Spring 2002 to a high of 69% in Fall 2002. Sand cover was highest in Fall 2003 (35.6%) and lowest in Fall 2001 (9.4%); however, appears to fluctuate within a range observed during construction. There was some fluctuation in high-relief substrate as the highest coverage was present in Fall 2001 (35.8%) and the lowest coverage was present in Spring 2001 (4.9%).

Lobster Abundance

At ML-SS-1, the lowest abundance of lobsters was observed in Spring 2001 (0.2 per 100m2), but increased in Fall 2001 (2.6 per 100m2) and remained constant through Fall 2002 (Figure 6). In Spring 2003, the mean number of lobster increased to 5.0 per 100m2, the highest abundance recorded for this site. However, during subsequent surveys, abundance fluctuated, with a decrease in Fall 2003 (0.8 per 100m2) and an increase in Spring 2004 (2.8 per 100m2). Unlike BL-SS-2, lobster abundance was highest at ML-SS-1 during Fall 2001, when the lowest percentage of sand cover was recorded. In addition, lobster abundance remained high as sand cover remained relatively low supporting the idea that the absence of sand provides more low and/or high-relief substrate for lobster habitat.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-6

Lobster Recruitment

On 9/12/03, 17 lobsters were trapped at ML-SS-1, ranging in size from 5.7 cm to 8.5 cm, with a mean size of 7.2 cm (Table 1). Two lobsters met the legal catch size requirement (8.2 cm). No lobsters were trapped during the 9/18/03 and 5/28/04 surveys (Table 1), even though an increase in lobster abundance was recorded in the diving surveys from Fall 2003 to Spring 2004 (Figure 6). Similar to BL-SS-1, the variability observed in the number of lobsters trapped in subsequent Fall 2003 surveys suggests that lobster distribution is variable and may not be affected by short- term changes in substrate.

SWAMIS (CONTROL)

Substrate

Both SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 displayed similar patterns as BL-SS-2 and ML-SS-1, with a significant decrease, in the percent cover of sand in Fall 2001 and Fall 2002 (Figure 7). At SW- SS-1, the percent cover of sand was 76.3% in Spring 2001, 0.0% in Fall 2001, 95% in Spring 2002, and 19.9% in Fall 2002. There was an increase in sand cover in Spring 2003 (53%), but cover was not as high as previous spring surveys. At SW-SS-2, the percent cover of sand was 64.43% in Spring 2001, 8.8% in Fall 2001, 55% in Spring 2002, and 8.3% in Fall 2002. Similar to SW-SS-1, sand cover increased in Spring 2003, but not to levels similar to other spring surveys. The decrease sand cover corresponded to increases in low-relief reef and to a lesser degree, high-relief reef. At SW-SS-1, low-relief reef increased from 23.3% in Spring 2001 to 80.0% in Fall 2001, while at SW-SS-2, low-relief reef increased from 35.6% in Spring 2001 to 87.2% in Fall 2001. This further supports the concept of seasonal sand transport as this occurred prior to any beach replenishment activities. Unlike previous surveys, this pattern was not observed at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 in Spring 2004, as sand cover either decreased or remained constant. At SW-SS-3, there was high sand coverage in Spring 2001 (64.4%), a less dramatic decrease in Fall 2001 (48.6%), with similar levels being present in subsequent surveys. There was relatively little high-relief reef present at SW-SS-3, with values less than 8.7% cover.

Lobster Abundance

Lobsters were not recorded at any of the monitoring locations at Swamis during Spring 2001 (Figure 8). Both SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2 had an increase in lobster abundance in Fall 2001 with 2.0 per 100m2 and 1.4 per 100m2, respectively. Lobster abundance at both sites also declined slightly in Spring 2002. This corresponded to a decline in sand cover, which supports the idea that a decrease in sand cover increases the amount of suitable lobster habitat. However, high sand cover was observed at SW-SS-1 in Spring 2003, which coincided with the highest observed lobster abundance at Swamis (11.8 per 100m2). From Spring 2002 to Spring 2004, lobster abundance at SW-SS-2 has remained relatively low, with a slight peak in Spring 2004 (3.4 per 100m2). From Fall 2002 to Spring 2003, lobster abundance increased at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-3,

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-7 with up to 5.4 lobster per 100m2 recorded at SW-SS-3 in Spring 2003. Lobster abundance at SW-SS-3 was low from Fall 2001 to Spring 2002, with densities up to 0.6 per 100m2, increasing from Fall 2002 to Spring 2003, and declining through Spring 2004.

CARDIFF

Substrate

From Spring 2001 to Fall 2002, CF-SS-1 revealed an opposite trend to BL-SS-2, SW-SS-1, SW- SS-2, and ML-SS-1 as the percent cover of sand increased during the fall surveys and not the spring surveys (Figure 9). Percent cover of sand was 30.0% in Spring 2001, increased to 75.9% in Fall 2001, decreased to 29.3% in Spring 2002, and increased to 44.1% in Fall 2002. Unlike previous surveys, sand cover remained high and increased to 49.6% in Spring 2003, decreased to 29.7% in Fall 2003, and increased to its highest observed level in Spring 2004 (77%). The changes in sand cover corresponded to a changes in low-relief reef, while cover of high-relief reef remained relatively constant throughout all surveys (ranging between 6.3% and 15.3%).

Lobster Abundance

At CF-SS-1, lobsters were only recorded during the Spring 2002 survey and the density was very low (0.4 per 100m2) (Figure 10).

CARDIFF (CONTROL)

Lobster Abundance

Lobster abundance at all three monitoring locations generally increased over time (Figure 11). At CC-SS-1, the mean number of lobster was 0.2 per 100m2 in Spring 2001 and increased to 14.6 per 100m2 in Spring 2004. Lobsters were not observed at CC-SS-2 in Spring 2001, but abundance increased from 0.6 per 100m2 in Fall 2001 to 7.0 per 100m2 Spring 2004. At CC-SS- 3, the mean number of lobster was 0.6 per 100m2 in Spring 2001 and increased to 3.6 per 100m2 in Spring 2004. There was no apparent correlation between lobster abundance and sand cover, as sand cover increased slightly at CC-SS-1, fluctuated between Spring 2002 and Spring 2003 at CC-SS-2, and remained low at CC-SS-3.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-8

SOLANA BEACH

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

Lobster Abundance

Lobster abundance fluctuated at all three monitoring locations (Figure 12). Lobster abundance at SB-SS-1 was lower than the other locations, with no lobsters recorded in Spring 2001 or Fall 2001, and a mean of 1.8 per 100m2 from Spring 2002 to Spring 2004. At SB-SS-2, mean lobster abundance was 5.1 per 100m2 in Spring 2001 and Spring 2004, with the highest abundance of 14.0 per 100m2 observed in Fall 2003. From Spring 2001 to Spring 2004, mean lobster abundance at SB-SS-3 was 6.2 per 100 m2, with peaks in abundance in Fall 2002 (11.2 per 100m2) and Spring 2004 (12.6 per 100m2).

DISCUSSION

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

In the shallow subtidal zone, sand movement influences substrate type and the presence of associated biota. In areas where sand is constantly shifting, either moving on or offshore, or longshore, the presence of low- and high-relief substrate will vary. The loss of sand will expose previously covered rocky substrate, creating habitat. Conversely, the influx of large amounts of sand can potentially cover these rocky areas. At all the study sites, the rocky areas are not continuous, but rather separated by sand channels that generally extend perpendicular from shore. These sand channels are created by constant scouring, provide avenues for sand movement, and can decrease the likelihood of impacts from scour or burial on the reef tops. Large fluctuations in sand cover observed at several sites (e.g., BL-SS-2, ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2) suggest that seasonal transport does occur. However, changes in sand cover since completion of the RBSP (Fall 2001) are similar in magnitude to observations prior to implementation of the RBSP suggesting that this may be natural variability.

It is apparent that observations and data from this monitoring program cannot accurately determine whether changes in habitat availability have affected the lobster population. Reasons are that it is difficult to document a causal relationship between lobster abundance and habitat availability. There are many areas that may qualify as suitable lobster habitat; however, lobsters are rarely observed. The converse has also been observed, as habitat that may not appear to be ideal for lobster, will support lobsters on occasion. Correlations between lobster abundance and percent cover of sand, low-relief substrate, and high-relief substrate indicated no strong relationship. Observations also suggest that lobsters are patchily distributed and that there is no

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-9 consistent pattern. It has been noted that lobsters will migrate during certain seasons as well as during certain weather conditions.

The diving portion of the monitoring program also lacks size data, as it is difficult to accurately measure lobster while diving. This is important information that may provide recruitment and growth data, as well as, any potential habitat selection or preference. The recent trapping data indicates that the majority of the individuals trapped are either juvenile or small adult lobster (sub-legal) suggesting that the nearshore area acts as a refuge or nursery area. Another objective of the trapping survey that has not been successful is the collection of lobster recruits (i.e., small individuals that may have recently settled in the area). Similar to many other marine organisms, it has been suggested that lobster recruitment is not consistent from year to year, and that recruitment events are episodic and coincide with optimal oceanographic conditions. It may be possible that no recent large-scale recruitment events have occurred in the area and therefore, few lobster recruits are present.

At a few of the monitoring locations (e.g., ML-SS-1, SW-SS-1, SW-SS-2), results could suggest that the absence of sand increased habitat, which possibly led to, increased lobster abundance. However, this occurred at specific sites and cannot be generally applied to all monitoring locations. Data also indicates that when you consider all monitoring locations that there is little relationship between the availability of habitat and lobster abundance. Continued sampling is aimed at determining if there is a correlation between availability of habitat (given temporal variations in sand cover) and lobster recruitment and abundance.

LITERATURE CITED

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

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

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-10

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

2 12

Number per 100 m 4

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 1. Number of lobster at North Carlsbad.

SC-SS-1

8 2

4 Number per 100 m 2

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 2. Number of lobster at South Carlsbad.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-11

BL-SS-2 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

40 Percent Cover

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 3. Percent cover of three substrate types at BL-SS-2.

BL-SS-1 BL-SS-2 BL-SS-3 50

40 2

Number per 100 m 10

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 4. Number of lobster Batiquitos/Leucadia.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-12

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 5. Percent cover of three substrate types at ML-SS-1.

ML-SS-1 10

8 2

4 Number per 100 m 2

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 6. Number of lobster at Moonlight Beach.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-13

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

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

SW-SS-2 High-Relief Low-Relief Sand 100

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 7. Percent cover of three substrate types at SW-SS-1 and SW-SS-2.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-14

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

16 2

4 Number per 100 m

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 8. Number of lobster at Swamis.

High-Relief Low-Relief Sand

100

40 Percent Cover 20

0 S '0 1 F '0 1 S '0 2 F '0 2 S '0 3 F '0 3 S '0 4 Date

Figure 9. Percent cover of three substrate types at CF-SS-1.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-15

CF-SS-1

2 8

Number per 100 m 2

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 10. Number of lobster at Cardiff.

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

20 2 16

Number per 100 m 4

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 11. Number of lobster at Cardiff (Control).

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-16

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

20 2 16

Number per 100 m 4

0 S'01 F'01 S'02 F'02 S'03 F'03 S'04 Date

Figure 12. Number of lobster at Solana Beach.

323550000-0011/Year 3_Lobster Page LB-17